Horace Mann's Legacy

I am struggling with a personal dilemma.  I feel an extremely strong conviction that I know something that can help millions of parents and their children, as well as our nation and world.  This conviction is rooted in a personal experience.  Statisticians may not be persuaded because my personal sample size is small, but others who share my values have had similar personal experiences.  My dilemma is simple.  I want to boldly encourage all of my friends and acquaintances to seriously consider my advice, but I know my view can be offensive to many.  Because my opinion on this matter relates to parenting, the subject touches very sensitive emotional tissue.  I do not want to alienate and polarize; I just want to challenge, exhort, and motivate.  I want to encourage parents to make a thoughtful, carefully reasoned decision rather than continue to follow the same path chosen by their parents because of tradition, inertia, and convenience:  "I turned out just fine.  Why should I expect things to be any different for my kids?"

Earlier this week, I watched a documentary that had been collecting dust on our shelf for a few months.  As the film began, I grew increasingly nervous that it was another low-grade, low-budget attempt by a Michael Moore wannabe who shared my values and perspective on a particular issue.  Early segments of the film included interviews of individuals who lacked credibility and name recognition.  And it didn't help that the narrator had a Scottish accent.  But then, the film took a turn in a better direction as the narrative began to build a strong case through personal vignettes, interviews of respected Christian leaders, and a brief timeline of the history of education in America.

I found the brief history of education to be the most compelling.  In short, the film shows how public education has gradually but successfully replaced the influence of parents and churches with that of the government.  Furthermore, that government has grown increasingly hostile to Judeo-Christian morals and philosophy.  What should our response be?  I would humbly submit that those who believe that truth is absolute and that Judeo-Christian values are the only stable foundation for achieving life, liberty, and true happiness must avoid subjecting their children to government-controlled education, which promotes the anti-Christian views of humanism, moral relativism, naturalism, and atheism.  Horace Mann, often called the father of American public education, argued in 1849 that "our [public school] system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible..."  This Unitarian may have meant well in his effort to provide schools for "the children of the entire community," but we have drifted far away from that situation.

In closing, consider these words from two humanists whose words reveal the progressive agenda for shaping public, government-led education in America:

"... education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction....  I believe that in this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God." (John Dewey, "My Pedagogic Creed," 1897)

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?" (Charles F. Potter, "Humanism: A New Religion," 1930)

In my opinion, responsible Christians must prayerfully consider pursuing alternatives to government-sponsored public education for the sake of their children's souls and minds.  I think a mass exodus from government schools is the best option.

Grammar, Informal Logic, and Theodicy

This week, media outlets around the nation swarmed like sharks to blood when the GOP's Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said, "I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."  This comment set off a political firestorm, with both major political parties distancing themselves from Mourdock's statement.  The Democratic National Committee Chairwoman released a statement that "Mourdock's rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women."  A more careful examination of the statement and the response prompts an important grammar lesson and a deeper theological reflection.

First, ambiguous pronouns are very dangerous.  Mourdock's "it" leaves an opening for his political enemies.  The context of his statement is clear:  when he uses the pronoun "it," he is referring to life.  He means that God has ordained the existence of a new life, a new human being.  He is not referring to the act of rape.  The response of the Democratic Party is predictable, as the Chairwoman employs the fallacy of ambiguity or equivocation by taking the clear context and shifting the reference of the ambiguous pronoun to the "situation of rape."  Certainly the Democratic Party does not think that a new life is outrageous and demeaning to women, especially when half of all new lives are women!

Second, this exchange prompts a much deeper question:  what is God's role in rape?  Theologians have struggled with the more general form of this question for centuries:  What is God's role in sin?  If God is sovereign, does He cause a person to sin?  Or, does He passively allow a person to sin by taking a hands-off role in the affairs of humans?  Or, is He not completely sovereign over the events in a fallen world?  These questions do not just apply to the sinful acts of human beings but also to the events of a Genesis 3 world.  In Genesis 3, God's Word says that God cursed the ground, decreeing that the earth would now produce thorns and thistles and that man would physically die.  In making this decree, did God commit an evil act?

As stated in numerous statements of faith and church constitutions,

“God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs, and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any way to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.”

The difficult theological issue regarding God's role with respect to evil is labeled "theodicy."  Jesus' words in the New Testament teach us about two kinds of evil:  moral evil associated with the willful deeds of sinful people (Luke 13) and natural evil that is not a direct result of a particular sin (John 9).  With respect to both kinds of evil, the orthodox Christian response to a question of the causality of evil must acknowledge the omnipotence and omniscience of God, His sovereignty over all things.  In addition, the believer must acknowledge that God is pure righteousness and goodness.  In the case of evil, these two aspects of God's character lead to a tension that we finite humans cannot fully understand. 

Nevertheless, in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, we should see clearly that two wrongs do not make a right.  The evil of rape is not corrected by the evil of murder.  The pregnant woman does not face a moral dilemma just because she was raped.  Without question, she has suffered as the victim of a heinous crime, and her life will certainly be irreversibly changed.  She is a valuable human being, created in the image of God, who needs the love and compassion of her family, friends, and society... just like the child in her womb.