Children Don’t Need School (3)

By Andrew McColl, 29th November, 2022

Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him (Gen.18:17-19).

God spoke these words about Abraham and his family, a year before Isaac was born (Gen.21:1-3). He really had received amazing promises from God, which all have great relevance to us, in the New Testament era (see Ro.4).

Now, Abraham (like us), was wholly dependent on God’s promises coming about. He still had a lot of living to do, and he, like any other godly person, longed to see God’s promises to him, fulfilled.

As North writes,

Children were important to Abram, not merely because of the cultural standards of the Canaanite tribes that surrounded him, but because of several distinctly theological reasons. First, the gift of children was important for the preservation of the covenant line prophesied by God to Eve (Gen.3:15). It seems quite probable that Abram knew about this prophecy to Eve (Jn.8:56). Second, the task of cultural dominion was (and is) intimately linked with the expansion of human numbers (Gen. 1:28; 9:1). Third, a man’s heirs-intellectual, spiritual, and biological- are part of his concern for linear history…

The faith of the Old Testament saints was to be in linear, irreversible historical development, controlled by God. Men and women were to play an important role, in time and on earth, as parents. This work had meaning because of God’s covenants and requirements.[1]

Clearly, the education of Abraham’s children (and Isaac was still unborn), would be firstly theological in nature. They would need to be taught the Word of the Lord.

We know that Abraham must have had access to this, because many years after he died, God appeared to Isaac. As we might expect in these Genesis visitations by God to the patriarchs, God made promises to him, and linked these to the fact that

…Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws (Gen.26:5).

Let’s be frank. We’ve not really begun to educate our children, until such time as they understand the basics of covenant theology: that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (II Cor.5:19), and that as believers in Jesus, there is great hope and promise for our children.

Is there more?

Of course, but that will get them off the mark. Now, they simply need the implications of this shown to them, firstly from scripture, and secondly, in the lives of their parents, and others.

Paul spoke about this to Timothy. He said he was

…mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well (II Tim.1:5).

So, no school? Correct.

Education? Yes, but not school.

Schools commonly harm children. Every year, my work brings me into contact with children that were harmed at school: lots of them. That could be the peer-group, the curriculum, or the teachers. But parents shouldn’t wait for that to happen, before home schooling them. Lot’s daughters were schooled in Sodom, and how did they work out? (See Gen.19).

Does that mean that in the home, we can eliminate errors and pain? No. Abraham couldn’t, as we can observe through his experience with Hagar and then Ishmael. How could we?

But God tells us that

Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate (Ps.127:3-5).

Conclusion:

We parents pass from this life, leaving others behind. We are responsible for how they are prepared for life, which means that God holds us to account. And by His great grace, we can do this. In fact, we’re commanded to do so.

Is that what you’re preparing for?


[1] Gary North, “The Dominion Covenant,”1987, p.163, 164.

Children Don’t Need School (2)

By Andrew McColl, 22nd November, 2022

Genesis 15-17 provide us with a chronological continuation of Abram’s life, and his family. These chapters give further details of God’s promises to Abram, along with God’s covenant with him, requiring the circumcision of him and all the males of his household. Chapter 16 gives us an interlude: Ishmael’s arrival on the scene.

Abraham’s relationship with his men and their families, illustrates the diversification of labour, and the interdependence of individuals in a free, capitalist economy. Abraham built wells (Gen.21:30; 26:18) for he understood the asset value of water in a dry land. He had flocks and herds, and the welfare of hundreds and possibly thousands of people to consider. He shows us, that

Physical natural resources, notably fertile soil or rich minerals, are not the only or even major determinants of material progress, though differences in the bounty of nature may well account for differences in levels and ease of living in different parts of the underdeveloped world. It has always been known that physical resources are useless without capital and skills to develop them, or without access to markets.[1]

He built up assets in gold, silver and livestock (Gen.13:2; 24:22) through commercial activities which are not stipulated in scripture, and his livestock had a number of uses. Not only can sheep, cattle and camels be consumed, and thus sold for profit. Sheep provide their wool annually (see I Sam.25:1-4), while cattle can be milked, they produce leather and other goods, they can be used for pulling wagons (Gen.48:27) and ploughs for cultivating land.

If Abram’s stock were considered of good quality, his stock would be in demand, either for consumption, breeding, milking or travelling. Why?

People have always wanted to travel, and camels are useful for people travelling long distances in dry country (see Gen.24:10-30, 57-61), and carrying loads.

Domestic animals all need skilled, experienced people to care for and work with them, along with slaughtering, preparing them for consumption, then preserving them. Job (who may have been a compatriot of Abraham), had

7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was the greatest of all the men of the east (Job 1:3).

“500 yoke of oxen?” Could that mean that Job ran a business called “Eastern Ploughs?” He could have had hundreds of men employed who worked the oxen for ploughing or other agricultural tasks, either for him, or for those in his vicinity, or actually, anywhere. They could have worked as flock managers and shepherds, slaughtermen, carpenters, leatherworkers, blacksmiths and farriers, orchardists, traders and many other pursuits.

They may well have produced goods, such as saddles, bridles, and other attachments for working animals. They also would have been able to produce and supply equipment for cultivation, along with weaponry, for defence purposes (Gen.14:14-16; I Sam.13:19-22) which could be vital, along with carts and wagons, for transport.

And who’d have 3,000 camels except to eat, or work them for some purpose, such as transporting goods and people long distances?

Why own Qantas, when you can go places by camel? Why go to an airport, when Mr Job’s people can come to your tent’s door, pre-arranged! And they’d know all the right places like waterholes to stop at, and even trade (see Gen.37:25).

Abram was a long-term planner, and these assets would be important in years to come (Gen.23:14-20; 24:22, 52-53; 49:29-32). He made the best of his abilities to understand markets, and to manage men, livestock and money his era. Abraham it seems, believed in the Biblical virtue of diligence; that “the hand of the diligent makes rich”(Prov.10:4).

       Furthermore, Abraham illustrates, that

social progress comes about with the accumulation and development of wealth. Wealth comes, in a free economy, as a product of work and thrift-in short, of character. Capital is often accumulated by inheritance, a God-given right which is strongly stressed in the Bible. According to Proverbs 13:22, ‘a good man leaves an inheritance to his childrens’ children, and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.’ Inheritance makes possible the accumulation not only of wealth within a family but of social power.[2]

Clearly, Abraham shows us, that“prosperity in the long-run is the blessing of God to those who are faithful to His laws.”[3]

This was the life that Isaac was born into, this was his family’s business and what he would have understood. When Abraham died, Isaac carried on the traditions of his father. You’d even think Abraham had been privy to Solomon’s later advice, to

Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it (Prov.22:6).

Abraham had livestock, large numbers of servants, and dealt in silver and gold. And the Bible says of Isaac, that he

…sowed in the land and reaped in the same year a hundred-fold. And the Lord blessed him,  and the man became rich, and continued to grow richer until he became very wealthy; for he had possessions of flocks and herds and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him (Gen.26:12-14).

Abraham dug wells, and so did Isaac (Gen.26:18-25). Anyone would think Isaac had read what Paul wrote to the Philippians:

The things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you (Phil. 4:9).

Isaac didn’t have, and didn’t need a school-teacher. He had his parents. They discipled him, successfully. He was a godly, productive and prosperous patriarch.

Conclusion:
Isaac’s upbringing shows us many things, but this part stands out: children need a good education, but they don’t need school. Where does Genesis, and other places in scripture show us this taking place? The godly family.

Are you following the Biblical example?


        [1] P. T. Bauer, quoted in Gary North, “The Dominion Covenant,” 1987, p.159.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, “The Politics of Guilt and Pity,” 1995, p.236-237.

[3] North, ibid., p.158-9.

Children Don’t Need School (1)

By Andrew McColl, 15th November, 2022

The meaning of the family is thus not to be sought in procreation but in a God-centred authority and responsibility in terms of man’s calling to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it.[1]

The proponents of public education emphasise the importance of a good education. I agree with them. Education for a child’s important, for a multitude of reasons. Where I separate from public educators, is in how education should be given to a child, and who should provide it.

Genesis 12-14 provides us with the initial glimpses of Abram’s family life, over many years. In this period, we see Abram when aged 75 (ch.12:4) moving his family (with Lot) to the land of Canaan, under God’s direction and promise, experiencing famine there and going to Egypt, being delivered by God from Pharoah with material blessing, and returning to Canaan, receiving further promises from God (ch.13:14-17), then going to fight for and deliver Lot, his nephew (ch.14:11-16).

Thus we have a number of important events in Abram’s family, but Abram (as he was called then) hadn’t had any children, for Sarai was barren. She wouldn’t bear Isaac till Abraham was 100 (ch.21:1-8).

While he had no children, Abram was developing as a servant of the Lord, as a husband, as a leader of men, and a man who would later, be inheriting much. He was “…very rich in livestock, in silver and gold” (ch.13:2), and had received great promises from God (ch. 12:1-3; 7;13:14-17).

What does this mean for the believer today?

Firstly, just as Abram had promises from God, we have them, too. Peter tells us that

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who has called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust (II Pet.1:2-4).

Husbands generally have children, and leaders of households are obligated to be responsible for those they lead. And in Abram’s case, this matter of leadership was no mean feat. Genesis 14 records how he heard from a fugitive how his cousin Lot had been taken captive in battle, and how he set off (probably within hours) with 318 of his “trained men” (v.14).

Nothing suggests these men were mercenaries. They were essentially men of Abram’s community. They worked for or with him and were loyal to him, and may have represented a group of individuals numbering over a thousand people, if we assume most of them were family men, with children.

Abram divided his forces by night, and defeated Lot’s captors and rescued him and his family. Furthermore, he “…brought back all the goods, his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people” (Gen.14:16). Not bad for a man about 80 years old.

Abram was not warlike, but neither was he a pacifist. He and his men had clearly trained for such an eventuality, and they knew there were dangers.

Kidnapping would later be classified in the law of Moses as a capital offence (Ex.21:16), and when the fugitive turned up and told him of Lot’s disaster, Abram acted vigorously and decisively. He went with his men, pursued the party who had kidnapped Lot, and dealt firmly with them.

The New Testament tells us that Melchizedek met Abraham as he was returning from the “slaughter of the kings…” (Heb.7:1). Clearly, godless men had died that day, but Abram’s rescue attempt of his nephew had been successful.

Abram’s actions then, do not legitimise the actions of vigilantes, today. In his era, there were no national armies, or local police. Local people had to be responsible for themselves, and do what was necessary to protect life and limb from evildoers. Furthermore, they needed to know their neighbours, and what they could expect of their neighbours in a crisis. Abram’s associates would not risk their lives in battle, for someone who was merely an eight hours a day employer.[2]

Clearly, Abram had already rehearsed this, for his neighbours were “allies” (Gen.14:13). We  are not to take the law into our own hands, but we can and must act to protect ourselves and our families, if danger threatens. Today, firearms are legitimate tools for any family, for in a crisis,

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

One of God’s promises to Abram, was

To your descendants I will give this land (Gen.12:7).

And even though Abram was childless, God was speaking to him of his children. There was no doubt in God’s mind that Abram would have children (he would actually have eight).

Conclusion:

Thus we can see that:

a) Abram had received great promises from God, pertaining to his children.

b) Those promises required his “…faith and patience…” (Heb.6:15).

c) He was part of a godly, growing community, numbering a large number of people, with a multitude of skills.

d) He faced opposition, even hostility in the land God had promised him.

Could this have relevance to us, today?


 [1] Rousas Rushdoony, “The Institutes of Biblical Law,” 1973, p.164.

[2]“[Abram’s action] was based on…covenantal, familial responsibilities. It is in fact, an example of the kinsman-redeemer/avenger-of-blood principle. Abram was Lot’s next of kin, and it was his lawful responsibility to rescue him if he could. Because kidnapping is a capital crime (Ex.21:16), Abram could lawfully kill men in Chedorlaomer’s army, in his rescue of his kinsman.” James Jordan, in Gary North, (Ed.) “Tactics of Resistance,” 1983, p.56.

Is it time to Abandon Government Schools and Public Education?

BY CALDRON POOL STAFF WRITER APRIL 3, 2018

“The biggest illusion is that sending your kids to a government school is free. It’s the most costly thing you could ever do.” R.C. Sproul

Trigger warning! Is it time to give up on public education? Should Christians be offering a more affordable alternative? Jeff Durbin from Apologia Church has offered seven reasons why he thinks public schools ought to be abandoned. What would you add to the list?

1. Public schools specifically teach a worldview that is antithetical to the Biblical worldview.

2. Public schools indoctrinate children with a perspective on origins, ethics, art, truth, math, logic, and history that is devoid of Christ.

3. Public schools are a fairly recent thing in American history. Before that, education was private and largely dominated by the Christian church.

4. Public schools are doing discipleship. That is the role of parents and the church.

5. No parent can make up for the classroom hours in a humanistic system at home. No parent is spending 30+ hours a week specifically instructing their child in the Biblical view of the subjects their children are learning in school.

6. Nowhere in Scripture do we have any justification for giving our children to the State to be indoctrinated in an effort to send our kids as missionaries. Our kids can be missionaries without having them delivered to the State.

7. Funding for public schools is done through unjust coercive taxation. No American can truly own property due to public schools. This is very unjust and a sinful foundation as a source of funding.

That’s a start on the discussion.

In the following video, Voddie Baucham and R.C. Sproul, Sr. discuss the importance of Christian education in the discipleship of our children and the dangers of allowing secular institutions to educate our children.

CLICK HERE – The Importance Of Christian Education

Are Your Kids in Public Schools?

By Gary North (1942-2022, http://www.garynorth.com), 17/3/2015

Although I would love to homeschool, we are located in one of the top five school districts in the state. I supplemented their education with the Robinson Curriculum and the Ron Paul course, (when it was free). We are less than a half mile from both the MS and HS.

We are Christians, so my wife and I try to monitor what they are being taught. Unfortunately, Common Core is firmly in place here. A lot of the teachers live in our community, so they are also trying to spot some of the offensive things that may be taught. We are in a conservative county.

I travel for work 4 days a week, my wife works. I would love to homeschool, (or at the very least, have my kids avoid all of the darn tests that the state is making them take).

This man should not have dime invested in gold or silver. He should not have a dime in the stock market. He should not have a dime invested in the bond market. He should not have any real estate, including his own home. He should rent.

He should take every dime he has, and he should enroll his children in a private school, preferably a Christian day school. He wants his wife to work, so she cannot teach at home. He will not teach at home. So there’s only one choice left him: put the kids in an expensive private school.

In any case, no matter what the price of gold is, no matter what his savings account is, no matter what he has in his 401(k), no matter what he has in an IRA, no matter what he owns, he should sell every dime of it, tomorrow, until he can afford to get his kids out of the public schools.

When his kids are out of the public schools, he can start thinking about his investment portfolio. But until then, he is funding his investment portfolio by sending his kids into the enemy camp of the public school system, where humanism, relativism, hooking up sexually, and drugs are a way of life.

If he thinks that this country is facing an economic crisis, why would he send his kids into a public school, where the kids are taught Keynesianism?

If he thinks that this country has been hijacked by the Left, and that he has to join a website like this, why would he send his kids into a public school, where the textbooks are going to teach him that Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism from itself, and that the New Deal was the way America avoided a Communist revolution?

If he thinks that the cultural foundations of this society are coming apart at the seams, why would he send a child into the public schools, where the English teachers are going to teach some version of situation ethics, situation meaning, post-modernism, and deconstruction? When the child gets into the public schools, he is going to be taught in English classes that there is no ultimate meaning. He is going to be taught that we make up our own interpretations of whatever we read, or whatever the picture is on the wall. We autonomously impute meaning to everything around us, and there are no fundamental standards, meaning ultimately religious standards, that govern our interpretation of anything.

This is what teachers who are employed by the public schools teach. There may be some older teachers who have not bought into this, but it is unpredictable as to whether a child is going to be instructed by any of these teachers. The odds are, the child will get a mixture teachers, and the curriculum is in this sense schizophrenic.

His kids will be trapped in a massive new experiment called the Common Core curriculum. Nobody else knows how to teach math, according to the Common Core standards. Everything that the public schools have taught in the past has been wrong, according to this new view. All the methodology that had been taught before, with the possible exception of the New Math, is to be scrapped. It wasn’t good enough. It was always second rate. Now the revolutionaries are going to clean things up.

As a result, the teaching is incoherent. There will be older teachers, who teach the old system, and newer teachers, who will do their best to undermine the old system. A power battle between two rival views of proper curriculum has broken out. Out of this conflict, the student is supposed to make up his own mind. Yet he will be told in the English department that there isn’t any truth out there which will help him make up his mind.

He is going to be educated in terms of textbooks. The textbooks are written by liberals in New York City publishing houses, and then screened by committees of liberals, who do their best to evade the mild controls imposed by the Texas state textbook committee, which is an elected committee.

For a century, the Left has controlled the public schools, yet this man has not figured out that he has to get his kids out of the public schools. His wife ought to homeschool, which she can do for about $500 a year per student, or less, by using the Ron Paul Curriculum. At the high school level, this requires her to read a couple of 100 word essays each week. That’s all she needs to do. The instructors handle everything else. But, instead, he sends his wife to work, so that he can invest, invest, invest.

I think your primary investment in life is your children’s education, at least until they are adults. Once they are legally adults, they should be in a position to make up their own minds. You can fund their education or not, depending on your assessment of the quality of the education your children want you to pay for. But while they are minors, and you are legally in charge of them, you have to make your decision in terms of what you believe, and that means you had better have control over the curriculum. You had better be able to choose the curriculum you want, and not have the curriculum shoved down your throat by agents of the state.

Why would anybody send his kids into the public school system, and also send his wife off to work? Why would the wife agree to go to work under these conditions? Why would anyone abandon her children, sending those children to be taught by people who believe in nothing that she believes, to be indoctrinated for 12 years by a system that is run by secular humanists, and virtually all of them are leftists? Here is an institution run by the teachers union in cooperation with the superintendent of public instruction. Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court determines what shall be taught and what shall not be taught.

This is why the conservative movement is a sham. This is why most of American fundamentalism is a sham. These people have made their peace with the enemy. They have made their peace with the state. They have made their peace with progressive education, which has been at war with conservatism in Christianity ever since 1837.

They will not sit down and read Rushdoony’s Messianic Character of American Education. They will not sit down and read John Taylor Gatto’s book, The Underground History of American Education. That might make them feel guilty, and they don’t want to feel guilty. They want money. So, they sacrifice their children on the altar of upper-middle-class income.

For anybody who does this, I don’t have any investment advice except what I provided in this article. If this investment advice doesn’t sound reasonable to you, then I don’t think anything I would say about peripheral matters will sound reasonable. Peripheral matters are: gold, silver, bonds, real estate, 401(k) accounts, IRAs, and foreign currencies.

I have listened to all the excuses for over 50 years. I read Rushdoony’s book, Intellectual Schizophrenia, in the spring of 1962, the year after it was published. It presented a comprehensive case against the religious and moral legitimacy of compulsory public education. I understood it then, and I have not changed my mind. That is why, in 1986, I published Robert Thoburn’s book, The Children Trap.

First things first. Take care of first things first. Distinguish the fundamental from the peripheral, and then take care of the fundamental. Christian parents should begin with this movie: IndoctriNation.

All Education is Religious

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2020 BY JAKE LITWIN

All Education is Religious

“The end of learning is to repair the ruins of our first parents by regaining to know God aright, and out of that knowledge to love him, to imitate him, to be like him.” – John Milton

“Above all, the foremost reading for everybody, both in the universities and in the schools, should be Holy Scripture…I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme.” – Martin Luther

There is a modern myth in our day that has been widely accepted and that is the idea that education is neutral. However, nothing in this world is actually neutral. As a matter of fact, neutrality is a by-product of humanistic thought because it presupposes an autonomous cosmos that is meaningless and purposeless.1

When the State takes over the realm of education, declares authority over it, and claims that it does not promote any religion, it is not disowning all religions, but simply eliminating any opposing religions in favor of its own statist humanistic religion.

How should the Christian household respond to education when surrounded by “free” education run by the State? Do Christians really need to give their children a Christian education?

Jesus requires His people to love the Lord with all their minds (Matt. 22:37). If the faculty of our mind must be devoted to God, then can we with a clear conscience send our children to an educational system that is taught to think agnostically? Education either presupposes that Jesus is Lord over every area of life or He isn’t. It either presupposes the belief that all truth comes from God or the belief that there is no objective truth. Every subject, whether it’s math or history, science or English, is taught from an ultimate standard. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for Christian parents to give their children an education that embraces the Lordship of Christ in every class.

In the Old Testament, the family was the first educational institution God established among His people.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deut. 6:4–9).

God never assigns the task of education to civil leaders even in a nation like Israel. It is crucial to understand that teaching children the Law of God under the God-given authority of the family is also never limited to only cover “spiritual” matters. The Christian life cannot be compartmentalized into “two kingdoms”: sacred and secular. The outcome of knowing and applying the Word of God is to be educated to have a God-centered worldview in every subject. The Apostle Paul commands, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The word “training” is the Greek word paideia, referring to the “whole training and education of children.”2 The Christian household must recognize that the whole training and education of a child must be from a worldview where Jesus is the Lord.

Christian parents also must protect their children from the lie of the statist humanistic religion behind every government system. There is a clear distinction between children learning humanism from a biblical worldview and children learning in a humanistic system as the standard of truth. One of the joys of teaching Integrated Humanities at an online Classical Christian school is teaching some of the most influential worldviews such as Marx, Darwin and Orwell under the authority of Christ and His Word, and why these humanistic worldviews are fundamentally religious and as a result don’t work.

A common objection from Christians to the responsibility of protecting their children from the government educational system is that Christian students can be salt and light in these schools. It is presumptuous to think we are training our children to go into the world, but in reality, we are helping the world go into our children when they are not under an educational system that declares Jesus is Lord.3

Paul writes, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4–5). The government educational system contains ideologies and philosophies that are against the knowledge of God. As thinking Christians, we are called to pull down these high places and use our minds in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.4

Non-Christian education is by definition an education by another god. Why? Because Jesus Christ is not regarded as Lord and His Word is not the standard of how we are to think about every area of life. Cornelius Van Til states, “Non-Christians believe that insofar as man knows anything, he knows apart from God… Christians believe that everything is dark unless the current of God’s revelation be turned on.”

To be truly educated is when all things are understood in the light of God and His revelation. Jesus powerfully states that “a pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). As Voddie Baucham famously said, “If you send your kids to Caesar for their education, don’t be surprised when they come back as Romans.” God’s Word gives the task to parents as their biblical responsibility to train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

This view of education is radical to many Christians. Unfortunately, it is because of the loss of preserving our Christian heritage and adopting the progressivist education that makes this view seem abnormal. Christian family, understand the glorious calling to train up your children in the way they should go! Know that the sacrifices you make to give your child an education that makes much of Christ will advance the kingdom of God for His glory.

The government educational system admonishes and teaches the doctrines of their false god. Think of the family as a nuclear powerplant. This powerplant has incredible heat sources and energy to take down the strongholds against the knowledge of God. The world knows this is a threat because whoever controls the schools rules the world.

Notes

1. Joseph Boot, The Mission Of God: A Manifesto Of Hope For Society (Ezra Press, 2016), 434-435.

2. Douglas Wilson, Standing On The Promises: A Handbook of Biblical Childrearing (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1997), 95.

3. Wilson, Standing On The Promises, 101.

4. Wilson, Standing On The Promises, 98.

Godly Objectives in Christian Education

By Andrew McColl, 22/9/2022

Introduction:

Gen.1:26-28; 18:17-19.

The Biblical doctrine of education commences at Creation. Adam and Eve were created as

the pinnacle of God’s creation in the world, to be responsible to oversee and care for it, and

Eve was Adam’s first disciple. This soon went awfully pear-shaped, but there was hope for

the future; God promised that.

In Abraham’s day, God considered it essential that his children would learn to “…keep the

way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice,” if the promises of God to Abraham

would be fulfilled in his children.

This emphasizes the absolute obligation of Christian parents to teach and train their children;

to disciple them. It means there are personal, moral, ethical, social, legislative and ultimately

eternal functions entailed in education. It doesn’t preclude study or academic growth or

ability, yet these don’t get a mention. Isn’t that odd to our modern minds?

This theme of parental spiritual obligations and responsibilities, commencing with the father,

is picked up in the New Testament, which teaches us in Ephesians 6:4,

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline of the

Lord.

And Johnny’s Maths and Spelling, still hasn’t got a mention! The scripture doesn’t make any reference to children at school.

Why is this?

Education took place at home, within each family. The idea that children would be daily sent away from their parents and family, for 12 years, is absolutely antithetical to the Bible. If you aren’t sure about this fact, read Deuteronomy, chapters 6 & 11.

Actually, the Book of Proverbs emphasizes the closeness of the Biblical family’s bonds, so

that father addresses his son, this way:

Hear, my son, your father’s teaching and do not forsake your mother’s teaching; indeed

they are a graceful wreath to your head and ornaments about your neck (Prov.1:8, 9).

So, the first thing about education is that it must be founded upon Biblical character training,

and secondly, parents are responsible for this. It simply means children being discipled.

But Public Education is really an indoctrination in practical humanism. Wherever it’s been

utilized, it’s inevitably led to the subversion, undermining and reversal of Christian

discipleship. This began slowly, but has been taking pace for over a century, and it won’t be

changed, while ever parents continue to enrol their children in public schools. The leading

humanistic proponents have openly admitted this, all this time.

In 1930, Charles F. Potter, a signatory of the first Humanist Manifesto, indicated that

Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school

of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday School, meeting for an hour once a week, and

teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of

humanistic teachings? 1

Nowhere does the Bible indicate that children need to have experiences with, or “learn” from

evildoers. The opposite is the case. Proverbs 13:20, says,

He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.

Over in the New Testament, I Cor.15:33 teaches us,

Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals.

Implied in this, is that parents are to play a discerning and protective role in who might be

influencing their children. In a school, this influence occurs with teachers, curriculum, and

the child’s peer-group: the Playground, and the Classroom.

                                                                                                                                                      Even in the church, we all need to exercise discernment about the peer-group our children are

mixing with. Not everyone sees things the same way, or has the same priorities.

Despite the notion that “Public Education is free,” it’s not free at all. It’s costing the taxpayer

around $20,000 per child per year-a massive drain on the taxpayer. It’s not free, it doesn’t

come cheap, and the costs are in much more than money. It becomes a demonic form of

discipleship.

That’s what Lot discovered in Genesis 19, because he’d clearly taken a different route than

Abraham did, and the outcome was a painful one.

Australian Archbishop Vaughan, in a series of pastorals and speeches in 1880, claimed that

There is one greater curse in the world than ignorance and that is instruction apart from

moral and religious teaching. To instruct the masses in reading writing and arithmetic

and to leave out religion and morality is to arm them with instruments for committing

crime.

He predicted that government education would be “lawless education” and “plots of

immorality, infidelity and lawlessness, being calculated to debase the standard of human

excellence, and to corrupt the political, social and individual life of future citizens.” 2

What’s the solution? Do what Abraham did with Isaac: home school them. Ask the Lord to show you how best to accomplish this. You can get hold of a godly curriculum, learn how it’s used, and one parent be largely responsible (usually the Mother), but the other parent stay involved and responsible, too. She needs to familiarise herself with Prov.31.

Why? Children need the influence and example of both their parents. Jesus

…went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they

came to Him. And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him, and that He

could send them out to preach… (Mark 3:13, 14).

This is what Paul explained to the Philippians:

The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these

things, and the God of peace will be with you (Phil.4:9).

Don’t bother trying to reform the Public System. The system doesn’t want to be reformed.

You can paint lipstick on a pig if you want to, but that pig is then simply an animal with red

lips, that wants to go back and wallow in the mud.

You get out, you stay out. The compromise, the staff, the bullying, the peer-group, curriculum shortcomings and the abuse of every godly idea, will not be changing.

It’s abusive by nature. The System refuses to even accept there is a problem. And even if its

glaringly evident, so what? It doesn’t care and it won’t change.

Conclusion:

Christian parents need to be prepared to invest their time with their children’s discipleship

and education. This shouldn’t cost much money, but parents are responsible for this vital

task. We’ll give an account to the Lord for the choices we make, but there are rewards:

1 Charles Potter, 1930. Quoted in Bruce Shortt, “The Harsh Truth About Government School,” 2004, p.54.

2 Alan Roberts, “Australia’s First 100 Years-the Era of Christian Schools,” 1984, p.16.

She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks

well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children

rise up and bless her; her husband also, and he praises her, saying: “Many daughters

have done nobly, but you excel them all.” Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a

woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised (Prov.31:26-30).

The World’s Second Oldest Religion (6)

By Andrew McColl, 26/7/2022

When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already…What are you? You will pass on. Your descendents, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’[1]

All of the German youth in the Reich is to be organized within the Hitler Youth. The German youth, besides being reared within the family and schools, shall be educated physically, intellectually, and morally in the spirit of National Socialism…through the Hitler Youth.[2] 

This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.[3]

These boys join our organisation at the age of ten…and they will not be free again for the rest of their lives.[4]

Like everybody else on the face of the earth, socialists are deeply religious people. They may of course deny this, saying “I’m not religious at all. I’m an atheist,” why merely indicates which religion they actually hold to: humanism.

Hitler was a humanist and a socialist. To understand the ideology of Hitler and Nazism, is to begin to comprehend the ideological background of the State’s compulsory education in the west of our era. Hitler and the Nazis were serious about the ideological indoctrination of German children. They wanted to ensure that German education produced good Nazis, who were willing to fight and die for the cause. They got the outcome they wanted-at a price.

That meant that the State in Germany under Hitler was paramount. This is the normal humanistic position. Family and community were now to be defined politically. Children were for the State. Whatever goals and aspirations a family might have for its future had to be subordinated to the goals of the State, set by the Nazi party, and Hitler.

State control of education has always been a key component of humanist and socialist ideology; an article of their faith promoted since Aristotle and Plato, and espoused by Marx and Hitler. Engels, (Marx’s co-writer and supporter) claimed that,

with the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, [communism] the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society…The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. [5]

For socialists, this is a very important issue. They either have control of children’s education, or they do not, and they leave it entirely up to parents. But that’s out of the question for them. Socialists don’t want to miss a vital opportunity to indoctrinate children.

Julia Gillard, in her former role as the Federal Minister for Education, said in Parliament on the 25th of August, 2008 that

parents of school-aged children are obligated to send them to school.

In 2002, I became acquainted with the fact that Education Queensland was seconding Police officers to visit families who had not registered, and so had not received permission to home school their children with the Department. The reason for the police visit? None was given. It was a means of Departmental intimidation. Why? Put it this way.

Can you imagine what would happen to the Department, if thousands of families all over Queensland began withdrawing their families from school, and home schooling them without the Department’s permission? You might have a whole department that becomes redundant.

Perish the thought! Hundreds of millions of dollars, saved by taxpayers! Under the guise of “the educational welfare of children,” the Department was guaranteeing its security and longevity. Who was really serving who?

Socialist politicians want to engage in the religious and ideological indoctrination of children, so they can call on a government department to do the job. The Department is committed to its own security of tenure, and will if necessary, enlist the police to do its dirty work.

And you thought this was about the education of children? It most certainly is, and this is the outcome when we leave education in the hands of government; our plans as parents are subverted by governments that have an ideological agenda to fulfill, that uses a department with a vested interest in ensuring its own perpetuation.

The best interests of children? They were forgotten, a long time ago.

Conclusion:                                                                                                                                Humanists are deeply religious people, and they want to use social institutions such as State education to propagate their agenda. The Christian community must be aware of this, and act accordingly.

You want something different for your children? That’s good. But don’t expect the unilateral support of the status quo for your choice. Hasn’t that always been the way?


[1] Hitler, Nov.6, 1933, quoted in William Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” 1968, p.343.

[2] Hitler, December 1, 1936, quoted in Shirer, p.349.

[3] Hitler, 1937, quoted in Shirer, p.343.

[4] Hitler, December 4, 1938, quoted in A. Klonn, “Youth of the Third Reich,” 1982, p.80. See “History of Quotations,” M. Cohen & J. Major, (Eds.) p.759.

[5] Marx and Engels, ‘Selected Works,” 1976.

The World’s Second Oldest Religion (3)

By Andrew McColl, 5/7/2022

God creates us; He does not coerce us. Because the humanistic state is not our creator, it can only remake us into its appointed image by coercion. Thus, education in the hands of the state is coercive, compulsory, and a form of humanistic predestination. In every sphere, the state is coercive because it is anti-God, anti-Christ. It insists on playing the potter with the lives of the people. But nothing is more evil or more deadly than a non-god playing god. We then have the triumph of the demonic.[1]

Education in all parts of the world is not in a good state. Why? We’ve excluded God from it. The State, the institution that clearly has a vested interest in manipulating education for its own ends, has for 150 years in Australia made itself responsible for ensuring education took place, while the family has been quietly but systematically excluded from the process. And meanwhile, the Church has effectively had its head in the sand.

Whenever God is excluded from any human endeavour, we can expect that endeavour to go into a steep decline. It no longer has the ability to move forward with meaning or legitimate purpose.                                                                                                                                                           How do we know this? 

God’s original command to Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen.1:28). But when this command is ignored in an educational context (or any other), there is no foolish, stupid or nonsensical idea that comes into the human heart, that will not be ignored.

We know this, because the Bible warns us of it in Romans 1:21-23:

…Even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

When the human heart rejects the knowledge of God, our hearts turn from the Creator to the creature-in worship! The very things we were supposed to rule over begin to rule over us, and we begin to idolise them: corruptible man, birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures. This partially explains the modern environmentalist movement.

Rushdoony’s comments here are helpful:

To abandon the triune God of scripture and His infallible word is ultimately to abandon all things, to abandon meaning for nothingness. Modern man has retreated into nothingness in his flight from God. Even there, however, all things are unendurable, and modern man is haunted by dreams of terror, unreason, and destruction, because, having fled from God, he flees also from God’s creation, which includes his own being. To flee from God to nothingness is to run headlong into judgment. Philosophy becomes pretension and evasion, and man’s despair a façade for his wilful sin.[2]

This explains why modern man has run to the hopelessness of existentialism and nihilism and any other ism he could find, that excused him from facing up to the God of the Bible. Anything but God! But like a man on a tread-mill, the more he runs, the more he realises he is going nowhere. He can’t get away from the facts of God which he views every day in all of creation (including himself), so well expressed by the Psalmist’s rhetorical questions: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there” (Ps.139:7-8).

 If God did indeed create heaven and earth and all things therein, then nothing can have any meaning or interpretation apart from God. Inasmuch as all things came into being by virtue of His sovereign decree, all things have meaning only in terms of His eternal counsel. The only true interpretation of any fact, including man, is in terms therefore of God the Creator and providential Controller.[3]

Christians will never defeat humanism, the world’s second oldest religion, until they are finally prepared to identify it accurately as a religion implicitly linked to Statism: an idol for destruction. It must be pulled up from the ground root and branch, and that process must begin in our hearts. Then, parents will be able to continue to ensure that the education of children is a family responsibility, completely unrelated to the State. And then, the nations of the world will have liberty they have never dreamed of.

As Van Til puts it, ‘Either presuppose God and live, or presuppose yourself as ultimate and die. That is the alternative with which the Christian must challenge his fellow man.’ [4]


       [1] Rousas Rushdoony, “Romans and Galatians,” 1997, p.178.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, “The Death of Meaning,” 2002, p.83.

[3] Rousas Rushdoony, “By What Standard?” 1959, [1995], p.9.

[4] Rousas Rushdoony, ibid, p.112.

Getting a Handle on Higher Education

By Andrew McColl, 14/6/2022

The State’s principal concern in overseeing the education of children has never been the educational development of children but merely its own control of the educational process.[1]

 Almost everyone needs some form of higher education. But what sort? And who should pay for it?

For more than a generation, we in the West have said, “Well, the government ought to provide for this.” But there is a problem with government funded education. Perhaps it would be better to say, “There are many problems with government funded education, one of these being the cost.”

In 1991 aged 35, I decided I needed to go to university to gain a Bachelor of Arts. Because I had a family and was working full-time, I studied for my degree externally from the University of New England, at Armidale in country NSW, Australia. My B.A. took me six and a half years.

This suited me, because it meant I was able to be with my family and keep working, while studying. I generally went to university for about a week annually to do a compulsory residential school, and there was no cost to me to stay on campus, as I generally stayed with my brother and his family nearby.

I paid for the course myself: no loan. Because I paid for each semester before I started, I got a 20% discount. The university employed its lecturers to teach me, and I paid. The “User-pays” philosophy is a sound one for all things. I wanted the degree, and I paid for it. I had a couple of failures, and I had to do extra courses to compensate. No government money came into it (except that which was paid to the university), and that kept it simple.

You see, a funny thing happens when people get something for nothing. They don’t value it in the same way. “Free” education generally leads to a higher rate of failure, because students tell themselves, “It doesn’t matter too much, because it was free anyway.”

I understand about 15% of Australians go to university. If there was no money provided by government to go, would the same number go? Probably not. Not as many could afford it. But if there was no government money, would there be less failures? I believe so.  

So, we can probably say with some safety that for some students, government money subsidising them subsidises their university failure. What a waste.

But there’s more. When governments say, “We’ll encourage and finance university studies,” who gets paid? The process quickly becomes politicised. If some ivory tower educational bureaucrat on a six-figure salary decides we need more rocket scientists and brain surgeons, but we don’t need more accountants or computer technicians, guess which institutions or courses will get the money?

Also, when there is a big sum to be divided up by someone, everyone has their favourites. So bias and cronyism quickly creep in to the decision-making. The wishes of students and parents? Irrelevant.

A much better process is to let the free-market choose. Students go and study what they want, and the institutions chosen by the students get the student’s money. The institutions that are profit and market oriented will do well. Those that don’t have the best reputations, or are inefficient or lax, will either have to lift their game or go bust. That keeps it really simple.

Our three sons all studied at government instrumentalities called TAFES: Technical and Further Education. Their common conclusion? It was very ordinary. No staff had any get up and go, or desire to excel.

Staff were lazy. There was no profit motive. Well, why should taxpayer’s money be confiscated to subsidise staff and institutions like that?

The internet and smart educational providers are putting pressure on all of that. Students will be able to get qualified cheaper, while getting a quality education. The old men in tweed jackets that had security of tenure, that never had to strain themselves to compete, will be out of a job, and that’s a good thing for us all.

Conclusion:                                                                                                                        Governments should have nothing to do with higher education, or any education for that matter. It’s the surest way to bring about corruption, a loss of standards, and inefficiency, because governments have their own agendas they’ll pursue. And any educational institutions that can’t stand the heat of the free-market’s kitchen, should get out of the kitchen. They’ll have to.


[1] B. Adams, and J. Stein, “Who Owns the Children: Compulsory Education and the Dilemma of Ultimate Authority,” p.9. Quoted in Gary DeMar, “God and Government,” Vol.3, 2001, p.252.