Children Don’t Need School (9)

One of the monumental and as yet unsolved problems of modern society is that women teach boys: either mothers or female school teachers. The context of teaching today is the classroom or home, not the work place. This means that education for males has moved away from the father-son apprenticeship model, which was clearly the Mosaic norm, to the classroom, where education is bureaucratic, impersonal, and abstract—separated from a father’s discipline and his occupation. This is also generally true of home schooling. Education in the modern world is almost completely feminized until the high school level.[1]

Partially as a result of the modern obsession with equality between the sexes, it’s become commonplace to think that when it comes to education, gender doesn’t matter. But gender does matter, because men and women, along with boys and girls, are radically different.

I’m not merely referring to their sex organs. Ask a boy between 13 and 17: would he prefer a male, or female teacher? I submit to you that over 80% would prefer a male. They are going to become men, thus they want to be led by one. And if they find themselves with a viable male role, that percentage of boys preferring a male teacher will jump.

Why? They want to be led by someone they can emulate, and that won’t be a lady.

Men do things differently to ladies; it’s a fact of life. Disputing this won’t change it. We may as well go with the flow, and accept the natural order of things.

After the Exodus, when Jethro visited Moses, he saw something that clearly disturbed him. The way he was going, Moses was going to wear himself out at this task, and he clearly needed to change things, and delegate responsibility to others. He encouraged Moses to

…select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. Let them judge the people at all times… (Ex.18:21-22).

Jethro’s advice was good, and Moses accepted it. Leadership, when it comes to the family and the church, should be with men. People are trying to contest it, but nothing can change God’s order.

In the New Testament, Jesus clearly was a man, and He chose 12 disciples, who were also male. Is there a pattern here? Of course.

Paul’s epistles continue with this pattern. When he came to explaining the life of the overseer, Paul identifies that he was to be

…above reproach, the husband of one wife…

He also explains that

He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his own children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?) (I Tim.3:2, 4, 5).

Fathers should teach their children, accepting the overrall responsibility for their education. They may delegate some or even much of this to their wife, but the overall task or responsibility still should lie with them. They are primarily responsible, as Adam was in the garden.

This is what discipleship is all about. Adam, in relation to the garden, was to “…cultivate and keep it” (Gen.2:15). He was to guard Eve and the garden, looking out for any intruders, which he failed to do. Should the hearts and minds of our children, be any different?

Paul’s reminder to the Corinthians of this, plainly has an educational component:

For I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ (II Cor.11:3).

Men rebel against God, but women get deceived. That’s what happened in the Garden, and Paul warns about this propensity in the scriptures, in the prohibition of women teaching in the church (I Tim.2:11-15). They do have a teaching role, but this is in relation to the instruction and encouragement of young women (see Titus 2:3-5).

Conclusion:

Fathers, if you want the education of your children to be successful and God-honouring, take responsibility for it, but delegate the day to day tasks to your wife, while daily checking on progress, backing her up and encouraging her, and the children. She’ll need this, and the children will know you are vitally interested in their success and progress. Don’t let any absenteeism on your part to creep in, but ensure that the buck stops with you.

It’s your responsibility!…a father tells his sons about Your faithfulness (Isa.38:19).


[1] Gary North, “Inheritance and Dominion,” 1999, Vol 1, p.153.

Children Don’t Need School (8)

All day long, the law of God applies to the affairs of men. Fathers were to spend time with their sons, either in the fields or in the family business. Sons were to receive knowledge of the law in the context of profitable labor. The familiar phrase, “learning by doing,” was applicable. It was a system of instruction we might call “learning while doing.” The law was not some abstract legal code. It was an integrated system of rules that was supposed to be taught in the context of daily living. God’s Bible-revealed law was not to become peripheral in the lives of God’s covenant people. It was to be central. It was to govern men’s activities throughout the day. It was to be memorized, discussed, and acted upon by young and old.

Fathers were not to tell their sons, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Their lives were to become consistent with their words. The sons would hear God’s law and see their fathers carrying it out. This law mandated a mastery of the details of biblical law to all those who were covenanted to Him. All of this has been lost to modern man. Today, formal education is not Bible-based, family-based, occupation-based, or personal. It is humanism-based, state-based, abstract, and bureaucratic. It is also intensely feminine in the early years.[1]

The church and the family are both important social institutions. Whilst they are different, they have a lot in common. One thing they are both required to do is to train people for the future. We call that discipleship. Fathers are to raise children

…in the discipline and admonition of the Lord (Eph.6:4).

Jesus was a teacher, too:

And He 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, and to have authority to cast out the demons (Mk.1:13-15).

Paul also tells us that the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in the church are there for the

…equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ… (Eph.4:11-12).

The training of children is required to be commenced by fathers, in particular. The successful teaching and discipleship of children in the family, is an important prerequisite for church leadership, too.

Jesus summoned the disciples, they came to Him, and they were with Him. This mirrors the task of parents with their children, who have children, then are responsible to train them.

And the school?

It’s not in the Bible. The family is the first and possibly most important place of instruction.

Paul made reference to this. Speaking to Timothy, he wrote that

…I am 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).

Conclusion:

When it comes to education, fathers are not to neglect their roles, or delegate their teaching responsibility totally to their wife, and go off to work. Adam neglected his care of Eve in the garden, leaving her to deal with a demonic attack, defenceless. That was negligence and slothful, and he hadn’t cared for her. It’s sad when fathers do the same thing today in relation to their children’s education.

This suggests to children that their education is for mothers to accomplish, not their father, which is simply unbiblical. It opens the door to all manner of unnecessary problems.

But the active and vigilant father, involved in his children’s education, gives the whole process credibility in the eyes of his boys and girls. By implication, this must be an important issue, because Dad’s involved with Mum in this! Thus the likelihood of success and ultimate fulfilment is far higher.

Isn’t that what you want, too?


[1] Gary North, “Inheritance and Dominion,” 1999, p.145-46.

Children Don’t Need School (7)

Leave Your Children with Good Memories

My Aunt Maisie (1916-2000) was the last of her generation to die. Some years before her passing, she told me of an experience with her Dad, my Grandfather Hugh (1875-1948).

As a young, single man, he’d gone from South Australia to Western Australia, looking for gold, with indifferent results. He’d found enough to get by, but that was all.

He married Grandma in 1911, and when the Depression came, he took his youngest daughter Maisie on a train journey from his farm which he’d bought around 1910, where they lived near Cowra, NSW, right across through western NSW, into South Australia. Why?

He’d passed through there in his gold mining years, some thirty years earlier, and had staked some sort of mining claim on a piece of land there, in a little town on the railway line. Now, with times being tough on the farm, he chose to return there with her, to see what could be done about his “claim.”

Well, nothing eventuated from the trip. Whatever he thought he had in terms of a “claim,” it was either no longer valid, or was of no value, and they returned to the farm and family, with no results.

This would have been some trip for her, as a girl of 14-15. Around 3 days each way in a very plain steam train, with very ordinary comforts. I have no idea what they slept in, or on, but after my train experiences going to and from boarding school in Sydney from 1967-1972, it would not have been luxurious!

And as for the food, she didn’t go into the details, and it didn’t occur to me to ask her. But she remembered the journey with him, with fondness.

Why is this important?

You want your children to have good childhood memories. You don’t have to be either a brilliant or a perfect parent for this to take place. Nor should you have to spend a lot of money to achieve this. But you can be an enjoyable person, for your children to be around.

In February 1969, my parents came to Sydney for a few days, where I was at boarding school. I met Dad at Central Station, and he took me to the Test cricket, where Australia was playing Test cricket against the West Indies. The famous West Indian bowlers Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith were bowling, and the two Australian batsmen Bill Lawrie and Doug Walters each made a century and a double century, respectively.

All that changed in 1970. In November of that year, my Dad suddenly died after a heart attack, aged 52. No more going to the cricket with him. Forty years later, when Bill Lawry was still doing TV cricket commentating, it would remind me.

The lesson?

Some may have castles on the banks of the Rhine

Or go to the orchestra each evening at nine.

But richer than them will I always be,

‘Cause I had a Dad who spent time with me.

Make sure you’re one of those dads.

Children Don’t Need School (6)

The roots of every cultural crisis rest in personal crises. The failure of a culture is the failure of the men in it. A society cannot be vital and possessed of an on-going vigour if the men therein are marked by a loss of faith, a retreat from responsibility, and an unwillingness to cope with personal problems. A culture loses its will to live and to conquer if its members manifest a spirit of retreat and surrender… Not surprisingly, our world-wide cultural crisis is rooted in the failure of men.1

Human responsibility is something which was pre-supposed in Genesis 1 and 2. God’s command to our first parents to“rule and have dominion,”necessitated responsibility on their part. Responsibility is something we either accept, or reject.

We may not like it, or want it, but it will not go away. Responsibility as a husband and father, requires time, work, inconvenience, and sometimes suffering. We always have to ask ourselves the old questions:

“If not you, who?” and “if not now, when?”

The correlative promises however, are that “power flows to those that take responsibility”(Gary North), and that “where responsibility rests, authority lies.”The best example of these two statements in history, is Jesus Christ. He took ultimate responsibility for the sins of others, and gave up His life, but now He’s called “…the heir of all things”(Heb.1:2).

A friend of mine once told me about a family incident, over fifty years ago. His parents were believers, but they had been having some serious marital problems. One day, his Mum had been cooking scrambled eggs in the kitchen, and she was very upset with her husband about something. Her husband came into the room, at which point she picked up the frying-pan of scrambled eggs, and, inverting the frying-pan (and its contents), threw the whole thing on the floor at his feet.

Now for many men (perhaps most men), this would be an act that they could not endure, without losing their temper. What did he do? He bent down, turned over the frying-pan, calmly put everything back into it, and gave it back to her. I admire his self-control, but more than that, his sense of responsibility in the situation. He did save his marriage.

Many Biblical leaders came on the scene after a disaster, when other people had made a mess of things. Nehemiah was one. He said to his friends,

You see the bad situation we are in, that Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the gates of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach. I told them how the hand of my God had been favourable to me, and also about the king’s words which he had spoken to me. Then they said, “Let us arise and build.” So they put their hands to the good work (Neh.2:17-18).

Because of his calling, and his profound sense of responsibility Nehemiah was ready to rebuild, after a disaster others had precipitated.

It’s not much fun having to rebuild after someone else’s mistakes, but at least it can only get better from now on. There will be nobody else to blame for what happens in the future.

Sometimes, the wrecker has been ourselves. It was us, who “messed up.”I’ve done that.

The good thing about this, is that“failure is not final,” and that if you or I are prepared to humble our hearts, get our hands dirty and sort out the affairs, as messy and painful as this may be, there should be a good outcome. Every man has the challenge of being either part of the problem, or part of the solution.

Having authority (which is always God’s plan for His people), requires the taking of responsibility now. In the home, it begins in loving and serving our wife and children, and forgetting our pride, which God said He hates anyway. If we will do this as godly husbands and fathers, we will get blessed and rewarded. It starts with me, and you.

Will you be part of this?


1 Rousas Rushdoony, “Roots of Reconstruction,” 1991, p.168-9.

Children Don’t Need School (5)

Adam and Eve made a religious decision. For Adam, who was standing with Eve throughout the discussion, as Genesis 3:6 makes clear, it involved the decision not to exercise marital leadership, not to step in and interrupt the proceedings; his wife made the initial decision, and he followed her lead.[1]

We cannot simply blame women for the feminism of our modern era. It has been a logical response to male irresponsibility, but it has not helped women, as it has led them further and further away from their original calling. Furthermore, it has led to the emasculation of men as well. As much as we are able we have to ignore this kind of evil pressure, knowing where it is from, and obey God’s Word as husbands.

In I Timothy 3:4-5 Paul discusses the qualifications for a man who wants to be a leader in the church. The most important area, writes Paul, is the condition of the man’s home. He must be one who “manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.” He is expected to exercise authority and to have his children respectful, obedient and under his control.

The Greek word translated “manage” means literally “to stand in front of.” It contains various related ideas, including “to rule,” “to protect” and “to control.” Essentially the word means that the father stands at the head of his home. He puts himself between his family and all the pressures and dangers of life. He also goes in front of them and sets an example of godly living. [2]

Jesus Christ never permitted Himself to be pressured into an orientation around the needs of people. That wasn’t Father’s plan. Rather, He was oriented around the commands of His Heavenly Father. We see this when He went to the pool at Bethesda (Jn.5:1-15). Though there were a multitude of people there “…who were sick, blind, lame and withered” (v.3), Jesus healed just one of them (v.9), and immediately left (v.13).

Some would ask, “Didn’t Jesus care about all those needy people who were there?”

Jesus cared most about completing the tasks which His Father had given Him, as an obedient Son. He wasn’t need oriented, He was command oriented. Despite what some people will claim, the needs of people were not paramount in His mind, because Jesus wasn’t a religious social worker.

Jesus said, “The Father Himself who sent Me has given me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me”(Jn.12:49-50). He also said, “I do exactly as the Father commanded Me” (Jn.14:31).

This should teach us something about the nature of godly leadership, and the commands of the kingdom of God. God expects fathers as His faithful representatives, to utilise commands in their family structure. He said concerning Abraham, “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…”(Gen.18:19). This is a father’s responsibility before God, and is something we will give an account for.

Does this authorise a father to behave like a parade-ground sergeant-major? No. He must exhibit understanding, tenderness and care. But certainly the word command is a strong one; almost military. But whoever heard of a kingdom, without authority, order and rules?

Abraham’s “household”numbered hundreds, perhaps thousands of people (see Gen.14:14). His must have been a household of order, obedience and discipline, if he could at short notice, go off with 318 of his men, divide them into groups at night, and rescue Lot. Shouldn’t my household be characterised by these things, too?

Abraham’s leadership can be compared with that of Lot. Lot was a godly man, but where he led his family with its appeal of financial gain but moral corruption, ended up destroying his family. As North points out,

Those whose company he was to keep, however limited his contacts with them, always constituted a threat to his integrity and even his safety. He surrounded himself with evil men, and in the final days of his residence among them, they surrounded him (Gen.19:4).When God’s judgment finally came upon his former neighbours, Lot found that members of his own household had been polluted by the perverse environment.[3]

What can we learn from this? Family leadership must be moral. There must be moral and ethical justification for the choices a father makes.

Some wives and mothers may say, “Are you talking about the man being a dictator?” No. There are some situations, however, in which the man is responsible to say, “in order to please God and have His blessing, this is the way we’re going to do things in our home. We are not going to do this, but we are going to do that.[4]

 The New Testament father must ensure he is not a tyrant, abusing those under him. The only valid place for the godly family is in a church, in submission to the leadership of that church. The Bible commands us in the context of the Church to “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph.5:21). To refuse to do this is not only folly; it is also blasphemous. It is refusing to submit to the institution God has ordained to be the most authoritative in the world, regardless of its present failings.

No man is fit to be in authority, unless he is under authority as well. To refuse to come under the authority of others is to be a despot.  A man who is under the authority of his church leadership provides his wife and children with an appeals mechanism, so that his decisions can be referred to others. Jesus Christ was and is eternally submissive to His Heavenly Father, and the remarkable paradox of the kingdom of God which we must all observe, is that He now has “all authority…in heaven and on earth” (Mat.28:18). Thus every man should always be willing to submit to godly church leadership who care for him and his family.

Fathers lead by what they do and say: by example. This is a tremendously important issue in the scriptures. Paul was bold enough to say 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).

He could also say to the Corinthians, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (I Cor.11:1).

I grew up on a farm in NSW, and my father died when I was fifteen. I have a great deal of respect for the sort of man he was. We had two small orchards on our farm, and every year the fruit-trees were pruned during the winter. One day a few years before he died, I was working with him in the orchard, where we were picking up the many prunings and loading them onto the back of a tractor. It had been raining, and the orchard ground was muddy.

 Two strangers pulled up next to the orchard, got out, and proceeded to trudge across the orchard to speak to us. They were both wearing blue suits and dress shoes, which didn’t seem to me to be the most suitable attire for that place, but I guess that didn’t matter too much. One of them was carrying a blue folder.

When they got to us, my father said to them,

 Are you fellows from an insurance company? 

I can’t remember whether they shook their heads, or said “No,” but their response was certainly in the negative. My father then, gently reached across and took the folder out of the hands of the rather sheepish man holding it, turned it around (so that it faced my Dad), and opened it up. At the top of the facing page, was a heading:

New Zealand Insurance Company.

My father “suffered fools badly.”He angrily commanded them, “Get off my place,” and pointed to their vehicle. They turned on their muddy heels and trudged away.

I learned from that:

a) Don’t mess with Dad, and

b), Don’t give liars the time of day.

Conclusion:

No father can expect to see the blessing of God in his family, if he won’t effectively lead that family, as Abraham did. May God give us grace to change, and obey.


[1] Gary North, “The Dominion Covenant,” 1987, p.102.

[2] Derek Prince, “Husbands & Fathers,” 2000, p.86.

[3] North, p.158.

[4] Prince, p.89.

Children Don’t Need School (4)

Part of Job’s testing was the loss of all his children (Job 1:18-19), as well as the loss of his material wealth (1:14-17). His blessings consisted of the restoration of his wealth beyond what he had possessed before (42:12), as well as the birth of 10 children (42:13). As a final gift, he was granted long life (42:16-17). In short, he was given the capital he needed to begin once again to exercise dominion over the earth as a godly family man: tools, children, and time.[1]

The godly person values and loves his children, but he doesn’t idolize them, or deny them the necessary pains of life. They are like him: subject to the many temptations of life, and needing the grace of God. They are to be disciplined, as unto the Lord, and this is initially a father’s responsibility.

Denying them the discipline of the Lord is actually neglectful, and a form of abuse. It seems that David was guilty of this, in the case of Adonijah. The scripture says of him, that

His father had never crossed him at any time by asking, ‘Why have you done so?’ (I Kings 1:6)

It seems that he’d gotten to adulthood and never had his will crossed, his bottom smacked for disobedience. When David was old, this lack of discipline in Adonijah became evident: he wanted to be king!

The first chapter of I Kings puts all this on the table. The second chapter tells us the unfortunate consequences for that young man, when his half-brother Solomon (now the king), had him executed for what he considered was a conspiracy against him.

Adonijah, when at the feet of his parents as a child, had never learned when to stop, so he found out as an adult, the hard way.

                        Adonijah wasn’t submissive,

                        Adonijah was ambitious,

                        Adonijah couldn’t wait, and

                        Adonijah died violently (I Kings 2:19-25).

All of this was tragic and could have been avoided, if David had disciplined him as a child. This shows us that:

                        Life is not about what a child wants.

                        Life is not about what a parent wants.

                        Life wasn’t about what a disciple wanted (Mat.16:21-28).

                        Life wasn’t even about what Jesus wanted (Mat.26:39).

                        Life is about doing what God wants (Ps.40:8).

The Bible does command us:

Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you discipline him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod and rescue his soul from Sheol (Prov.23:13-14).

How do we do this?

Understand what the Bible says about rebellion and disobedience (I Sam.15:22-23). That is the critical issue. The Christian parent in obedience to God, wants something more than outwardly nice children. What they seem to perform like is irrelevant. What’s in their heart will be reflected in what they say and do.

Rebellion has been in every man since Adam. Don’t ignore it, or deal with it half-heartedly.

                        The goal of discipline?

                  The child learns to listen (Ps.81:11-14).

                  The child learns to obey.

                  The child learns self-discipline.

If a child learns to listen, honour and obey your voice, he’ll probably do the same to Jesus Christ’s Word. That’s the goal of the exercise. You will have served him (and the Lord) well. In the course of my work, my wife and I have visited hundreds of homes, and we could tell within 10 minutes whether the children were disciplined or not!

Parents shouldn’t have to repeat themselves, when instructions are given. Also, avoid raising a voice with a child. Otherwise, you are training a child to only respond to you when you shout.

If a little child cries or complains after given an instruction, he is making a rebellious statement: “I don’t like this, and I’m telling you, and everybody.”  That is rebellion, even if he outwardly does as he is told.

If a child shows the least displeasure in response to a command or duty, it should be addressed as disobedience. If a child sticks out his lip, you should focus your training on his bad attitude.[2]  

The goal is that a child learns to “…do all things without grumbling or complaining” (Phil.2:14). A person’s mouth tends to reveal what’s in his heart. If he grumbles and complains at your instructions, he will grumble and complain at God’s.

                          When Administering Corporal Punishment

a) Make sure it’s private.

b) Make sure you’re calm.

c) Make sure the child understands why he is being punished.

Children, when they know they are about to be punished, may put on a tantrum, or suddenly shed lots of tears (ostensibly of remorse), or scream, or say, “It’s not fair!” or I hate you!” These and many others are manipulative tools, which a naive parent can be shocked, tricked or intimidated by. Tears may seem to be ones of penitence; they are probably ones of regret that he’s been caught, and to supposedly imply that he’s sorry.

Why is he“sorry?” Because he’s getting a smack, and is hoping to come up with a good religious formula that might get him out of trouble, right now.                                                                                          

He knows he’s done wrong. He knows you are planning to punish him. He thinks,

I’ll put on a theatrical scene, to try and bluff my way out of this.

Any rebellious behaviour, initiated to avoid punishment, should receive a quiet warning: “If you don’t obey, I’ll give you an extra smack.”  

A spanking is made effective, not by its severity, but by its certainty…your calm dignity will set the stage to make it more effective.[3]

d) Instruct the child calmy,  to bend over and hold onto his ankles.

e) Administer the punishment: as they get older, make it more strokes, or harder, or both. “Select your instrument according to the child’s size.”[4]

f) Give him some time (perhaps 30 seconds), to stop crying. Don’t let rebellion or anger come into any part of this.

g) Instruct him to hug you (this is a command, not an option), and say “Thanks Dad, I needed that,”and then to confess his sin to God, and ask for His forgiveness.

h) Instruct him to ask you to forgive him. He has offended God, but he has also offended you.

i) Hug him and pray for him, and tell him you love him.

Discipline is the forerunner of discipleship. Ultimately, he should be self-disciplined.

Conclusion:

Children need the discipline of the Lord from their parents, firstly from their father. It’s his task to lead in this. A parent is unloving to deny them this, and disciplining them is a matter of faithfulness to God, Who calls them to His service, not merely to the service of men.

We actually prepare them to serve God as we discipline them, for their rebellion needs to be confronted, head on.

And His promise is,

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline will remove it far from him (Prov.22:15).


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

[2] Michael and Debi Pearl, “Train up a Child,” 1996, p.83.

[3] ibid., p.46.

[4] ibid., p.47.

A $1 Trillion Spending Cut

Gary North – December 05, 2020

From 2010.

This will not be done. It will not be done because Americans do not really want major spending cuts.

To demonstrate my point, let us consider America’s sacred cow, tax-funded education.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s Factbookthe United States spends about 5.3% of gross domestic product each year on education. If that estimate is accurate, this means about $750 billion a year.

The United Nations estimate places the figure of 5.7% of GDP.

That would mean expenditures in the range of $800 billion a year. If we assume that about 80% of these expenditures are funded by governments at various levels, we are talking something in the range of $600-$650 billion a year.

There is no economic reason why 100% of the expenditures on education should not be paid for by the parents of students or by the students themselves, when they reach college or graduate school level. There is also nothing that says that a government has the moral authority to coerce parents who hold to one view of education, or one view of how the world works, to subsidize the educations of other families, whose children attend schools that teach a view of the world closer to that approved by the subsidized parents.

To say this is to announce one of the most hated heresies of the modern world. I mean “heresy” in the good old-fashioned way that it was meant in the Middle Ages and in virtually any society prior to the Enlightenment. This heresy involves calling into question the legitimacy of a priesthood, self-appointed and self-policed, which gains its money from the civil government.

The establishment of churches funded by tax money has been common in most societies throughout history. I contend that it is basic to the modern world, too. The modern priesthood is the educational establishment in each nation. Tax funding goes to those institutions that have been certified as reputable by the priesthood.

An educational institution that claims to be legitimate in the modern world is pressured strongly to become accredited by institutions that are run by the priests whose standards are enforced by the state. An institution that sets up a college that is not approved by one of these accrediting associations cannot issue certain kinds of degrees without breaking the law. This system of accreditation extends all the way down to infant care.

The state regulates educational establishments, even including home schools, in order to preserve control over the content and methodology of education. In earlier centuries, a similar oligopoly was run in conjunction with state funding and also state coercion. Churches policed the society, including the morals of society, by means of a monopoly granted to them by the civil government.

The state in seventeenth-century New England could legally compel church attendance by every member of the society. What is not understood is that this law was rarely enforced in Boston. In his book, Winthrop’s Boston (1965), Darrett Rutman concluded that the churches of Boston three centuries earlier could contain only about 25% of the residents of Boston at one time.

The modern educational system is far more compulsory than churches were in New England in 1665. The school bus system is indicative of just how compulsory it is. On this point, read my story of the two buses.

Local governments, state governments, and even the Federal government use tax money and the threat of violence against any parent who does not agree that the state has the right to shape the content of his children’s education. This has been going on for so long that most Americans accept this regime as somehow established by natural law. The irony here is that the schools teach Darwinism, and Darwinism has no concept of natural law. Darwinism destroyed the concept of natural law. If the universe is evolving in autonomous, unpredictable ways, in terms of such random phenomena as genetic mutation, there can be no such thing as natural law. No social order is permanent; no legal order is permanent. The laws change as society changes.

In the modern world, anyone who suggests that all tax money should be withdrawn from the funding of educational programs is regarded as a crackpot. I am such a crackpot. I believe that the state does not have a moral right to compel parents to support other people’s educations.

If it were my decision, I would shut off the funding by the state for every school in the United States, including the military academies. This would add something in the range of $600 billion to the private sector. Governments would not be able to persuade parents and others to hand over their money at the point of a gun from one person in order to subsidize the education of another person.

One of the oddities about life is that a statement regarding a widely believed moral imperative in one area is regarded as morally unsustainable when virtually the same statement is applied to another area. What virtually everybody accepts as self-evident truth in one area is regarded as self-evident error in another area.

In order to discuss tax-funded education, I want to change the topic from tax support of educational institutions to tax support of churches. The logic that I am about present applies equally well to both forms of institutional arrangements. But the public is unwilling to accept the logic of the disestablishment of churches when it is applied to disestablishment of education.

DISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM

In 1818, the state of Connecticut ceased funding the Congregational churches of the state. In 1833, Massachusetts followed Connecticut’s lead. Massachusetts at that time was the last remaining state in the United States that used tax money to support churches.

Critics of the tax funding of churches had a number of arguments. I present here a brief summary of some of the more famous of these arguments, as a way of explaining the justification for the disestablishing of education. As you read these arguments, substitute the word “schools” for “churches.”

THE MORAL ARGUMENT. The issues of life that are dealt with in churches are of fundamental importance. These issues are life-and-death issues. Some churches believe that there are eternal life and death issues.

There was a time when virtually all Western churches believed this. To compel someone to spread the message of a rival religion is an intolerable form of state coercion.

THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT. Politicians rarely give much thought to the fundamental issues of life. They are too busy getting elected and reelected. They cannot devote the time necessary to sort out fundamental truths from fundamental errors. To imagine that they can select the churches that are deserving of financial support at the expense of others that do not share the same views, is to impute a degree of wisdom not possessed by government officials. Politicians can barely be trusted to run the government, let alone run the churches.

THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT. To allow this year’s majority in the state legislature to set standards for what should be taught in the churches is to grant them too much power to shape the thinking of the voters. The politicians will use this power as a way to subsidize those churches and those ministers who preach a message that is congenial to the majority in the legislature.

When a majority of votes in the legislature can determine the content of what is going to be taught in the churches, a society has transferred enormous authority to politicians to shape the thinking of the next generation. This is a way for politicians to preserve their majority, despite the fact that, had they not funded those churches that are favorable to their viewpoint, they would have been voted out of office at some future election.

The politicians will use the power of civil government to extend the public’s acceptance of those political views and political conclusions that are favored by the present majority in the legislature. This will turn politics into a battle zone between rival churches.

THE INTELLECTUAL ARGUMENT. Competition is basic to progress in every area of life. Churches should therefore compete apart from tax money that favors one procedure or one set of principles over another.

If tax money is used to fund churches, the quality of the preaching will decline. If preachers know that they are going to receive guaranteed income from the state, they have less incentive to preach according to the beliefs of the members of their congregations. If their income can be maintained apart from the donations from their members, then incentive to slack off increases.

There is an incentive to trim the content of the preaching in order to meet the standards of the latest political majority. Preachers who don’t hold to such views have a harder time starting rival congregations, because the older congregations are the recipients of tax money.

This subsidizes the status quo. The public is kept from hearing new ideas, better ideas, and more effectively preached ideas precisely because congregations are not in control of the purse strings. A minister who has been granted certification by the hierarchy in a tax supported denomination is granted immunity for poor performance in the pulpit when counseling. There will be a dumbing down of preaching precisely because more effective preaching does not receive its economic reward.

THE CHARITY ARGUMENT. Throughout Western history, churches have been a major source of charitable giving. Members of local congregations contribute money to the churches, and the churches pass some of that money back into the community by supporting the poor. Christianity has repeatedly preached but the support of the poor is morally obligatory, and furthermore, the success of the church will always be related to its success in charitable giving.

When the state provides the funding for the churches, the charitable impulse is weakened. Members assume that the money coming in from other taxpayers will go to the support of the poor. They more readily accept the concept of the welfare state, but they accept it as flowing through their local congregations. The impulse to sacrificially give to the poor is cut short, because the state provides the funds to support the poor.

The church then becomes a paid agency of the state, operating in terms of the latest rulebook governing state welfare expenditures. The church becomes an agency of the modern welfare state, while individuals within the churches feel less pressure to fund private programs of charity. The ability of charitable giving to become more effective is cut short, because the state’s money will continue to fund the church’s charitable ministries, just so long as the church conforms to the rulebook governing the distribution of tax funded welfare.

When compassionate conservatism funds church- run welfare programs, conservatism will become less compassionate. So will church members. “See this badge? See this gun? You’re going to be compassionate, or else.” This was not what Jesus had in mind.

THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR ARGUMENT. Whenever state funds are used to subsidize any program, the outlook of lowest common political denominator takes over the funding. The reason for this is that voters can exercise authority over politicians by putting them into offices or tossing them out of office. The politicians want to be elected or reelected. They cater to the opinions of those groups of voters that have the greatest clout at the polls.

Those voters who are most easily swayed by emotional arguments rather than by scientific or factual arguments become the swing voters who will determine the outcome of close elections. Under such circumstances, the opinions of the broad mass of voters will prevail in every area of government. To the extent that the broad mass of voters are not well informed on theological matters, to this extent with the funding of churches by the state debase the quality of the preaching as well as the intellectual content of the preaching. Churches will look to the state as their source of funding, which places them at the mercy of the lowest common denominator voter. The opinions shared by these people will determine which denominations win or lose in the arena of public opinion. This arena is not the arena of competitive preaching; it is the arena of political vote-getting.

SUBSIDIES AND INTELLECTUAL BLINDNESS

If these arguments make sense to you when applied to churches, you should consider their validity when applied to all forms of education. As far as I can see, the same problems of tax funding that are involved in the establishment of churches also apply to the establishment of educational institutions. The same conflicts, the same temptation to the misuse of power, the same lowest common denominator principle, the same tyranny apply to the tax funding education as applies to the tax funding of churches.

As surely as Congregationalists in Massachusetts could not understand the logic of these arguments in 1825, or 1725, so the members of the established church of political salvation do not understand the logic of privately funded education. It took decades of criticism from Baptists and Quakers to persuade the members of tax-funded churches to give up their claim to other people’s money.

It is worth noting that within five years of the decision of the Massachusetts government to cease funding the Congregational churches of the state, the government began funding local schools. A Unitarian lawyer, Horace Mann, became the first major official in the new state educational system. He made tax-funded education respectable throughout New England. That heritage now is widely accepted throughout the country.

One of the best books on how tax-funded churches took advantage of their power to box out independently funded churches in The Churching of America, by Finke and Stark. Tax funding weakened the established churches so much that they could no longer compete when the subsidies ended.

Back in the 1950’s, theologian and historian R. J. Rushdoony identified the underlying commitment of tax-funded education. He wrote a book on the background of the public school systems, with extensive citation from primary sources regarding the faith of the original educational bureaucrats in the ability of state education to make mankind better. Rushdoony called his book The Messianic Character of American Education (1963). He called the public school system America’s only established church. He called the employees of this church “priests.”

The interesting thing is that a liberal theologian and historian, Sydney E. Mead, wrote a book in the same year that also identified the public schools as priestly. Rushdoony opposed the educational priesthood. Mead favored it. He called his book The Lively Experiment. That experiment has been deadly for competitive education, just as it was for New England’s Calvinist churches.

The transfer of tax money from the churches to the schools replaced the older system of established religion. The underlying principles of tax funding have not changed. The underlying presuppositions of the benefits of this funding have not changed. The difference is this: there were a lot of Baptists in the early 1800’s, and there were a lot more of them by 1890. They had the votes. They opposed tax-funded churches. They had been on the receiving end of that tyranny for too long. Unfortunately, they adopted the religion of public education with the same fervor that other denominations did in the nineteenth century.

CONCLUSION

I am of the opinion that we will continue to see $600 billion or more per year of tax money pour into America’s only established churches. It would be nice, as citizens, to get that money sent back to us in the form of tax rebates, and then to see the tax codes revised in future years, so that the money would never be sent to the politicians in the first place.

I wonder if most Tea Party members would agree with me. I wonder how many of them would agree with me. Probably about as many as would agree that Social Security and Medicare should be abolished.

The deficits will rise. The defaults will come. Home schools will flourish.

___________________________

This was published on June 12, 2010. The original is here.

The available budget cut then was $600 billion.

Here is good news. The percentage is down to just under 5%.

Here is bad news: total government spending on education is over $1 trillion.

Children Don’t Need School (3)

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).

Abraham had received grand promises from God, and been remarkably visited by Him. Abraham now (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 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, eh? 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 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 are 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)

Genesis 15-17 provide us with a chronological continuation of Abram’s life, and his family. These chapters provide us with 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: how Ishmael arrived 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. His livestock had a number of uses. Not only can sheep, cattle and camels be consumed, and thus sold for profit. Cattle produce leather and other goods, they can be used for pulling wagons (Gen.48:27) and ploughs for cultivation.

If Abram had the best bull in the locality, he could hire him out for breeding service at 3 shekels per calf: easy! If they were considered of good quality, his stock would be in demand, either for consumption, or breeding.

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

They all need skilled people to care for and work with them, along with slaughtering, and preparing them to eat and then preserving them. In Job’s case (who may have been a compatriot of Abraham), he 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 slaughtermen, carpenters, blacksmiths and farriers.

They may well have produced leather 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?

Why own Qantas, when you can go places by camel, instead? Why go to an airport, when Mr Job’s people can come to your tent’s door! And they’d know all the right places to stop at, for the right price, of course!

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, money and livestock in 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 education, and when Abraham died, he 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, 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; 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 a school-teacher. He had his parents. They educated him, successfully.

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 do Genesis, and other places in scripture show us that this should take 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)

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 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 married, 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 could be danger from outsiders.

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 was 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.

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. 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 had eight).

Conclusion:

Thus we can see that:

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

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

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

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

Could this have relevance to you?


 

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