[Below is an excerpt from Volume 2 of “First the Gospel, Then Politics…” © 1999-2008 John C. Rankin; yet to be edited]

The “public” schools today are no longer truly public or common, rather they are “government” schools where many educational elitists work out their self-serving theories on our children. Most of those who teach in the government schools are public servants who wish to teach, and who have the interests of our children at heart. But they are restricted by the elitists above them. I remember being told by one school official, in a public school where my older sons were then enrolled, that every time the school board considered any policy decisions, they first had to consult with their attorneys. Their attorneys had to make sure that none of their local decisions ran afoul of over 160 state and federal regulations. The local schools exist in a straitjacket fitted by a Hobbesian and top-down bureaucracy.

Education is central to a biblical worldview, and in my founding of the Theological Education Institute (TEI), the conviction is that theology is “the queen of the sciences,” the first subject to be taught as the basis of a truly liberal arts education. I was not called to become a college or seminary professor per se, any more than I was called to be a political activist per se. But as a minister of the Gospel, my calling is to be a hybrid scholar and activist, to know my limitations in both directions, but to major in linking them together by being accountable to the finest biblical ethics as applied to public life, and to make that linkage my forte and focus. I cannot be limited to an ivory tower existence in academia, as attractive as it would be to devote my life to full-time study. Nor can I be limited to a political activism that is untethered to a fully reflective and rooted theology, and run the risk of placing politics ahead of the Gospel. Thus, through the TEI, I teach the fruit of a theological education at the grass-roots in local churches, with a view to equipping these saints to do the work of ministry in the wider political culture. My goal is to serve a theological maturity that can produce a genuine political revival, and hence my Mars Hill Forum series is also integral.

By God’s grace and provision, my long term vision is to then build the TEI into a undergraduate university, where the first year would be a theological foundation (biblically and with interaction with the classic world religions). The subsequent three (or four) years would equal an almost totally prescribed curriculum in the liberal arts – with emphasis on history, literature, science, philosophy, political science and economics, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and modern languages, art, music and physical education. All the foundations of the polis. It would be available to college students who want to earn a B.L.A. (bachelor of liberal arts), and to any others who want to audit any portion, in person or by home study. For those who gain the B.L.A., my conviction is that such an education will equip them to be the most well educated and confident entrepreneurs possible; the best employees possible, able to learn anything they need to be in order to succeed; and/or as Christians with resolute biblical conviction based on a rooted first-hand faith, able to pursue graduate education in the nation’s best research universities. And for those who audit chosen portions, they would gain proportionate abilities to bear witness to the polis as well. And in truth, I have no desire to have it accredited by the current system (I graduated from a school that is not accredited – Harvard; it has set its own standard since 1636). The TEI will be free to excel on its own terms, far outpacing most of the university system in the U.S. today, in terms of intellectual rigor and moral character.

Education begins in the home, with the responsibilities of parents to teach and mentor their children. This foundation is part of my proposed Political Party Platform Based on Biblical Ethics, and it is an inviolable right and responsibility of parents. Education does not belong to the state – these are our children, and a limited federal government serves that reality. In the book of Deuteronomy, as Moses sums up the law in his final sermon, he touches on this assumption about the nature and importance of education. A sample:

In-between these two passages is Moses’s repeating of the Ten Commandments (5:6-21). As he presents this second giving of the law, he commands careful observation of it, and also establishes the basis for “the rule of law.” In the Mosaic law is wisdom, and if learned and lived faithfully by the Jews, it will fulfill the vision of Zion as a “city on a hill,” as an inviting beacon for the surrounding pagan nations. The learning of these laws, and the faithful teaching of them to their children, would be a model that would win the respect of the pagans. How much respect do pagans give Christian education today? Do they view our concerns as Bible “indoctrination,” or is our witness one of the biblical foundation for the finest liberal arts education possible, based on the power to love hard questions? Much of what we do and have done is actually a stumbling block, even when our education proves superior. One element of stumbling relates to trying to fit a “young earth” model of “the days of creation” into geological science, paleontology and astrophysics, as I touched upon in Chapter Twelve.

In Moses’s call for us to teach the laws to our children, he emphasizes what a wholistic enterprise it is – to teach them continually, day in and day out. Education is central to loving Yahweh with our heart, soul, mind and strength. In this quote of the shema, Moses says “heart, soul and strength” where the Hebrew concept of heart also involves the mind. In Jesus’s quote of it, as we have already seen in Mark 12:30, he specifically includes the “mind,” and in Deuteronomy 11:18, Moses speaks of the teaching process being to “[f]ix these words of mine in your hearts and minds.” In other words, education involves the whole person, and in the context of all of life. Not just the emotions, not just the mind. This is why education is principally the responsibility of the parents, and any public or private education must be in service to the larger educational context and influence of the parents, as is home-schooling by definition.

Out of the Clapham Sect founded by William Wilberforce in 1787ff, which won the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself, there were many elements aimed at the reformation of “manners” (also needed today as a root remedy for much social evil) and society at large, including the impetus for the early Sunday School movement. The Sect’s original members accomplished much, but sadly, they did not succeed so well at educating their very children and the next generation of the Sect’s leadership. Their first-hand faith was won through conversion, principle, conflict, trial and overcoming success. The next generation held to the principles, but owned them in more of a second-hand fashion, thus their salting impact in society diminished. The third generation began to forsake the principles, and the forward movement of the Clapham Sect’s original influence came to an end and was eventually reversed.

The same thing happened in ancient Israel – a lesson that the Clapham Sect did not apprehend well enough. The succeeding generations of the post-exodus generation lapsed into cycles of apostasy and renewal. The Jews were faithful so long as Joshua was alive, given the power of his leadership and his unrelenting faithfulness since coming out of Egypt. But all the others in the nation, save Caleb, were second-hand participants in the exodus (either as young adults under age 20, or as children, or as yet unborn at the time of the crossing of the Red Sea). But after Joshua died, the cycles soon began. The Jews knew their history, but it had not been impressed on them well enough to impact their own lives, to own a first-hand, radical and faithful living of the covenant.

As we raise and teach our own children, do we invite them into a radical first-hand faith, or do we simply pass on to them a de facto second-hand faith? (Assuming that we have a first-hand faith to begin with.) We cannot lead them into a first-hand faith unless a) we teach and live it thoroughly with them, and b) unless we teach them the ethics and power of informed choice, allowing them the freedom to say no to faith, so they can truly say yes. We cannot indoctrinate our children passively, or else they will eventually spit it out. We must model for them the power to love hard questions.

With the moral principle in place as to where the responsibility of education lies, we then have the freedom to choose what works best for our own situations – home-schooling, private education (Christian or otherwise), or government education. Jesus would have his people, in all capacities I believe, as salt and light, according to their callings and equippings 

I strongly believe in and support a truly public education which is equally available to poor and rich alike. But that is very different from modern “government” education. The origins of a public and free education are Christian, not secular or otherwise. Hannah More (1745-1833) was a member of the Clapham Sect, and early in life a very successful writer. But later, along with Wilberforce, she dedicated herself to the reformation of society, and with a particular emphasis on ministry to the poor. In that context, the Sunday School movement began, as a means to reach the poor and teach them how to read. The motivation was to teach them the Bible, so they could come to know Christ, and improve their lot in life. Hannah More joined the movement and gave it its biggest impetus, with her stature and energy. It is a natural consequence of the ethics of only Genesis, especially in terms of the power to give, the power of informed choice and the power to love hard questions, that we should consider education as central to the missionary endeavor. The overwhelming number of private colleges, founded before 1900 in the United States, were Christian in origin, though many, like the concept of public education, have over the years fallen into secular, now pagan custody.

The United States in the early nineteenth century was an overwhelmingly Protestant nation. This cultural homogeneity made public education Protestant in nature, as it developed against the backdrop of home-schooling. Thus the idea of prayer in the “public” schools was natural. But with the advent of many Roman Catholic immigrants at mid-century, there began a backlash where Catholics did not feel welcome in public education, with its use of the Protestant King James Version (KJV) of the Bible for starters. So Roman Catholic parochial education blossomed as a means to preserve Catholic identity. I would argue that at this point in time a truly public education was in danger as a concept. It was public and free, and worked in a Protestant nation. But with the advent of major Roman Catholic immigration, along with a Jewish minority who developed their own educational system, clashes began. I believe a public education is still possible, but based on some radically biblical foundations that were not envisioned in the nineteenth century. It must be one where each religious community has the right to educate their own children without having to support the education of others by means of their tax dollars. But how to do that, with a universal and free public education being made available at the same time, based on respect for the image of God in all people – this is the challenge.

As the nation grew more pluralistic, resentment also grew against Protestant hegemony in the philosophy and practice of public education. Beginning with John Dewey (1859-1932), a philosophy of education was articulated and imported into the public schools that was expressly secular in nature, and in a purposed challenge to a Protestant and Christian philosophy. In the 1962 U.S. Supreme Court decision outlawing prayer in the “public” schools, this secular trend reached a major goal. And with subsequent Court rulings that banished even the posting of the Ten Commandments in “public” schools, banished the saying even of generic and watered down prayers by school officials, and more recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals attempt to rule that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, this secularization has become pretty well complete.

Thus the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has maintained a vanguard against any return to sanctioned public prayer in the government schools. In the process, the concept of a public education rooted in biblical ethics has been lost, and Christians are viewed by secular and pagan elitists as being opposed to public education. With this turn of events, the Christian school movement has grown, and a return to home-schooling has also mushroomed (largely but not exclusively among Christians), as Christians have felt banished from religious freedom in “public” education. (The success of home-schooling is now well noted, as these students are winning national spelling bees and National Geographic contests, and as many prestigious universities actually recruit these students, for they prove to be disciplined and hard workers, not to mention very competent.) We who were once the majority and imposed “prayer” upon non-Protestants are now imposed upon by secularism and paganism. When will we ever learn?

Government run “public” education is in a shambles today, as dictated from “expanded government” monoliths such as the U.S. Department of Education (which should be abolished or radically downsized, consistent with the principles of a limited federal government). History and literature and science are giving way to deconstructionist and emotivist philosophies. Historical Christian holidays are muted and not allowed, and in their place, pagan mythologies are celebrated. Halloween, in its religiously occultic nature, it approved enthusiastically in most government schools – but do not dare mention anything Christian, or increasingly, Jewish as well. Uncivility, undiscipline and violence in the “public” schools is epidemic, especially in the ghettoes, inviting a police state, and on it way to becoming pandemic apart from a redemptive intrusion into the culture’s choices.

For those who want to rescue a public education, policies such as school vouchers are advocated. With vouchers, parents will be able to select which school their children attend, public or private, using government vouchers representing their designated portion of the public monies, raised through taxes. Critics with vested interest in the status quo, such as the National Education Association (NEA), have said that such a policy would favor the rich and injure public education, and it would violate “the separation of church and state,” using tax dollars to support “religion.” But as its implementation in Milwaukee, Cleveland and other cities has shown, it is mainly the poor who lobby for and have benefitted by it, and they have been grateful for such genuine religious freedom, contrary to the mythology that the state is forcing religion on anyone. As well, it is argued that such genuine competition would improve public education, and I agree.

I would favor a system where all tax dollars raised for public education would be available on a level playing field for individual parents to choose how to spend their portion. Schools would flourish, public or private, according to how well they educate the children. This is truly a public education, since all children benefit equally, regardless of whether their parents or guardians have contributed to the tax base that pays for it. It also maintains individual liberty and prerogative for the parents to chose how to educate their children. Currently, if parents do not like the “public” education available to their children, and they opt for private schools, they face a double jeopardy. Their taxes go only to the government schools, from which they then derive little or no benefit, and they have to come up with the extra money to pay for private education. Thus, the rich are at great advantage, as the elitist monopoly on “public” education monies actually serves classism. Middle-class parents have to sacrifice tremendously to afford private education for their children. It is the current system that favors the rich, not vice versa. Public school teachers send their children to private schools at more than double the national average, while clamoring for more money in the public schools. I know the personal dilemma with the financial crunch of not being able to send my children to Christian schools for most of their primary and secondary years.

Yet I strongly support public education – it just needs to be public again. I have mused to myself about a radical means to redeem public education. And Hartford would be a good city in which to try it out. All I need is some hundreds of millions of dollars. With that I could offer all school age children currently in the city, at the outset, six years of free private education. What would immediately happen with an offer like this, apart from the protests of certain members of the education establishment?

First, I would define the nature of the education. It would have biblical ethics at the core of the assumptions, and those ethics would have to be embraced and lived by the administration and teachers. The nature of only Genesis and the six pillars of biblical power drawn from the ten positive assumptions would be in view. No religious test would be required for students or faculty. Most faculty would naturally be Christian, but Jewish people would be welcome, as would Muslims or even non-monotheistic and secular people if their teaching scope presented no conflict with the assumptions, and they were competent in their subject matter with a real love for the children. The curriculum would be the basic reading, writing and arithmetic for the primary years, and the basic English, history (a/k/a social studies), math, science and foreign language for the high school years, augmented with art, music and physical education for all years. Teaching would emphasize memory of the basics first, then the creative elements based on such a solid foundation. Biblical ethics would be taught, and so too would the ethic be in place for all competing worldviews to be invited into the school, to be presented by their own advocates, on a level playing field system, age appropriate.

Second, a simple but enforced moral code would be in place, based on biblical ethics. Order, discipline and respect would be likewise emphasized, upon which learning and fun can prosper. And for those who fall short, there are remedial strategies that will be far more effective than in the government schools (a large issue). Third, I suspect that most of the city’s school-age population would sign up. Only those happily enrolled in other private schools would not (though many former private students might switch because of the free element). Only a few public students would not sign up – probably children from among the parents who are a part of or sympathetic to the government school establishment. Fourth, with this offer, the city would have thousands of families move into it, buying, renting or rehabilitating every housing unit available. Fifth, though most of the former city government school officials and teachers would be out of their jobs, we would be free and likely to hire many of them ourselves, if they are qualified, and at honest and honorable salaries.

Thus, sixth, the city tax base would grow enormously, and the city would have to spend very little of it on public education, thus running a huge surplus; the electorate would demand a proportionate tax abatement, and the downtown business district would undergo a tremendous boom, and attract other businesses and the suburbanites back into the city. Then, seventh, such a privately run but genuinely public school could then ask for voluntary support of the school system from residents and businesses (just like the federal income tax was originally meant to be – voluntary), and with per capita costs being much lower than with the old government education system, it could actually pay for itself after the initial private investment got it off the ground. The enthusiasm would be contagious and revitalize the city beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

One logistical concern – where to hold classes? The initial capital would be needed up front, sufficient to provide for the classroom space among the many available buildings in the city, and for the transportation to these schools. With that in place, and most public students signing up, the city would then be in a position to lease the current school buildings, either to this privately run but genuinely public school, as the need may be (if we wanted to ...), or to others, for office or residential purposes. They could also sell these buildings if this radical proposal succeeds in the long term

Eighth, and finally, the success of this program could be so overwhelming, that it would create a nationwide political momentum to encourage government schools to become genuinely public schools again. The competition to provide good education, such as the voucher system aims for, would be galvanized.

A humble (since I have no money for it [yet]) but radical proposal. Wouldn’t it be nice?

A Radical Proposal in the Interim

Even with such a system, I would not prescribe any mandatory prayer in such a privately run but genuinely public school – at least in the sense of an enforced prayer that students had to participate in. Rather, I would highlight religious liberty for any teachers or students to be publicly expressive of what they believe. Faculty could pray with each other and with students, and students with students. Faculty could pray blessings for their students, but they would never require student participation. Faculty or students who have different religious worldviews from the Bible would have the same freedom. For true pluralism to exist in a culture, there must be a level playing field for all particularistic beliefs. Only Genesis is the only particularistic origin text that includes within it the freedom for genuine pluralism – the ethics and power of informed choice.

The key is simple, as based on the power to give and the power of informed choice in their biblical essence – which is at the basis for unalienable rights and the First Amendment. As Christians who would run such a school, we would major in giving religious liberty to all, based on historical fact, and in demonstrating that upon no other basis but the Bible are unalienable rights possible. Giving with no strings attached, resting in the confidence of the Bible’s self-evidencing truth.

In the meantime, I have a simple proposal on how to import these biblical ethics into the current government, a/k/a public school system. And I would maintain it in my proposed privately run but genuinely public school, and recommend all private Christian or Jewish schools to do likewise, indeed for all private schools, regardless of philosophy. Another proposed resolution for the polis to consider (and also found in the Appendix of Volume 3):

Proposed Resolution #7 for the U.S. Congress and the Legislatures of the Several States: Recitation in the Public Schools

I have already given definition, in the Introduction and Chapter Ten in Volume 1, to the Declaration of Independence as rooted in the God > life > choice > sex reality of the order of creation. In the Political Party Platform proposal in Chapter Thirteen, I gave further attention to it, along with the First Amendment as rooted in the ethics and power of informed choice.

The genius I see in this proposal is its simplicity, and the genuine inclusiveness of unalienable rights based on the image of God. Namely, there is no doctrinally distinguishing language such as Christological references that would disinclude anyone. Even for polytheistic religions, most of them have place for a reference to one Creator, and along with secularists, the First Amendment guarantees their right to polytheism or secularism under the free exercise clause. Most importantly, what other historical basis is there for unalienable rights that allows for such religious pluralism? Thus I make observation that this Recitation in the Public Schools is not a prayer, but it is the celebration of the most critical piece of U.S. historical writing that establishes the basis for unalienable rights. The pedagogic power of the teaching of these words, along with the very words of the First Amendment, to our school children, is of inestimable value for preserving our religious, political and economic liberties. For celebrating the civil rights of all, over and against racist, sexist or classist bigotries.

It should also be a joy for those Christians who may be among us, and who, along with others, are sympathetic to a return to the pre-1962 understanding of organized prayer in the “public” schools. I believe the large majority of biblically committed Christians in the nation would be glad for such a historical recitation. I believe we should see how this Recitation is far more powerful in serving the religious liberty we have to teach our children about God and Christ, than would a coercive “school prayer” which indeed opposes the ethics and power of informed choice. Thus, I believe the adoption of this Recitation would end the campaign for a return to “school prayer.” This should therefore be a relief to secularists and others who fear such an imposition.

Should be. However, there will still be opposition…