Homeschooler ordered to school
A New Hampshire court has ordered a mother to cease homeschooling her 10-year-old daughter and put her into a public school. Although Brenda Voydatch has homeschooled Amanda since she was in first grade, Voydatch’s ex-husband, Martin Kurowski, believed she should be sent to public school. Since the parents were unable to agree, the court appointed a mediator to evaluate Amanda’s current learning environment and make a recommendation.
According to the court report, the mediator found that Amanda was excelling in her schooling, using curriculum that was approved by her school district, and routinely taking standardized tests. She was also taking art, Spanish, and P.E. classes at her local public school, where the instructors said she was well-rounded in her social skills. The mediator was concerned, however, by Amanda’s faith:
The court order stated: “According to the guardian ad litem’s further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith.” The guardian noted that during a counseling session, Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared “visibly upset” when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention.
The guardian also noted that Amanda’s relationship with her father suffered because she did not think he loved her as much as he said he did due to the fact that he refused to “adopt her religious beliefs.”
According to the court order, the guardian concluded that Amanda’s “interests, and particularly her intellectual and emotional development, would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and…Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”Furthermore the court order states that despite Amanda’s mother insisting that her daughter’s religious beliefs were her own, “it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.”
Alliance Defense Fund-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons said the ruling is troubling because the court based its decision on Amanda’s faith rather than the quality of her education: “Every time you have a court order that uses a wrong standard or misapplies constitutional law, everyone’s rights are eventually at stake.”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top108 Comments to “Homeschooler ordered to school”
“So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions. But the king spoke, saying to Daniel, ‘Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you.’”
- Daniel 6.15
“Jesus therefore said to them again, ‘Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.’”
- John 20.21
“And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.”
- Romans 8.28
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what the father’s reasons are for wanting her to go to public school?
Report comment to moderator
Seems God is sending His little evangelist out into the world.
Report comment to moderator
What a bunch of crock. Sending a child out to a forced labor camp!. Only an idiot a total idiot would want that for a child. Shame and curses upon the Head and very life of anyone who thinks the court made the right decision!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Curses, Monty? Really?
Report comment to moderator
May such people stumble and fall headlong into a big pile of their own logic!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
The link above does not seem to work.
Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Report comment to moderator
The judges ruling is really not about the child, since the child has good grades and is involved in local community theater. The judge in this case clearly stated that the intent was for the child to “seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view.”
Since this is not about a single child, but about the faith of children in general, all this judge needs is more opportunities to affect other children. Maybe Obama’s new Youth Corp will do the trick.
In Germany, homeschooling is against the law. In America Obama is planning to create a Civilian National Security Force. Obama said in a July 2 speech in Colorado:
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
So far there is no indication that he wants to fund the Black Panthers or other paramilitary groups protected by Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. Rather his intention appears to be …
“to double the Peace Corps’ budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps – there a corps – everywhere a corps corps.”
Another reason for having more children in public school, besides changing their faith, is to use children to collect Census information on their families. These little eyes and ears will provide demographic information that will be used to gerrymander election districts and for wealth redistribution.
Report comment to moderator
Kristen Chapman:
The link in your article is not working. I get a page which reads, “Server Error in ‘/’ Application.”
Report comment to moderator
a curse without cause will not arrive.
Report comment to moderator
Kristin,
Misspelled your first name in the previous post. Sorry about that.
Report comment to moderator
#1, 3 dan, excellent points. though i home-educated our daughter most years, it was not always possible. her experiences in a less “controlled” setting, though they would not have been of my choosing, were God’s best for her. the effects were positive in every way, and the Lord also increased my faith in his ability to guide and protect her heart and mind in any environment.
Report comment to moderator
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”
When was the last time I was moved by an unbeliever who wouldn’t listen? This child seems to have more of a heart for the lost than I presently do. Maybe there is a child or two, or perhaps a teacher or administrator who needs to hear the Gospel and the only “willing” one presently to share it with them is Amanda.
“And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.”
- 1 Sam 17.33
“Thy servant smote both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. And David said, Jehovah who delivered me out of the paw of the lion and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said to David, Go, and Jehovah be with thee.”
- 1 Sam 17.36-37
Report comment to moderator
Obama also wants to create a national database of gun ownership, something done by Hitler, who, when the time came to confiscate weapons that might be used against him, knew exactly who to target.
Report comment to moderator
Good point Old Hickory. Perhaps it isn’t a bad idea for some Christians to be forced into the world early.
Daniel was protected in the lion’s den. But there are plenty of Christians who were fed to lions throughout history who became a tasty snack. Some children would benefit by growing up and becoming strong enough to defend themselves.
Report comment to moderator
If the judge’s reason really is about religion, I’d appeal that decision. That’s a tremendous interference with parental rights by the state.
Report comment to moderator
The scrutiny by a public mediator or guardian applied to this girl’s faith seems inappropirate, from what we read above. If this girl had claimed to be a little lesbian, then the public official would be in SEVERE truoble for applying any scrutiny at all to that little girl’s claim in this context. The mediator/guardian would lose his (or her) job, at the least.
But Christianity has been stigmatized in public sector circles in today’s USSA far far more, in my view, than lesbianism currently is or could be.
Apparently, it’s open season in far too many places on children and adults alike who hold their Christian faith deeply and dare to express it freely.
Report comment to moderator
This decision is dispicable. The inviolable separation of church and state is clearly meaningless unless a liberal invokes it.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a lot of absurdity in this ruling. The girl is 10 years old, and yet the counsellor who interviewed the girl and the judge thinks she needs to be exposed to differing worldviews because she actually believes what her mother has taught her concerning religion.
The question is, would rigid belief in atheism or (better yet) Islam get the same recommendation from the mediator? Not likely at all.
The father is not a Christian, but the mother and daughter are. You can see how that might cause these disagreements. It reminds me of the Newdow case where the atheist father was suing about the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter (who was not legally in his custody) because his ex-wife was a Christian. Reading the court order, you get the sense that the father’s rather a jerk.
Here are a few gems from the court order:
“According to the Guardian ad Litem’s Further Report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith. Amanda challenged the counselor to say what the counselor believed, and she prepared some highlighted biblical text for the counselor to read over and discuss, and she was visibly upset when the counselor (purposely) did not complete the assignment.”
“She also concluded that Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of Vlew at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate mUltiple systems of belief and behavior and cooperation in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”
“Despite Ms. Voydatch’s insistence that Amanda’s choice to share
her mother’s religious beliefs is a free choice, it would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”
“…the Court is guided by the premise that education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things, and by the premise that a child reqUires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life.”
“Instead, the debate centers on whether enrollment in public school will provide Arnanda with an increased opportunity for group learning, group interaction, social problem solving, and exposure to a variety of points of view.”
These are all subjective opinions that people can have valid disagreements about. The ultimate value of being exposed to “differing points of view” is of recent origin in our culture and is the result of pervasive (and one might say “rigid”) epistemological relativism.
Report comment to moderator
XION
I sometimes wish I had the boldness and passion of little ones. Jesus used children as an example of the way we must be. I sometimes wish I could’ve been a part of the 1st Century church. There was no fence sitting under some of those emperors, was there?
God knows who His “children” are and knows when they’re ready; either to slay the lions or be slain by them. Either way, it is a “witness”.
This kiddo (me) still needs work.
Report comment to moderator
Amanda will be fine. If she keeps witnessing to people in school as she attempted with the guardian, who knows? They just might send her back home!
Report comment to moderator
I realize that lesbianism has no bearing on this case itself. My point above was simply to make a comparison regarding changing cultural values and attitudes with regard to faith.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s a good idea for parents to take their child’s spiritual temperature when he/she arrives home from school (if it’s a public or even Christian school). Involvement, care, interest, discussion, pouring in of spiritual values, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Did I miss something? Why is it OK for the wife to go against her husband on this? When asked for advice about homeschooling, one of my first questions is always, “How does your husband feel about it?”
I find the final quote- “it would be remarkable if a ten-year-old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of all her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view”- to be an affirmation for homeschooling for me. I would say the converse is true as well. It is remarkable when kids who spend the majority of the time away from their family still adopt their family’s religious views.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the problems with the link. It seems the entire onenewsnow.com site is down. I’ve linked to an ADF story in the meantime.
Report comment to moderator
“and she was visibly upset when the counselor (purposely) did not complete the assignment.”
Here the kid is learning that she’s not getting HER day in court, so to speak. All this teaches her is that the state is unfair and unwilling to meet her halfway.
How many 11 year olds are exposed to differing points of view so they can make up their minds? One of the reasons in school law why you can teach certain things to minors is because they have a “peculiar vulnerability.” Even in high school. But once you get to college age, the standard changes. Seems to have changed for Amanda at 11. I’d appeal.
Report comment to moderator
I would think the divorce context is important. The subtext I hear is how mom is alienating the daughter’s affection for her dad. At the same time, there likely is an anger from the husband’s side, public school as a way of striking back at his ex-wife.
And kid in the middle.
As the way of most articles, especially from sources with an interest, I’m cautious as to the facts. This sounds like one very ugly divorce.
Report comment to moderator
Good post Harris.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, it is an ugly divorce, which already puts the kid in a bad position. Now she’s having her faith attacked. This is an issue that should be appealed.
Report comment to moderator
“Why is it OK for the wife to go against her husband on this?”
Oh. You think an ex-wife should still submit to her husband? One wonders what’s going on here…
Report comment to moderator
. . . Voydatch’s ex-husband, Martin Kurowski . . .
a.k.a. Daddy
. . . court has ordered a mother to cease homeschooling . . .
Wrong. The court only said the child must go to school as the father asks. The court didn’t prevent the mother from teaching the child at home too.
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L. #19.
The mother may be a kook. The fact that the child presents psychological rigidity to the court in the context of her religious beliefs doesn’t bar the court from taking note of it as a defect and a danger to the child. Religion doesn’t cure neurosis, and freedom of religion isn’t a right to imprison a child in a neurotic home against the wishes of another custodial parent.
The court doesn’t usurp parental custody when the parents are in the paralysis of deadlock. The fact that the mother has failed to persuade the other parent to consent to exclusive home schooling raises a legitimate question. The job of parenting requires the ability to manage and share joint custody.
The same could be said of the father. He could be neurotic, too.
Report comment to moderator
A 10 year old girl who grows visibly upset when her case worker doesn’t respond to her “witness attempts” ISN’T well socialized. She has a poor sense of appropriate behavior and a dangerous set of impractical expectations. I think the father is right to get her away from the Mother for at least those 8 hours a day. It sounds like this woman is using her daughter to punish her ex-husband with constant accusations and recriminations. And that’s not healthy. I can certainly understand why the court decided with the father. You all forget that he is her DAD and he’s allowed to have objections to the way his ex-wife is teaching his daughter about faith. HE’S HER FATHER!
Report comment to moderator
MyNock,
Did you read the court order before you commented?
Didn’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps the school will begin teaching the Christian faith to open up the children there to other view points? Maybe they should let the mother come in to the public school and teach mandated classes on Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
David, all Kristin links us to is a news piece by One News Now and an ADF press release, but if you want to link us to the court order, I’ll consider finding time to read it.
Report comment to moderator
The court order is here:
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KurowskiOrder.pdf
Report comment to moderator
In a potentially precedent-setting case, an attorney for a local woman is asking a Belknap County family court judge to reconsider a ruling that the woman’s daughter attend public school in Meredith rather than continue with home-schooling.
So the appeal has been filed for reconsideration and a stay.
Martin F. Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (whose last name is now Voydatch) divorced shortly after their daughter was born.
So it has been a long time that she has had custody.
Simmons (Brenda’s attorney) said that the court has usurped his client’s right as the parent with custody to make decisions about what she considers best for her daughter. I would agree this is the court going beyond reasonable bounds and taking away a right it should not.
(Simmons) said that if the family court judge did not rule in the mother’s favor, then the case could be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Let’s hope reason avails and that it does not have to go that far.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm… If the court objects to 10 year old children believing the same as their parents, will Catholic schools have to close down? Or will atheists be forced to send their children to a private, religious school? Don’t hold your breath.
Report comment to moderator
#37 David L,
Thank you for the link.
Indeed it reads as though it is the religious issue that is the crux of the case. And it further appears that the court is far overstepping its boundaries.
Report comment to moderator
If the mother has custody than she should be the one to decide her schooling.
Report comment to moderator
American courts almost never rule in favor of the father. Apparently in this case, the court found some reason to rule against the mother who has custody for the child’s whole life. I think we know what that reason is.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I did miss something. The “ex” before the “husband”. I retract my comment. Should have finished the first cuppa coffee before I commented.
Report comment to moderator
It does not appear that the court overstepped its boundaries at all. The ruling was part of the parents’ own Parenting Plan, which assigned the Court the issue of whether the girl would attend public school or continue to be home schooled. The Parenting Plan provided joint decision-making responsibility and a mediator or parenting coordinator, if they disagreed about major decisions. But they reserved the decision about schooling for the court. When both parties ask the court to decide an issue, that’s hardly interference.
Report comment to moderator
My initial impression from reading the linked article and the comments above was to agree with those who say that the court has overstepped its boundaries in deciding this based on a religious issue. But after reading the actual court order using the link in #37, I’m not so sure.
Regarding Kbells’ comment in #41 that the mother should decide schooling because she has custody, the mother and father had agreed previously that major decisions would be made by both of them, and that if they could not agree, then a mediator would be brought in. Since they can’t agree on Amanda’s education, which certainly counts as a major decision, the court had to appoint a mediator.
The father didn’t want Amanda to be homeschooled to begin with, because he was concerned about her social development. But apparently he decided it wasn’t a big enough issue to involve the court back when Amanda first started school. I would guess that as she grew older and as her verbal and reasoning ability increased, she became more vocal about her faith with him and he became more aware of how her religion was an issue between them (she thinks that his unwillingness to accept her religious views and thus his choice to separate himself from her for eternity is an indication of a lack of love for her on his part). So he became more concerned about wanting her exposed to other points of view.
I’m not saying the mediator made the right decision; I’m really not sure. But the mediator had to consider the father’s desire for his daughter to be exposed to other people more. By ordering her to go to public school, that met the father’s interest in that regard. I didn’t see what the mother’s reasons for having Amanda continue in homeschooling were, other than that since Amanda was doing well there didn’t seem to be a reason to change. So it’s hard to say how well the mother’s concerns were met.
The mother claims to be the only trusted adult in Amanda’s life, and casts doubt on what Amanda herself said to her father or a counselor regarding her feelings about time spent with her father. I think that line bothered me more than anything else. Does the mother want to be the only trusted adult in Amanda’s life? Does she try to encourage Amanda to trust her father? Or is she the one who got Amanda thinking that her father didn’t love her because he was choosing to go to hell and remain separate from God and from them for eternity?
I think it is in Amanda’s interest to have at least one other trusted adult in her life, whether it is her father or a teacher or even a pastor.
Report comment to moderator
She “would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior.”
Does the cultivation of a young person’s evangelical/fundamentalist beliefs typically depend on being sheltered from these different points of views? What do folks think about this advice, quoted above, as a general rule? Is such exposure generally a good idea?
Report comment to moderator
And if the State has its way, it will be remarkable for a child who’s forcefully indoctrinated into the secularist worldview/religion propagated in the public schools would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view than that. Let them keep their traditions and festivals and even share them with the class in the name of multiculturalism, so long as their true allegiance is to secular liberalism.
Report comment to moderator
Wise, Pauline.
Report comment to moderator
Obviously, the “court-appointed guardian” is a clueless, Christian-bashing, God-hater, with no understanding of the biblical mandate to train up a child in the way they should go. If Guardian were a Christian, the fact that Amanda “reflect[ed] her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith” would have been extolled as a shining example of godly parental training instead of evidence to be used against the mother. Our government is going out of control as 1st amendment rights continues to be eroded.
Report comment to moderator
XION #42 evidently thinks that an Evangelical, anti-government judge would have required home schooling, and may even have granted the mother sole custody.
I wonder. Evangelical judges still have to weigh the rights of unbelievers.
How would Solomon evaluate this believing mother? She thinks her child exhibits “a wide variety of adverse symptoms” that are caused by the influence of the unsaved father. However, the child is not at all weird and the father’s influence appears to be good.
How would Solomon view a child who expressed the belief that her father’s refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice to spend eternity away from her proved that he does not love her?
I think that even Evangelicals are rational enough to see that the wishes of an unbelieving father may be legitimate and beneficial — and those of the believing mother not so much.
Report comment to moderator
49
Or the guardian is a sinful human being in need of mercy and grace, just like all of us.
We ultimately do not know the details of this divorce.
The guardian was appointed because the parents could not come to an agreement. That’s got to be tough, especially in a divorce, and now, especially in a divorce that’s gone public to some degree.
If the parents could’ve perhaps worked it out between them, there might not have been court order.
And I guess if the “first parents” had settled in their souls to obey God, none of this would’ve happened.
Report comment to moderator
a court order.
Report comment to moderator
49: If the parents could’ve perhaps worked it out between them, …
Yes. If the mother had not yoked herself to an unbeliever (1 COR 6:14), she wouldn’t be suffering the consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Typo. It’s 2 Corinthians 6:14.
Report comment to moderator
CCC #53, is it possible that the mom came to faith after she was married?
Report comment to moderator
55: is it possible that the mom came to faith after she was married?
That is certainly one possible scenario. But, the issue is still that the court stacked the deck with two non-Christians against one Christian.
Report comment to moderator
CCC,
Would it be more just if the court had “stacked the deck” with two Christians against one non-Christian?
Report comment to moderator
It’s not a simple case at all. The judge noted there is no significant threat of physical or emotional harm to the child, which ordinarily means the state can’t override the choice of the custodial parent, although the judge thinks it’s in the child’s best interest to go to public school. The order could be vacated on appeal because its basis is so intertwined with its evaluation of the child’s decision to adhere to her own faith. He starts from the premise that the purpose of religious faith is to meet one’s needs, rather than to discover objective truth. This is the kind of evaluation courts are not well positioned to undertake. And #44, even if the court is put in a position to make the decision, it can’t make that decision on an impermissible basis. I’m not saying it did, just that it doesn’t give the court carte blanche to make the choice on any basis it chooses; it has to have a legally permissible basis for its choice.
Report comment to moderator
#45 Pauline I’m really not sure. But the mediator had to consider the father’s desire for his daughter to be exposed to other people more.
Why did the mediator have to consider the father’s desire more than the mothers, especially seeing that the girl had lived with her mother for her entire life?
The father wanted one thing, the mother another? In the American court system, a father’s wishes are almost universally ignored.
Since the judge determined that the child was perfectly healthy physically, mentally and socially, the judge’s decision was based on other criteria, namely on religious grounds rather than on any actual facts of the case.
Report comment to moderator
Quote #56:
“55: is it possible that the mom came to faith after she was married?
That is certainly one possible scenario. But, the issue is still that the court stacked the deck with two non-Christians against one Christian.”
However, the point you were making in #53 i.e. “… If the mother had not yoked herself to an unbeliever (1 COR 6:14), she wouldn’t be suffering the consequences.”
If the mom came to faith after she married, then this entire situation is not a consequence. If she came to faith after she married, well, God is merciful. Also, I don’t think the deck is stacked against Amanda and her mom. God will take care of both of them. “Them that honour me I will honour…” (1 Sa. 2:30)
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone read the Gary North piece I linked to last week, “Who Will Inherit Your Money When You Die?”
North writes:
Contrary to popular belief, state education isn’t some philanthropic effort by concerned citizens who agree to tax everybody in order to provide a (ahem) “free” education to all the children in the community. Far from it.
State education is all about aggrandizing (and inculcating loyalty to) the State in the minds of all those little future taxpayers.
Education is an inescapably religious endeavor. Christian education begins with the premise, “In the beginning, God … ” State education starts with the premise, “Your children belong to us — we just let you take care of them for 18 years.”
Yet oddly enough, many, many Bible-believing Christians have no problem surrendering their kinder to Caesar for 13 years. North notes that his father-in-law, the late R. J. Rushdooney, “had little patience with conservatives who complained about high taxes. ‘They have tithed their children to the State, and then they complain against how much the government is costing them.’”
Every Bible-believing, Christ-professing Christian should read North’s compelling piece and then pass it along to his friends. If professing Christians alone would withdraw their progeny from the State education camps, the infernal places would collapse under their own weight.
Report comment to moderator
57: Would it be more just if the court had “stacked the deck” with two Christians against one non-Christian?
Yes. Unbelievers are sanctified by believers (see 1 Corinthians 7:14). This principle extends beyond marriage. The odds of rendering a righteous judgment goes way up when Christians acknowledge the unchanging law that comes from God and aren’t swayed by every wind of doctrine blowing their way. Also, as XION noted in 8:, the ruling was on religious grounds, not academic.
Report comment to moderator
The mother of this young girl has done an excellent job of home-schooling, and most importantly teaching her young daughter about Jesus Christ – Oh that there be more Godly parents –
Guardian ad litem’s have no business choosing a public school over home-schooling because a child is strong in their faith of Jesus Christ. The child’s faith is stronger than any decision the guardian ad litem, or the court can inflict on her heart.
Amanda appears to be ready with her “armour” (Ephesians 5:10-17) of faith to tell other kids about Christ. She’s a spunky kid, trying to witness to the guardian ad litem – God bless her.
Report comment to moderator
#31 Scroop Moth – “Wrong. The court only said the child must go to school as the father asks. The court didn’t prevent the mother from teaching the child at home too.”
With all due respect, I don’t believe this is a reasonable argument in the context of this case.
Report comment to moderator
XION: the judge’s decision was based on other criteria, namely on religious grounds rather than on any actual facts of the case.
I think the judge concluded that the mother was a bit kooky for seeing imaginary problems in the child and blaming them on the father. The child’s been messed with to think that her mother is the only person in the world she can trust, and that her father’s lack of religion is a sign that he doesn’t love her. Since the father was a good influence, the judge may have wanted to increase that good influence in the child’s life.
These are all facts independent of religion.
Report comment to moderator
60: If the mom came to faith after she married, then this entire situation is not a consequence.
Whether she became a Christian before or after marriage is irrelevant. She’s a Christian now and her biblically mandated parental responsibility to raise up her child in the way she should go is being usurped by a godless court-appointed “guardian”.
Also, I don’t think the deck is stacked against Amanda and her mom. God will take care of both of them. “Them that honour me I will honour…” (1 Sa. 2:30)
In a court of law, two against one has tremendous advantage. But, you changed viewpoints. We live in a physical world of cause and effect, where probabilities are better predictors of future events than hopes of supernatural intervention. Yes, God will take care of them, but not in the way we might want, just as He took care of Nate Saint and Jim Elliot. You do believe that God took care of Nate Saint and Jim Elliot, don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
#62
CCC,
From our perspective as Christians ourselves, it clearly seems better that the decision-maker be a Christian. But the court cannot take that perspective. What if none of them were Christians, if the mother and daughter were devout Muslims, or Wiccans, or some other religion?
The court can’t favor one religion over another, and in this case I don’t think they’re even trying to favor no religion over some religion. The mother clearly has a huge influence over the girl now (to the point that the mother can claim her daughter trusts no one else), and the court is trying to shift that in the direction of the father’s influence. I don’t know if, by requiring her to attend public school, it shifts too far the other way, but there simply is no truly middle ground in a case like this.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock #33: Agree totally on the inappropriateness of the girl’s actions. On the other hand, I don’t feel the court should have intervened here since the mom seems to have custody and the level of “harm” is pretty minor. However, if the parents have some sort of agreement where the father is supposed to have a say, and if he wants the girl to attend public school, then some sort of agreement must be reached.
Frank #61: For everyone else’s benefit, Frank’s post here demonstrates the sort of attitude I was talking about when I posted this:
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/08/27/come-now-let-us-reason-together/comment-page-1/#comment-460943
Report comment to moderator
67:
I remind you that the court is made up of religious beings. Men and women have been bombarded with the notion that a man can be “independent of religion”. This is a lie. A man cannot seperate himself from his religiosity. A judge is as religious as you and me. Religion is the outworking of faith. And faith is being sure of what one hopes for and certain of what one does not see (Heb 11:1). A Christian is no more certain of God’s existence than an atheist is in God’s non-existence. It is by faith that Christians put their trust in God and by faith that atheists put their trust in not God. All the artifacts in the Holocaust Museum couldn’t convince a holocaust-denier like Ahmadinejad of Nazi atrocities. How much less could an ancient book convince an atheist of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! That’s why the Bible says no man can come to Jesus unless drawn to Him by the Father (John 6:44). Notice it doesn’t say “you” or “me”. Therefore, belief on Jesus Christ is a supernatural intervention, which is what a miracle is!
Therefore, the court can do none other than assert a religious viewpoint, be it Christian or non-Christian. Remember the 10 Commandments? They used to be taught in public school. That was until non-Christians came in and removed them based on the lie that man can live independent of religion. This is where the battle rages and Christians need to stop surrendering. But, they don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
The overarching message to me about this case is the horrible fallout (personal and societal) of divorce.
Parental rights, as mentioned previously, is another huge issue here – esp. since this seems to be a precedent-setting case that other courts may refer to when making decisions to override parental decisions re: the education of their children. Its one more wedge in the cultural battle to separate parents and children so the state can have control of the populace.
If you’re not familiar with it, check out the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
“rights of children” – now there’s an eyebrow-raiser. “They” are supplanting the rights of parents (nasty, closed-minded parentses, they hates us!) with the rights of children. This is (no jest) a worldwide movement that the UN is pushing. It requires that the state act in the best interests of the child…which is what the court in this case seems to be arguing.
The courts decision has nothing to do with this child’s education and everything to do with the child’s socialization.
In the end, yes, it may be a good thing for the child, she may grow stronger and people may come to a knowledge of the Truth through her witness, but it is still a battleground worth pursuing because of the progress it makes against parents in our culture.
Report comment to moderator
#45 Excellent comment Pauline.
Report comment to moderator
#67
CCC,
I’m not claiming that the court can assert a viewpoint that is not religious. I’m saying that the court does not have a valid reason to prefer the Christian viewpoint over any other. Nor does it have a reason to prefer the atheist, or Hindu, or any other religious view over the Christian one.
But this is a situation where one viewpoint is going to be seen as being preferred over another, no matter what decision is made. And people being, as you point out, inherently religious (meaning that they have a worldview, whether it includes belief in a deity or not), whoever makes the final decision is likely to be influenced by his beliefs, no matter how objective he is.
But the mother and father chose, years ago, to have some third party make that decision if they could not agree between themselves. Being appointed by the court, it’s rather unlikely that such a third party would share the mother’s religious perspective. I don’t know if the mother thought about that or not when she agreed to submit such decisions to mediation.
Perhaps she hoped it would never come to this point. Perhaps she hoped to instill her faith in her daughter sufficiently so that if a situation such as this came up, her daughter would continue in the way she had been taught by her mother in spite of contrary influences. Only time will tell whether that happens or not.
Report comment to moderator
#72 Pauline. After rereading the entire case here, it is obvious that the court ruling addressed two issues: socialization and exposure to other belief systems.
Regarding socialization, Amanda already attends a number of public school classes: Spanish, Art, PhysEd and Community Theater and is said to be “an active participant, does well and keeps up with the work.” “She is well liked, social and interactive with her peers”. So the whole socialization argument is moot.
The text goes on to say that her father does not share her religious beliefs and “bombards her constantly” about her faith. That is obviously what this is all about. Apparently the court has no problem with incessant abusive badgering of a child’s belief system.
The court accepted the guardian’s assessment that “Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior and cooperation in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.”
And so this is no benign case where the court is simply trying to balance the desires of the mother and father. This is an assessment of her present Christian home environment, and a ruling that it is fundamentally inadequate for her well being and that she should be exposed to other faiths.
That’s interesting since expressions of any faith at all is effectively banned in public school. So how she will be exposed to other faiths there requires quite an imagination!
Report comment to moderator
BuZZY #64. Thanks for the comment. I thought about this too, but the child already takes art, Spanish, PE, and theater classes in the public school.
Sometimes the purpose and meaning of “home schooling” is opposite to and incompatible with any “state schooling” whatsoever. Some parents choose home schooling primarily to keep children uncontaminated by public schools. However, that meaning of home schooling doesn’t seem to be the context in this case. Here, home schooling is a matter of degree not kind.
Therefore I think it’s fair to say that in this case supplemental home schooling does not essentially conflict with the mother’s purposes.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDYGLASS (68): For everyone else’s benefit, Frank’s post [at (61)] demonstrates the sort of attitude I was talking about when I posted this:
Frank: I speak in broad generalities, of course. This is a conviction I’ve held for nearly 20 years now. As for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, well, sanctification occurs one moment at a time.
Also, I have several good Christian friends who, due to various circumstances, have their kids in public schools.
As for me, so long as my wife and I can afford it (working three jobs), my conscience simply will not allow me to put my children in Rome’s (as in “Caesar’s”) schools (James 4:17).
I’d be happy to interact with you on the matter, using North’s piece as a launching pad for the discussion. Read it and let me know which of his assertions you take issue with.
(And a technical question: How do you create a link to a specific post from a previous thread?)
Report comment to moderator
Frank:
While I’ve not read the piece of which you speak, based on your comments up there, I understand the spirit. But as an educator myself who has been in a multitude of camps, it is not an “us-verses-them”. We do not wrestle with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers in the unseen realm. What we see is temporal, what we do not see is eternal.
All of our educational systems, in other words, are going to come to an eventual end.
The “pull-out-and-let-the-edifice-collapse” has been, from my perspective, quite a compassionless sort of reaction and one that avoids engagement and constructive dialogue. Its easy to protest and withdraw. It’s more difficult to integrate, engage and endure. There’s still good going on in many public systems. Christians are often being called – parents, teachers, students and the likes, to engage and interact in public schools. Several of my families and their students from last year felt called to get involved and go back to public school this year. I fully support them.
I was in public education for a few years, got into private tutoring for a while and then Christian education.
Every one of them has their positive qualities about them. Obviously, Christian education provides an ultimate reason for why everything is as we know it. It rests upon a sure foundation. But because we know Romans 1 says man has a knowledge of God, however he tries to supress it, it will come out somehow. All truth belongs to God and can come from a multitude of unlikely sources, even public education. Even non-Christians.
Richard Dawkins has a chapter in his book, The God Delusion about the influence of Scripture on the English language. I think it was perhaps the best chapter in the book, because for the most part (not all of it) he was right. Here’s an atheistic biologist attempting to reduce a belief in God to a sheer and highly improbable reality, suggesting we hang on to Scripture’s influence on our language.
God is sovereign over His creation, sir. You know that. I’ve read other posts of yours. Shall we thus pull away from everything else that is culturally opposed to Scripture? That’s what I came to realize the logic of my oppositional thinking was leading me a few years ago. Education’s just one thing.
For the creative, thinking Christian, there are still a multitude of ways to make a difference, plant a seed, water, etc. in the “field” of public schools. Let’s not raze the tares with the wheat just yet. And only God can truly see what is a tare and what is wheat anyway.
Anyhow, I don’t mean to pick at you, but after having been in both camps myself, I have come to the conclusion that the condemning rhetoric I’ve heard over the years from both sides is wholly unproductive.
OH
Report comment to moderator
“The guardian noted that during a counseling session, Amanda tried to witness to the counselor and appeared ‘visibly upset’ when the counselor purposefully did not pay attention.”
The assumption seems to be that she was “visibly upset” because the counselor did not respond to her witnessing.
Another thought, which I think is highly likely, is that she was upset at being purposely ignored. That is an insult to child or adult.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, that was my impression too.
Report comment to moderator
(her being ignored)
Report comment to moderator
#77
Karen O,
If Amanda was talking to the counselor and the counselor ignored what she was saying, I think it certainly makes sense for her to be upset. But what I read in the case, as linked to by both David L and Xion, was that Amanda was “visibly upset” because the counselor purposely did not complete an “assignment” that Amanda had given to the counselor, to read some highlighted Bible verses that she had prepared, so they could discuss them. I think, given the counselor’s role in the situation, that it could be considered simply being professional to choose not to get involved in such a discussion.
#73
Xion,
If the father is in fact “constantly bombarding” Amanda about her faith, then that would be a good reason to restrict her time with him, as her mother requests. However, it appears to be a matter of the mother’s word vs the father’s as to whether he is actually doing that. It is the mother who says that the father “constantly bombards” Amanda about her faith; the father says that he and Amanda rarely discuss religion, although they have discussed it several times in the past.
Based only on what I have read, it’s impossible to say who is giving the accurate picture here. The fact that Amanda has been found to be healthy physically and emotionally can be seen as evidence that her current situation is not doing her any harm. On the other hand, that same evidence seems contrary to her mother’s claim that Amanda is displaying several symptoms (I don’t think any detail was given of what these are) that are a result of increased contact with her father and that can only be treated by a chiropractor. As there is no medical evidence that she needs treatment by a chiropractor, I find the mother losing some credibility in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – You have a point about the reason why the counselor ignored her. But there’s something about the phrase “purposefully did not pay attention” that bothers me. It would be professional and polite to at least address the issue of the verses & refuse to do the “assignment” rather than ignoring it.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O,
The phrase “purposefully did not pay attention” is from the OneNewsNow article, not from the court decision. The court paper simply says that the counselor purposefully did not complete the assignment Amanda gave. I have to admit that Amanda’s apparent expectation that the counselor would complete such an assignment makes me wonder about how well she is learning how to interact appropriately with people in different situations. Would one of your daughters try to give such an assignment to a counselor and be indignant if the counselor chose not to do it?
Report comment to moderator
Children sometimes demand attention when it’s not appropriate. If Amanda was (in a sense) taking the opportunity to give the guardian ad litem a list of verses to discuss, that wasn’t a good idea.
The guardian ad litem was most likely ignoring the list to stay away from any sort of controversy which later question her motives – in this case she ignored the so called assignment from Amanda –
If I were the guardian ad litem and I was interviewing a child who was Muslim, and they gave me a list of passages from the Quran to discuss, I would ignore it – in that way the child couldn’t go back and say anything.
Pauline’s assessment is correct in 82 – Amanda is trying to be the leading adult, giving an assignment – that is ONE area which I’ve witnessed with home-schooled kids that is not respectful to adults -
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, thank you for making an important point – I certainly missed it.
Report comment to moderator
#82 Pauline “Based only on what I have read, it’s impossible to say who is giving the accurate picture here.”
So on the one hand we have a well adjusted little Christian girl who makes good grades, gets along with her peers and lives happily with her mother who instructs her in the Word of God.
On the other hand we have an anti-religious father who wants to force the child into a secular environment whom we can’t prove actually bombards the child with his personal anti-religious sentiments.
So you side with the secular wisdom of wrenching the girl from her current environment without cause for the express purpose of exposing her to faiths other than her own in order to offer her something other than her “unhealthy” Christian environment.
Please explain to me what faiths she will be exposed to in public school? Obviously none! So this ruling is clearly about the removal of a child from a religious environment. Period.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – 85
I don’t believe that is what Pauline was saying.
As Pauline noted in her post #82:
“The court paper simply says that the counselor purposefully did not complete the assignment Amanda gave. I have to admit that Amanda’s apparent expectation that the counselor would complete such an assignment makes me wonder about how well she is learning how to interact appropriately with people in different situations.”
Too many children from home-schooling families have a preponderance to give instruction to adults in charge – it is to their folly that they fall into this trap. It appears Amanda felt she had the right to up-stage the guardian ad litem, thus giving her an assignment, which fell to deaf ears, as it WELL SHOULD HAVE.
Amanda’s desire to witness to those who are un-Believers is most important, but this was not the time nor place to give the guardian ad litem a Bible passage assignment. This is where her current homeschooling doesn’t serve her well – she hasn’t learned to accept the fact that she’s the student.
If this is what Amanda has been doing in regards to her father, it is no wonder it’s a problem. Her dad is probably angry that his daughter is trying to ‘teach him’ – it isn’t as if he doesn’t need to learn, but that Amanda needs to understand when it is appropriate to step out and tell her dad about her Christian beliefs, and how much she wishes he believed the same way.
Report comment to moderator
Is it possible that the counselor listened to Amanda’s “witnessing”, even leading the child to think that he/she was interested, and then purposefully did not complete the assignment? I am not saying that this is what happened, but is it possible? Perhaps she felt as though she could trust this person, and was disappointed to feel that she could not? It seems as though the court is looking for some adult-like qualities in a young child (open-mindedness, reflection, ability to comprehend opposing points of view.)
Amanda sounds like a very intelligent child; but maturity of intelligence does not always equate with maturity of character or emotions. Also, let’s remember that she’s lived through her parents’ divorce, a difficult event for any child. To be the subject of a court case (more proof of disagreement between her parents) must be very trying, especially as I doubt she can fully understand the reasons for which her parents have chosen to work this out in court. May God bless her and her parents, granting a spirit of peace to all involved.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I stated in my first post that I do not know whether the court made the right decision in this case. So I am not exactly “siding with the secular wisdom” of the court. But I am also not willing to say it is clear that the court’s decision is wrong.
There are things about her mother that concern me – her claiming to be the only adult Amanda trusts – and no indication she is trying to remedy that situation. Her insistence on trying to get Amanda treated by a chiropractor for no clear medical reason. Her claim that her daughter is being negatively affected by increased time spent with her father, although her daughter makes no such claims, and other adults see Amanda as physically and emotionally healthy.
As for being exposed to faiths other than her own -
No, public school will not directly expose her to the teachings and practices of other faiths. But I don’t think her father says he wants her exposed to other faiths but to other points of view. Even within evangelical Christianity, there are quite a number of differing points of view – look how much we disagree over things on this blog!
When I was in school, I knew little about the churches my classmates went to but I did know that they went to different churches. I knew that most were Catholic, and that others were Methodist or Lutheran, and that a few were Jewish. And I observed that it made no obvious difference. Catholic kids had to go to catechism classes on certain days, and Jewish kids were absent from school on certain days, but aside from that, religion did not seem to make us different from each other. I’m not saying if that is a good or bad lesson to learn – some religions do make a bigger difference, and perhaps no one in my school belonged to one of those – but it is a lesson related to religion that can be learned in public school.
When I became a Christian at age 14, I went to a fundamentalist church where I was taught to think of myself as very different from my classmates in public school who were Catholic or Lutheran or Methodist or Jewish or unchurched. I was going to heaven, they were going to hell. When I did good things, I was doing it to please God; when they did good things, they were either trying to earn their way to heaven or to fool people (and perhaps themselves) about what they were really like. They chose not to believe the Truth because they were rebelling against God and did not want to give up their sinful ways.
When I went to Bible school and then to a Christian college, few of my assumptions about how other people thought and acted were challenged (though other things I had learned in my home church were challenged, in terms of the Bible and theology). It wasn’t until I got out of college and interacted with a lot of other kinds of people on a daily basis that I came to question whether all those Catholics and Methodists and Lutherans and Presbyterians were really so vastly different from me, just because they interpreted the Bible differently. I had always been told that there could be a very few true Christians in those churches, but as I got to know more of them I started to wonder if maybe more than a few were saved.
I’m not saying Amanda has as narrow a view as I learned from that church, but that there is something important to learn from being around people who think differently, even if there is no direct exposure to their religious ideas and practices.
Report comment to moderator
The problem, Pauline, is that the court shouldn’t be the one to decide at what age a child should be around those who “think differently,” or what sort of influence they should have. Parents really do have the right to decide who their child can associate with, even if their decision isn’t perfect (as long as the decision doesn’t put the child in danger).
I do admit to being flummoxed by those who think it was inappropriate for a ten-year-old to try to witness to an adult. She did indeed need to be respectful (I haven’t seen any evidence she wasn’t), but how can one tell a child that she is not to care about the eternal welfare of this adult? I myself remember witnessing on the playground to substitute teachers. Wisely, probably not. I didn’t interrupt class time, though. I spoke to them one on one as I had the chance, believing that I’d probably see them only this one particular day. If I sometimes did so in a childish way and not an adult way, well, I was a child.
Report comment to moderator
A ten year old is hardly old enough to be playing adult to adult questions – the child was not there to speak with the ‘guardian ad litem’ posing questions regarding a list of passages from the Bible – the only one who was confused or baffled was the ten year old.
This points up the childs education with her mother. The mother of this child should be teaching her daughter the correct way in which to engage an adult, instead of taking the position that the child was on an equal peer footing with the ‘guardian ad litem’ –
This is not a good ending, but some good can be learned by the 10 year old and her mother ……. there have been educational lapses in this childs ability to understand her position, which is not equal to that of an adult.
Report comment to moderator
OldHickory at #13: When was the last time I was moved by an unbeliever who wouldn’t listen? This child seems to have more of a heart for the lost than I presently do. Maybe there is a child or two, or perhaps a teacher or administrator who needs to hear the Gospel and the only “willing” one presently to share it with them is Amanda.
Why do you assume the counselor was an unbeliever? Maybe he or she was a believer and wanted to the job rather than get into a theology discussion with a 10-year-old.
David L. at #19 cites this: “According to the Guardian ad Litem’s Further Report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith. Amanda challenged the counselor to say what the counselor believed, and she prepared some highlighted biblical text for the counselor to read over and discuss, and she was visibly upset when the counselor (purposely) did not complete the assignment.”
Since when do adults take “assignments” from children? For that matter, since when do Christians (or anybody else for that matter) champion children trying to tell adults what to do?
If the child were a Muslim learning Islam that rigidly, would you all be championing her case the way you are?
The trump is that the parents had agreed to agree on major decisions concerning the child or else submit to mediation. There’s no judicial breach of parental rights here.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, if you reread what I wrote, I never said the guardian was an unbeliever. I simply was stating that Amanda seems to have a heart for the lost based on what the article says she did and that maybe God was orchestrating the situation so that Amanda could witness to folks in her new surroundings.
Report comment to moderator
I was asking a rhetorical question, comparing Amanda’s apparent zeal to my own lack of zeal for unbelievers in general. I could’ve worded it better, I suppose.
I admit of course I have no idea what the status of the guardian’s eternal destiny is. But that wasn’t the point of my post. It was a general rhetorical response regarding Amanda’s witnes vs. my own.
Report comment to moderator
witness
Report comment to moderator
This reminds me a little of the Mills case a few months ago. Homeschooling can be a great thing, but I still believe it requires the agreement and support of both parents, and should not be used if there isn’t agreement.
Those of you who are outraged at the court’s order should save your outrage for Amanda’s parents who requested the court to make a decision. If you don’t want the court to make these decisions about your child, then that’s your choice—-don’t get divorced, then the court won’t order your child to public school.
When there is a divorce, there are TWO parents with differing opionions (or they wouldn’t be divorcing), and very often these differences include childrearing issues. BOTH parents have an equal right to raise and educate their children–BOTH mother AND father. Both parents are expected to spend their resources (time and money) raising their child, and both have parental rights.
When there are disagreements about fundamental childrearing issues such as education, there has to be some mechanism to resolve the conflict. Unfortunately, at this point family court is the reigning authority.
I agree that Amanda should not be belittled for her faith (whatever her faith is), even by her parent. But wanting the child to have a broader perspective than her mother is providing at home is not, in itself, unreasonable. The court may have decided this case well.
Report comment to moderator
Spot on DJ. In the end, as Steve points out to me about what I’ve said, we have no idea of the intimate details as to why Amanda is being ordered back to school. The title of the article led my thoughts astray in how I read it. I started the article with a bias against the court for making the order, but after reading folks’ posts and reflecting, I should not have been so biased. Perhaps “Divorce Leads to Judicial Intercession in Child’s Education” would’ve been better.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Steve,
I don’t know what that whole “assignment” thing was about. My interest in citing the passage was how that incident was interpreted as proving that the girl lacked “youthful characteristics,” whatever that means, and displayed “rigidity.” In fact, my interest in this case generally is not in judicial overreaching but in the official government attitude toward real Christian faith.
And this is why I posed the question earlier: would a 10-year-old Muslim girl who felt as strongly as this Amanda does about her religion be seen in the same way by a state-employed “counsellor”? What about a 10-year-old who rigidly denies God’s existence and mocks the religious beliefs of others? I seriously doubt it.
“Counsellors” or psychologists are typically opposed to religious faith. I had one sneeringly tell me once that the medication she was prescribing wouldn’t make me stop believing in “God.” Even supposedly Christian psychologists treat real faith like an aberration.
“Rigidity” is a subjective term. One could just as well call it “strong commitment,” as some on this thread have done. It depends on the perspective of the interpreter; and a state functionary like this “counsellor” will never interpret true Christian faith as anything but a disease that needs to be cured–as in this case.
The judge was just following this person’s recommendations. If there was disagreement between the parents, and they had previously agreed to agree, then why choose the father’s side (the non-custodial parent’s) rather than a compromise, at least? Because there’s something in the nature of the institution of government and all its bureaucracy that wants to regard Christian faith as mentally unsound.
As Christians we need to cultivate Biblical thinking, and the New Testament is saturated with the idea that the Kingdom of God is opposed to the kingdom of this world. It’s not a persecution-complex or conspiracy-mongering to take God’s Word that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” “…that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
Report comment to moderator
#92: I stand corrected, sorry.
Report comment to moderator
No worries, Steve. We all endeavor toward clear and concise expression. A hard go here in Blog Mart, where words are cheap and ideas plentiful.
Always.
Report comment to moderator
In case of misunderstanding –
My “Always” followed by a smilely face was a pun about Wal Mart, not a statement about the sometimes in-depth and encouraging dialogue the occasionally transpires among the brethren contained herein. Just sort of sparing with ol’ SteveG in humorous, punny fashion.
In my neighborhood, there is a “neighborhood” Wal Mart which is just a grocery store. I call it “Small Mart”. Words on a blog sometimes are like the seemingly unending veritable plethora of merchandise upon the shelves of Mr. Walton’s legacy – the apex of capitalistic hedonism and materialistic pursuits.
Anyhow, just posting for clarity here.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – Re:#82 – Sorry, I just got back here & see you asked me a question.
No, my daughters would not do a thing like that.
From the way it is written, it does sound like a strange &/or presumptuous thing to do.
Report comment to moderator
OldHickory,
I know it’s been a few days since you wrote. As soon as I read your post, I knew I intended to reply, but needed to a) tend to more pressing issues, and b) ponder the nature of your assertions and objections in hopes of answering wisely. So here goes …
OLDHICKORY68 (76): … as an educator myself who has been in a multitude of camps, it is not an “us-verses-them”. We do not wrestle with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers in the unseen realm.
FRANK IN SPOKANE: I know you don’t intend it this way, but I hear you saying two contradictory things: “It’s not us-vs.-them” vs. “we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers in the unseen realm.”
The education of children is a battle of worldviews — ultimately with principalities and powers, of course, but made manifest in flesh-and-blood teachers and administrators, working in brick-and-mortar schools, using ink-and-paper books, all of which will promote some kind of truth claim — either those of secular humanism, or those of Jesus Christ.
I agree with you, OldHickory — the Bible characterizes the battle of worldviews as God’s people doing battle against principalities and powers in the unseen realm. But the fundamental issue here is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Our little ones are not yet prepared to be combatants, nor do they learn to do battle against the principalities and powers by being catechized 7 hours a day, 200 days a year in their propaganda.
OLDHICKORY68 (76): All of our educational systems, in other words, are going to come to an eventual end.
FRANK IN SPOKANE: And so will human dietary practices and customs. In the meantime, we ought paying at least double the attention to what we teach our children as what we feed them.
As in other arenas of human daily life, there are wise and unwise choices to be made in education. The difference between diet and education, however, is what is at stake — bodies vs. souls.
(Continued … )
Report comment to moderator
OLDHICKORY68 (76): The “pull-out-and-let-the-edifice-collapse” has been, from my perspective, quite a compassionless sort of reaction and one that avoids engagement and constructive dialogue.
FRANK IN SPOKANE: How is it “compassionless” to advocate that Christian parents consciously avail themselves of Christian alternatives to subjecting their kids to Caesar’s schools?
Again, it comes back to who is and is not a legitimate combatant: I have several committed Christian friends who teach in public schools. They are adults who have answered the call to enter the enemy camp and do all they can 1) to bring the claims of Christ to bear in their arena of battle, and 2) to be Christ to their students.
Also, Christian taxpayers have a vested interest in how their tax monies are used. By all means, let them engage the enemy as well.
But both of these are a far cry from Christian parents causing their own children to drink at the well of Caesar’s poisonous claims.
OLDHICKORY68 (76): All truth belongs to God and can come from a multitude of unlikely sources, even public education. Even non-Christians.
Richard Dawkins … Here’s an atheistic biologist attempting to reduce a belief in God to a sheer and highly improbable reality, suggesting we hang on to Scripture’s influence on our language.
FRANK IN SPOKANE: It is one thing to teach our children, in a Christian environment, to read Dawkins critically. It is another to subject them to an environment where Dawkins’ claims are taught as truth.
(Continued … )
Report comment to moderator
OLDHICKORY68 (76): God is sovereign over His creation, sir. You know that. I’ve read other posts of yours.
FRANK IN SPOKANE: Amen! The Bible is packed with stories of God acting sovereignly in this, His world! He used Joseph mightily in Egypt to save many people alive! He saved the thief on the cross! Through the OT Scriptures and Philip, He brought the Ethiopian eunuch to saving faith in Christ! I have no doubt whatsoever that God reaches people in the unlikeliest of places and circumstances!
But that, sir, is no argument for parents consciously placing our children in such circumstances! Would you consciously choose to have your son sold into captivity by his own brothers?! To have him live a life of crime?! To have him be a slave in a pagan court?!
If Caesar prevails in compelling Brenda Voydatch to send her daughter Amanda to a State school, I am confident of God’s ability to work in those circumstances to protect Amanda and strengthen her faith! But that is not the same as Miss Voydatch subjecting Amanda to Caesar’s schools of her own free volition!
OLDHICKORY68 (76): Shall we thus pull away from everything else that is culturally opposed to Scripture?
FRANK IN SPOKANE: “Pull away”? “Opposed to Scripture”? Umm … generally, yes. But one can also use wisdom to pick and choose when he pulls away and when he engages.
I don’t care how good the food is or how “clothed” the wait-staff are, I will not choose to eat at Hooters, whether alone or with my family. However, if a friend with whom I was sharing Christ asked me to meet him there for lunch, I might consider it — perhaps after having asked him if we could meet elsewhere.
The point: It is one thing to ask God to work in adverse circumstances that are not of our choosing. It is another thing entirely to decide to place ourselves — to say nothing of our tender children — in those circumstances.
(Continued … )
Report comment to moderator
OLDHICKORY68 (76): For the creative, thinking Christian, there are still a multitude of ways to make a difference, plant a seed, water, etc. in the “field” of public schools. Let’s not raze the tares with the wheat just yet. And only God can truly see what is a tare and what is wheat anyway.
FRANK IN SPOKANE: With all due respect, OH, not only do I think you are misapplying Jesus’ parable, but also that in citing it, you make my point.
In Matthew 13:24-30, He teaches:
Where does God — the farmer — sow His good seed? In His (presumably) good field, not among tares. The tares (sons of the wicked one) are only there because the enemy (the devil) has sowed them in among the grain.
You are misapplying an eschatological parable (after all, Jesus teaches that the harvest is the end of the age) to my suggestion that Christian parents avoid placing their children (planting their seed) in Caesar’s schools (tare fields), if they can at all avoid doing so. I am not suggesting “razing” anything or anybody. If Christian parents around the world withdrew their “seed” from the tare field of State school system, 1) their tax dollars would still be supporting those schools, and 2) with a far lower student load (non-christians would remain behind). When the Christian education was shown to be superior to secular education (within a generation’s time, no doubt), do you suppose it possible that Caesar’s education system would crash in a heap, and that worldling parents and children would be eagerly seeking truth?
And here’s where you make my point: I’m no farmer, but I know enough that the good farmers don’t simply cast their seed among weeds! They only plant their precious seed after having cultivated and fertilized the field!
And that, dear OldHickory, is what consciously Christian education is all about! One purpose behind educating our children is so that, once they are trained and mature, they may go out among the tares seeking to cultivate wheat!
OLDHICKORY68 (76): Anyhow, I don’t mean to pick at you …
FRANK IN SPOKANE: I didn’t take your reply in that way at all. I always enjoy and welcome your honest interaction.
Report comment to moderator
Frank –
I’m between classes and I will briefly reply here as best I can.
First, regarding interpretation of Scripture. I’m not the Pope nor do I claim my interpretations of the Bible are infallible.
My intent from what I can remember I was trying to say in using “wheat and tares” is simply that as human beings we have not the ability to know where the “good soil” is – which is what is prerequisite for the seed, the Word of God, to flourish. Note that there is “good soil” first before the receiving of the seed.
I was commenting against your apparent clarion call of unplugging from the public schools as Christians. There is “good soil” awaiting the seed in any environment. We have not the ability to know where that soil is with precision, we’re just called into the harvest. We cannot carte blanche declare a general maxim that every Christian should/must withrdraw their light from various places in the public square simply because we ourselves have withdrawn.
It’s also a bit of hubris to think that if Christians left the public education systems, that it would collapse. No, it wouldn’t necessarily. And we certainly must consider why we’d want such a collapse, because in essence there’d be a lot of children who don’t know Christ, who haven’t much hope in getting a meal or a hug from a compassionate teacher, who’d be left behind. How are you going to help them if your sought-after collapse became a reality?
I’ve been through the boycott and abandon phase and I’m glad I’m done with it. You are where I was about 10 years ago. Since then I’ve learned and seen God is a great deal more in control of things than I once thought. If we follow your logic, though Frank, we’d have to end up withdrawing from every realm of our shared public engagement with the world which wasn’t based upon Scripture. Where do we stop?
Also, there is no essence of an “institutional” interpretation of the parable as you suggest with Caesar’s field being ipso facto full of tares. The children are not the seed in the parable, either Frank. The seed is the Word of God.
This parable also does not give man jurisdiction to make distinctions between wheat and tares. What do you make of God letting them “grow up together?”
I might be a tare, Frank. So might you be. This is the church, not public education. God lets the two grow together until the end of the age when they will finally be separated by God’s wisdom and knowledge, not ours.
Never was I implying that a farmer would sow seed in a field of tares. The problem I have with your response is that you seem to exhibit more confidence in tare identification than Scripture permits.
Tares, as I understand them in the parable, are people, not institutions. And no man has the ability to know with the utmost certainty who is and who is not.
As far as taxes go, Christians are to pay them, period. If Caesar authorizes it, it is our scriptural imperative to submit to giving back to the government what is foremost rightly theirs to begin with. The images on the bills in my bank account are not mine. As I tell my students, unless your picture is on the currency and you printed it yourself, it does not belong to you. If the government wants some of its money “back” to do with it what it pleases, it can and we must heed. It’s not “our” money, Frank. It’s the government’s. It is God who gives the increase, not the Federal Reserve. Call me a raging, unpatriotic liberal if you wish, but such a stance wasn’t popular when Jesus responded to the question either. This is where I stand on it.
We have perhaps much more in common regarding Christian education, though. I’m not in a public school. I don’t think I’ll ever go back. But I’m nowhere near able to make a declaration that such an institution is anathema for Christians in general.
As far as children being “ready” to engage the world, that’s God’s job. He knows when they are. David? He didn’t even take the king’s armor. No one thought he could slay Goliath. And God ordains praise out of the mouths of babes and infants. Just last night at our open house, I watched a little boy about 6 lifting his hands in praise to the Lord during worship. He was by himself, uninhibited. It spoke to me. I know I do not have that freedom. But I will not soon forget the image of that little guy.
And in church a few weeks ago, a little toddler came racing down my aisle with a dollar in each fist, wanting to put the money in the basket. He was so excited and eagerly put one bill in at a time, right in front of me. I hung my head in shame. I could not have had a more concise lesson about the nature of joyful giving had God spoken to me in person.
Anyhow, class is about to start in a bit, but there’s where I stand for now. I don’t know if that answered any or all of your thoughts or worsened the confusion you may have about my beliefs about God and government and education.
Report comment to moderator
As far as Christian education goes, I believe I was called to it, but also sense my horrid inadequacy to fulfill that calling to the glory of God.
But regardless of what I may feel, I do know it’s now my job at least for this year to attempt to build within the students a knowledge of history and English upon a foundation of Scripture and truth.
I realize this cannot be given full breadth or scope in a public school. But public schools cannot and will not ultimately trump God getting His Word to those to whom He’s foreordained, elected and chosen. There are scholars, scientists, theologians, authors, missionaries, out there in classrooms of all shapes, sizes, denominations, private or public, whom God will touch, use and enlighten for His glory, regardless of their present learning environment.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone (see my school at CCAGRANBURY.COM). He is Lord of Creation, sustaining and working His will through it all (Genesis 1, John 1, Hebrews 1). I’ve tried resting more in His sovereignty regarding “other” forms of education while at the same time learning and growing in how to best teach from a perspective of Christian truth.
I’m in an ideal setting – small class sizes, a Chrisitan environment, teaching subjects I enjoy, but life is far from perfect even within the ideal. There are still struggles here at CCA with students and this teacher for one. Some parents this year have headed back into the forray of public education for various and sundry reasons and I do not judge them for it. I cannot.
Anyhow, Frank, I’m not trying to tear you down in argumentation, I’m just expressing my current and very limited understanding of God, government and education. I have not yet arrived at a point of full and complete comprehension of how the Spirit works in and through it all (John 3).
Sincerely,
OH
Report comment to moderator
And just a BTW –
As I understand the history of education in our nation, it was a zealous community of Puritan legislators which created the first cumpulsory education laws in the Americas.
The Old Deluder Satan act of the late 1600’s I think it was. So for what its worth, Christian heritage of our culture includes mandatory education.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!