Revisiting a Minefield--Part 2

What do we learn from Scripture?

At the crux of the teaching in Scripture about child training (What is education if it is not this?) are two truths:

1)  It is primarily a parental responsibility.
2)  It must be undertaken with the goal of leading children to learn to love and serve God and others.

Hillary Clinton famously quoted an African proverb by saying "It takes a village to raise a child."  While there is certainly some truth in the saying, note that this is not a Bible verse.  It would, in fact,  be closer to Scripture to say, "It takes parents to raise a child," and it can be done well on a lonely farm as well as in a bustling village.  It's reasonable to conclude, however, that if parents are unable to do so, the "village" helps out.  In a Christian context, this is one of the ways people in a brotherhood can help bear each other's burdens.

Child training instructions in Scripture are always directed to parents.  Delegation of this responsibility is never commanded, and possibly never mentioned. From this I conclude that no matter what else varies in educational approaches, all of them must be built on this foundation :  The education of children is primarily a parental responsibility.  Note that it is not a state responsibility or a church responsibility--not primarily, at least.  When people come together in an educational effort without this understanding, the door opens to all manner of wasted effort, misunderstanding, and disillusionment.  This matter encompasses one of the systemic changes I believe are necessary if our church education programs are to continue effectively.  People simply must understand that when the question is "Who is primarily responsible for the teaching of children?" there is only one correct answer, and it is not the church and it is not the state.

Note that I am not saying that delegation is always wrong.  I am simply saying that it is not the default understanding taught in Scripture.

When the New Testament talks about the teaching that happens when Christians are gathered, it's  in the context of activities like worship, working together in an evangelism effort, in fellowship, or for the purpose of relating to other believers--encouraging, teaching, challenging, etc.--adult to adult interactions, in other words. Never is there an account given of children gathering in groups to be taught by adult Christians.  Jesus Himself, when the children came to him, did not teach them.  He touched them, received them, and blessed them.  Then he taught his disciples, while the children presumably went back to their parents.  

Jesus modeled discipling (training in loving and serving God and others)--the second foundational necessity in understanding Biblical child training--not by asking those who followed him to enroll in a discipleship class.  Instead, he walked with them, worked with them, lived with them, and taught along the way.  This way of teaching is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 6:7, where God says to His children, speaking of the commandments of the Lord:  "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up."  (KJV)  I don't see much here that describes a typical classroom scene.  This context for teaching and learning is clearly everyday home life--relaxing indoors, traveling or moving about in the course of working, going to sleep, getting up. 


How can the understanding that parents are primarily responsible for their children's education make a difference in a church's educational program?  All kinds of ways.  Only one predictable effect will be mentioned now:  Where parents have already taken up the primary burden of child training themselves, without automatic recourse to delegating it, people regard classroom schooling in ways that make a profound difference.  To summarize, there is no sense of entitlement among parents and students who access the services in a classroom school.  In its place is a profound sense of gratitude.   Parents feel the lifting of a burden they have already wrestled with and found too heavy to bear. Students who have regularly struggled to master difficult material on their own know how valuable a teacher's help is, and they appreciate all the help they get.  Students and parents will express gratitude regularly to the classroom teachers.  Students will respond eagerly to what they are taught.  They will do whatever they're asked to do without complaint.  Teachers will feel appreciated and affirmed, and not taken advantage of unfairly, or treated with disrespect and even disdain.  This is a huge and essential shift from business-as-usual in a classroom school.  It's as dramatic as a shift from a "welfare mentality" to a sense of personal responsibility and gratitude.  


I know whereof I speak--both from the standpoint of a homeschooling parent and a classroom teacher.  I have taught dozens of homeschooled students in a classroom setting where they have come for one class at a time--to join others who are full-time classroom students.  I have also felt deep gratitude for what other Godly teachers, men especially, could pour into my boys' minds and lives when their own father and I could simply not manage the course material or find the necessary time to do so ourselves.  


Regarding child training, the central truths to be conveyed to children are commonly understood in our circles, I believe.  Primary parental responsibility for doing so?  Not so much.  In this matter, there is widespread selective and very uneven application--only until age six, for example.  Until then, God forbid that any of it should be "farmed out."  After then, "farming out" child training is often regarded as the default, and sometimes becomes a church requirement.  Lord, have mercy!  I'm still praying that someday I will hear primary parental responsibility taught from the pulpit and see a program designed that proceeds from this fundamental principle.

(To be continued)