The whole point of putting our kids in these schools was to take full advantage of the ‘caring christ-centered environment’ not to mention their bold statements that ‘parents are the main educators of their children and the school is acting to support them in their endeavours’, all of which they assiduously promote in their advertising literature. What we encountered was a toxic environment which would rival any in the State-run system. In the end, at the last school, we outlined why we could no longer support the school or the school board, or the ‘system’ by which they dealt with bullying. The board announced that because we had breached the ‘parent support contract’ which we signed when we enroled our kids (?), we were no longer welcome at the school. They completely ignored the issues which had led to the statement of no confidence in the first place. Apparently it was all in the wording. They forced our kids to leave with one term to go before the end of the year (we had already handed in our notice of intention to remove our kids at the end of the year) and gave them no time to say goodbye to their friends or even collect their schoolwork. The board showed no concern for our kids or ourselves since we had apparently committed the unforgiveable sin. Their response when we asked them to reconsider was that we had signed the ‘parent support contract’ and the situation was now untenable for them.. Their attitude to bullying and abuse is – deny it exists, and punish the parents who speak up by subjecting them to a pointless and frustrating round of ‘talks’ or as they put it ‘due process’. We spent 18 months talking, emailing, interviewing and phoning and ultimately ended up right where we started. ‘You are the only ones complaining and we can’t see a problem’. At one point we were lectured on the school’s ‘commitment to the Matthew 18 approach’. There was no commitment to any genuine faith-based relating, no desire to recognise problems (despite actually admitting to them ‘off the record’) and no accountability from senior, or junior members of staff to the parents who pay them.

If this had been an isolated problem, we would be willing to try again, but we have over the years tried four different christian schools, and the attitudes have been similar in all of them. Three of those schools were run by traditional religious bodies, the other was run by a large pentecostal mega-church. We were appalled by the general attitude of parents in these schools that teachers were beyond reproach because they were christians, and they would no sooner think of questioning the status quo than questioning God himself.

I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘appropriate christian education’ (see Stratkey’s comment). I am more and more convinced that buying education based on its Christian orientation is too much akin to Simon the magician looking to buy the Holy Spirit. What were we thinking? You can’t buy membership into the body of Christ, you can’t buy protection from the world, since Jesus himself told us we would have tribulation and the world would hate us. Our protection is our relationships, and our relationships need to be based on speaking the truth, admitting sin and showing genuine compassion. If we are looking to give our kids some kind of immunity from the world, we are looking in the wrong place. God himself, and our relationship with him, is our strong and mighty tower, and we are meant to be the salt of the earth. It might seem obvious,, but salt doesn’t do a good job if it sits around in a big clump congratulating itself that at least our kids are going to have a better time of it whan we did. We are called to be witnesses and to be lights, and yes, we need to get together to support each other, but lets recognise what is happening in our so called ‘christian’ institutions.

When I read this, the first thought I had was, what ever happened to “train the child in the way he should go, and in his old age he will not depart from it?” Another way to say that is of course, what does appropriate Christian education look like?

I think what you are hearing in some of the caustic comments is the terrible disappointment and falling out of sincere Christians once heavily socialized by the ‘church’ sub-culture.

The position, at least as it seems to be professed here, seems to be a assuming protectionism as the underlying philosophy of education of all Christian educational institutions (CEI) and I think that this is an error. Firstly, it is not just CEI that seek to protect (from something) or even indoctrinate (with some particular system of values) through controlled environments and activities. Under this list could be added some public school systems, governmental programs or projects, communities (intentional or otherwise), and even families.

Secondly, to assume that all forms of CEI operate under a protectionist philosophy is in error. I think that, at least, it could be gathered that some operate or strive to operate under a preparatory philosophy or even to facilitate the students ability to freely engage the world and its ideas while having the freedom to similarly engage Christianity (something which is not encouraged or even allowed in public school systems).

Finally, this is more a personal comment, I have been disappointed by the obvious antagonism or hostility shown in some of the above comments. I don’t think Yoder intends to affect such caustic dialogue but rather constructive discussion between what seem to be several well-intentioned believers who obviously desire what is best for the Church and Christ’s witness in the world.

I distinctly remember attending an all-christian event in which we discussed who would be allowed to participate. Pretty much everyone agreed no Catholics should be allowed in so we left the meeting, and instantly became the liberals as we walked out.

I’m sure everyone has their own dreadful tales, but having served in a similar way, you have my sympathies.

But I can’t help agreeing with a number of others here that Yoder seems inconsistent in the way he approaches ‘the world’.

If the miracle of the gospel can occur in public schools, then why can’t it occur in John Updike’s world of investment banks and country clubs?

I’m reminded of Karl Barth’s pithy swipe: “All reformers are Pharisees.” (Coincidentally, that’s from the same page in the Romans commentary on which Barth takes a shot at Thomas Munzer.)

I just think that Yoder has presented a false situation. I don’t think my desire to avoid certain situations necessarily means that I believe in a determinism that is going to destroy my kids if exposed . . . they will be (the only way to not be is to leave this world, per “Paul in Corinthians”).

What if I believe part of the “mediation” that “pulls people out of the power of this world” is partly associated with Christian educational institutions (even with all there faults — so the church). Maybe the Lord uses “broken” situations and people to minister His life (II Cor 4:10) into theirs.

So Yoder is probably attacking a blind-idealism that is typically attendant to much of Christendom . . .

So I wonder what Yoder would’ve thought about Children’s education (the only reason I’m stuck on this is because I have children who aren’t adolescent yet)?

But I think the point really is that if we truly believe in the gospel, we do not need to fear the power of the world’s ability to indoctrinate. He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world.

That’s why I think you’re knee-jerk response of incredulity and fear betrayed something there. The fear of the world in its power of persuasion runs deep (in myself as well), but that fear is counter to our confession of the gospel I think. And I think Yoder helpfully gestures towards this fact.

I mean, intentionally trying to avoid shielding kids from the world and cajole them into accepting our faith by default is one thing. Tossing them in a bedroom with a couple hookers and seeing where things go at age 13 is something else. Yoder’s clearly advocating that latter but not the former. That’s all.

This “context of choice” would by no means mean seeking to place the young person in temptation, or deliberately seeking for him an unwholesome environment. . . .

He seems circular. He assumes that there is an “wholesome” environment over-against “unwholesome” ones; in order to say that we shouldn’t “create” artificially “wholesome” environments for our kids to develop within.

I can accept the “macro” assumptions that Yoder is speaking out of; i.e. that the Gospel is all powerful. But this remains too generalized, with no nuance . . . I’ll have to read the rest of that quote you provide here, when I have the chance. Btw, you didn’t really deal with what “I” said. My question revolved more around “children’s” education vs. adolescence (which is what Yoder is speaking too, apparently).

You don’t think it’s prudent to send young impressionable kids to people who are “anti-Gospel,” do you? There is nothing about doubting the power of the Gospel, or naively assuming a deterministic ethic involved in this question; if that’s the case, then heck live and let live (I just don’t see the “Gospel” advocating such a “passive” stance — but so is ana-Baptist[ism]).

——-

Just read the quote. I think, in general, I agree with what Yoder is saying; but again, I think there needs to be more nuance (situational) provided towards the end he is aiming at (so maybe I just need to read his book on this). There are many assumptions that he is assuming: i.e. that the child has a nurturing Christian home, that the parents can provide the “critical” feedback needed for their kids, that there is more than “one” determinism at work here, etc.

The stuff he is talking about really is no different than what Paul Little speaks of in re. to guarding against an “indoctrination faith” or “inherited faith.” And I agree, we need to guard against this; I just don’t think one determinism (public education) vs. another (Christian education) is the problem (more a symptom). In fact if the church was being the church para-church ministries (which Christian education is) would not be necessary; so couldn’t it be argued that the primary mediators of the Gospel, the Church, in their failure, need to be “helped” by the church (Christian education) to provide an actual “Gospel-shaped atmosphere” wherein kids can indeed thrive and engage the kind of critical feedback loop that Yoder is calling for in the first place?

Here’s one comment made by our youngest, at 17. He was watching an R rated movie, with nasty language, promiscuity, violence with an obviously nilhistic plot. I questioned him and suggested that this trash was worthless.

His response: “Dad, I’ve grown up in a pretty healthy family. I know how you guys think and what your values are. I really don’t understand how a lot of other people think, and I want to try to understand others.”

A pretty quick comeback. I was impressed and silenced.