Crunchy Con

Salt, light and schooling

Monday June 18, 2007

One of the standard critiques of parents who opt out of public schools, either for private education or homeschooling, is that they're guilty of selfishness or other egocentric, anti-communitarian moral failure. If the parents are Christians, even other Christians will criticize them for abandoning their responsibility to be "salt and light." Writing in First Things, Sally Thomas, who sacrificed her daughter's well being for a time to a morally insane English public school, says nuts to all that. Excerpt:

The idea of sending a child daily into a hostile environment—if not actively hostile, as in bullying, then certainly philosophically hostile—expecting him not only to withstand assaults on everything his parents have told him is true but also to transform the entire system by his presence, seems sadly misguided to me. There may be many valid arguments for sending a child to school, but that one doesn’t wash.

In the Sermon on the Mount, in addition to the salt-and-light business, Jesus also tells the multitude, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” A child’s greatest treasure, to my mind, is his childhood itself. He has only one, and it’s over quickly enough. If we as parents invest that treasure in sex education that makes us cringe, history we know to be a lie, and busy work we recognize as meaningless, we should perhaps not be too surprised if at the end of the day these things, and not the things which are above, have claimed our children’s hearts.

If this sounds hyperbolic, consider the responses of students in an evangelical college here, in a class taught by one of my husband’s friends, who decided to poll the students on their views of Christian sexual morality. He was taken aback, to put it mildly, to discover that the sole moral conviction held by an overwhelming majority was that it was wrong for Christians to judge other people’s behaviors. “Sex is just a bodily function anyway,” one student said. Bear in mind that these students were self-described Christians, from Christian homes, who had chosen their college for its Christian environment. Somehow, in all their years of formation, they seemed to have missed the fairly crucial lesson that Christianity establishes clear guidelines regarding sex. That Christians should regard those guidelines as neither repressive nor even negotiable was right off the radar.

If, as a correspondent of mine has suggested, Christians are impotent in engaging with secular culture, perhaps the problem is not that too many of us have withdrawn from it but that too many have surrendered our cultural distinctiveness. If we urge our children to integrate into the secular mainstream, and it turns out instead that the secular mainstream is integrated into them, then what we end up with is, well, what we largely have: a generation that believes that Christianity is only about not being judgmental.

This strikes me as a weak position from which to influence anything. If we’re called to speak the truth in love, we have to do so from the locus of a distinct Christian culture, however microcosmic, that makes readily apparent what the truth actually is and that nurtures moral courage.

Hear, hear. Again, the Macintyrean question: At what point do people who wish to live by the old virtues decide that there's no future in being part of the mainstream, and secede (even if they secede in place?)

Advertisement
Comments
Christine
June 20, 2007 12:12 PM

That should have read we not "hide the light under a bushel basket.

Sorry about that.

Christine

Christine
June 20, 2007 12:54 PM

On obedience:

"We cannot have our own way when Our Lord points to a solution which goes contrary to our own best advisers, as we are not our own good doctors."
Francis Fernandez

Anduril
June 20, 2007 3:18 PM

Being obedient to your faith and being selfish generally are not mutually exclusive. The Vatican is not the state and therefore obedience to the church is not necessarily in the greater public interest.

May I infer then that you think obedience to the state IS necessarily in the public's best interest?

A Catholic would argue, of course, that obedience to the Church - that is, Christ - is ALWAYS in the state's best interest, even when that obedience is in conflict with the state's laws, or desired behavior of its citizens. A Catholic, for example, would argue that protection of the unborn is both immediately and ultimately in the best interest of the state, even though the state obviously "thinks" otherwise. This characteristic - elevating duty to Christ above duty to the state when these duties are in conflict - is one of the things the Roman Empire originally found objectionable about Christianity.

Anonymous
June 20, 2007 3:19 PM

To the other gripes about the new format, let me add mine about the loss of the preview utility.

Daniel
June 20, 2007 4:41 PM

"May I infer then that you think obedience to the state IS necessarily in the public's best interest?"

Obedience to the state is never in the public's best interest as a policy matter, unless you live under Communism or a theocracy.

What I am saying is obedience to the Vatican is not necessarily in the best interest of the U.S., for instance, given that 75% of people are not Catholic. Obedience to the Vatican's view on women, on contraception, on public health make perfect sense in the context of the church but can make for appallingly bad public policy if applied to a population that isn't Catholic.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.