Dr. Frank Page: A Strong Voice of Reason in the Education Debate

Dr. Page has sought to clarify his stance on the proposed education resolution authored by Voddie Baucham and Bruce Shortt. Dr. Page's name is mentioned six times in the resolution and today he issued a statement clarifying his position on schooling issues.

"I am pastor of a church that has strong support for home schoolers and their families," Page said. "Many in my church go to Christian schools. Two of my three daughters graduated from Christian schools. However, I also support those who feel led to continue their children in public school education. I strongly support those Christian men and women who teach in our public schools and our young people who are seriously considering the teaching profession as a possible calling of God. Basically, I support a parent's right to decide where their children should be educated. There are many crucial issues involved. Parents must be very careful about where they place their children. They must carefully seek the leadership of the Lord in this important matter. I am also deeply concerned about those in our society who cannot afford to either home school (because of work schedules) or place their children in Christian education because of the costs. This is a serious issue to me.

Amen.

Education Resolution Redux

My post on the education resolution to be brought to the SBC in San Antonio this June stimulated a great response and my friend Les and I discussed the "do-ability" of this resolution. I suspect I came off as a dreamer, anticipating that churches could work together, pool resources, and make such a proposal work over the course of several, even many years. Les took the opposite tact and remains a bit skeptical. He said in the comment thread, "Unfortunately, it would take some very unselfish churches to accomplish it. It grieves my heart to say this but I don't see that many unselfish SBC churches around."

After mulling it over for a day, Les is probably right. There are not very many unselfish churches around; a sad indictment but one that is nonetheless true. After a thread's worth of discussion, I also became doubtful and I tend to be fairly optimistic. However, E. Ray Moore, outspoken proponent of pulling out of public schools, also dreams of a day when such a proposal may work. He is quoted in a recent World Net Daily article,

Moore told WND that for the most part, there would be nothing simpler than Christians creating a parallel school system.

"The resources are there," he said. "Church buildings lie fallow five days a week, so the buildings are there. The people are there. The children are there. Budgets are in place in churches. In many cases there are Christian public school teachers who could come over. Everything is there, in place, available, right now as I speak."

Add to that the availability of Internet, satellite and other course options, and there you have a school, he said.

"But they do not have a biblical theology and the will to do it," he said.

Well, there you have it.

As far as declaring that the current problem is a theological one, he may be hermeneutically off-base. He quotes Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." He then claims that many Christians are disobedient to Scripture because this command includes education. He goes on to say,

"This should be part of their witness, along with Bible study, faithful attendance, and tithing [Oh my!]," Moore said. "That's what we're teaching. That's sort of made us a little different. We're teaching this as part of biblical obedience."

That "Oh my!" was from me. I won't argue that he is probably right about churches possessing the wherewithal to accomplish such a monumental task, but here is where I would like to open this up for discussion. Where do you see flaws in Moore's reasonings, if any?

The Three R's: Reading Writing, and Revelation?

Should the Bible be included in America's classrooms? At least this is what one professor thinks. Stephen Prothero, chair of the religion department at Boston University, writes in an interesting piece, originally written for the LA Times. His take on this issue is from a purely practical standpoint, and honestly, a view I have yet to hear, yet one I fear. He claims that because biblical references saturate political speech, Americans need to bone up on their Bibles.

Biblical illiteracy is not just a religious problem. It is a civic problem with political consequences. How can citizens participate in biblically inflected debates on abortion, capital punishment or the environment without knowing something about the Bible? Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim — often incorrectly — that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality.

Prothero's solution to this societal ill is to begin teaching biblical literacy in the classroom. He claims that since the Bible is of foundational importance to Western civilization, that it would serve America well to have it taught from a neutral stance, simply as a cultural document. Because biblical references are commonly used in everyday speech in the public square, with little knowledge of why they are used or their origin, that:

What makes sense is one Bible course for every public high-school student in the U.S. This is not a Christian proposal. It does not serve the political left or the political right. It serves our young people and our public life.

So what do I fear? Fretfully, this: should (or could) the Bible be taught simply as a cultural document, for biblical literacy's sake, in public schools? Is that even possible? One thing Mr. Prothero does get right is this:

Yet U.S. citizens know almost nothing about the Bible. Although most regard it as the word of God, few read it anymore. Even evangelicals from the Bible Belt seem more focused on loving Jesus than on learning what he had to say.