Legalism and the Christian School Movement, Part 1

Introduction

Last May, discussion here at SI about Heritage Christian School in Findlay, OH and the senior who chose a public high school prom over his own graduation ceremony revealed a rift on the issue of legalism. The majority were certainly comfortable with the rule against students attending a high school prom. But some thought such rules were legalistic. While I have had some deep misgivings about the rules culture in Fundamentalist schools over the years, a recent three-year study of Luke helped me to crystallize my views on this. During this study, I spent much time reflecting on our Lord’s confrontations with the Pharisees.

At this moment, most of you want to skip this post. “Oh, it’s the old ‘all Fundies are Pharisees’ argument,” is what you’re probably thinking. Nothing could be further from my intentions. It’s clear to me that our Lord did not cause an enormous volume of His teachings against the Pharisees to be preserved for the ages merely to warn us about a sect that would be extinct by AD 136. These teachings serve as a warning to all of us who are “religious” (in the nicest sense of the word). Legalism is entrenched deep in our hearts. It is a strong tendency in all humanity, at one level or another. It is basic to all false religions and creeps into adherents of true religion unless we are very careful.

A further denial: My concerns about legalism being inherent in such rule structures are not intended as an affront to the school in Findlay or the associated church. The pastor of that church is an old friend of mine, and I have great trust in him. I am certain the school is administrated well and has a Scriptural reason for everything they do. I don’t believe Gordon Dickson is capable of anything less.

Thesis

While there are doubtless many fine Christian schools which do not operate in a legalistic fashion, I believe the majority of Christian schools operate with these three fallacious legalistic premises prominent in their thinking.

  1. Man-made rules that prevent violations of God’s rules have inherent spiritual value (which I will address here in Part 1).
  2. Rules promote godliness, in that behavior change leads to heart change.
  3. Enforcement of righteousness is valid and valuable as a first step to sanctification.

I will address Premises 2 and 3 in Part 2.

False Premise 1: Man-made rules that prevent violations of God’s rules have inherent spiritual value.

In Luke 6:1-11, Matthew 12:1-14, and Mark 2:23-3:6 we find two Sabbath stories. In each of these, the Pharisees posit that the disciples or Christ Himself have broken the Sabbath. A little background on the Sabbath teaching of the time reveals that the Jews had become obsessed with protecting people from working on the Sabbath, “work” being exactly what God had forbidden for the Sabbath day. When confronted with regulation, the legalistic nature of humanity seeks to understand exactly what it can get away with.

So the Jewish leaders had created a complex set of regulations to define what was work on the Sabbath. Lawyers could lose themselves in the fruit of this regulatory process for years.

  • “Fivel, throw me that dinner roll.” Is that work? If it is thrown in the house, no. If the roll is thrown from inside the house to the outside, yes.
  • Cooking? If the crust won’t be formed on the baked product by sundown Friday, don’t start! You would be causing work to be done.
  • On the Sabbath you can pour cold water into warm water but not warm water into cold. Increasing heat is causing work (an interestingly precise definition for work in a pre-scientific age).
  • You can move a chair to sit in, but if it makes a furrow in the dirt, then you have plowed—and that is work. So don’t drag it.
  • You cannot take a shower because the hot water might accidentally clean the floor, which would be work.

You see how the attempt to micro-define all work quickly ran out of control.

The leaders of the Jews were creating a seyag (fence) around the law. Their philosophy was that it was the proper role of spiritual leadership to fence the law to avoid violations. In the face of uncertainty about what might constitute work on the Sabbath, the Pharisees had set out to define it with fences, and then rigorously enforced their fence with the full weight of the original law.

It didn’t matter if you thought you were working on the Sabbath. Their fence had defined your activity as working on the Sabbath. Violating their fence made you a Sabbath breaker.

In the Luke passage, Jesus points out that the effect of their regulation actually contravened the Lord’s original intent. The effect of their fences would have left the disciples hungry on the Sabbath as they traveled, and would have left the man with the deformed hand still deformed! Thus the Sabbath, given as a blessing to man (Mark 2:27), would become a curse! The “Lord of the Sabbath” rejected this reasoning and declared the doing of good to be always right on the Sabbath.

Warnings against fences

In related passages our Lord warns against such fences. In Matthew and Mark, He says that the hearts of the people are far from Him, because they teach the commandments of men as though they were doctrine. He says this makes their worship vain (Matt. 15:7-9, Mark 7:6-9).

What would our Lord say about us in Fundamentalism, when we also make such substitutions? For instance, the Lord has forbidden a lustful heart. How can we tell if we are lusting? Pharisee-like, we take the easy way out. Rather than looking within ourselves moment by moment and communicating with our Lord about what our hearts hold, we make rules. We should not go to the beach. We should not go to the dance. That TV program is off-limits. And then we enforce such rules as though they are the fulfillment of our Lord’s desire that we not lust. Having kept such rules, we assure ourselves that we have fulfilled all righteousness on this topic. But we still find many consumed by lust. And as new avenues for lust open due to technology, we find ourselves racing to keep ahead with rules. For decades the Christian school student could not go to the dance. Now we find rules multiplying in some schools forbidding or limiting camera phones, Facebook, MySpace, Skype, etc. Can we possibly race ahead and create enough rules to protect everyone? No.

Instruction in what lust is, how to deal with it, how to flee it—all of these ought to be part of the instruction and discipleship process in every ministry. But rules that are extensions of the no-lust principle are no substitute for teaching, and for some, they prove a distraction from the core issue.

It seems inherent in Christ’s teaching to the Pharisees that such fencing of the law generates spiritual blind spots to what constitutes true righteousness. Decades of fencing the law has made it possible for the church-going Fundamentalist to hide his sin problem from everyone—even himself. Staying home from prom will not stop you from lusting if your heart is filled with lust. I leave it to you to decide if the converse is also true.

For too long, we have convinced ourselves that rules-based structures that fence the law can protect us from sinful hearts. Jesus’ teaching ought to be a warning to us that we are building a defective structure. There is not one kind word from Christ for such rules-based structures. He wants us to keep the real law of God—and is not particularly concerned about man’s add-ons. And He even identifies the keeping of the real laws of God as being a simple matter of the heart. Love of God first, and neighbors 2nd inherently puts one in the right frame of mind to keep all the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:35-40).

Creating a rules-based system to fence Christian righteousness has the potential to bring into play all of the negative results to which Christ refers. And how often have we seen that result in the lives of Christian school students? All too commonly true colors are revealed when the restrictive rules structure is removed after graduation. Such rules do not necessarily produce a spiritual result, and too often provide a cover for carnality.

I do not affirm that there is never a place for rules in the school setting. Functional rules are a necessity. Even spiritual rules (those associated with godliness) are probably a practical necessity for any institution. But we need to recognize the strong negatives that come associated with extra-biblical rules designed to “fence” God’s law. They are almost always counterproductive unless bundled to a discipleship program that instructs in their purpose. Even in the rare Scriptural instances when such fences around God’s law were erected by prophets or apostles, they were usually given in association with the underlying intent of our Lord. Barring this, such rule structures can become a quick shortcut that avoids the need to disciple the young person, teach true discernment, and produce values in the student as opposed to mere compliance without inward change. The goal should be to use such prom-like decision opportunities to teach a discernment process. Teaching this discernment should be one of the absorbing goals of all who are in roles of spiritual leadership, whether in home, school, or church.

Parenting concerns are outside the scope of this paper, but I would caution parents too. It is all too easy to succumb to the tendency to make submission to the rules the goal, rather than understanding of the underlying principle being the primary goal and submission only secondary.


Mike Durning has been the pastor at Mt. Pleasant Bible Church in Goodells, MI for 15 years. He attended Hyles-Anderson College, Midwestern Baptist Bible College and Bob Jones University over 8 years and somehow emerged with a mere bachelor’s degree. Despite this defective planning, he somehow believes himself to be informed enough to have something to say to others. He lives in Goodells with his wife Terri and 18 year old son, Ryan, dog Lindsey, and about 12 chickens that have wandered into his yard and like it better than the neighbor’s yard. Mike is flattered if you call him a “young fundamentalist,” since he is 46 and is prone to self-deception on such issues. If you see someone on the street who looks like the picture of Mike, but with gray hair, it probably is Mike.

Discussion

“Functional rules are a necessity. Even spiritual rules (those associated with godliness) are probably a practical necessity for any institution. But we need to recognize the strong negatives that come associated with extra-biblical rules designed to “fence” God’s law. They are almost always counterproductive unless bundled to a discipleship program that instructs in their purpose.”

This reminds me of Doug Wilson’s comment (in relationship to classical schooling) that we are not satisfied if children are simply obeying the standard. We only do our job when they love the standard. Wilson was speaking more in of academics, but it translates well to ethics as well. The challenge is to get students to understand the difference between convictions and standards, and to love/respect those standards that they may not choose for themselves. For that matter, I find that problem with a lot of us adults too.

Mike, I am looking forward to Part 2. This is a really needed discussion. Would you plan a Part 3 (if you are not already) which provides some thoughts on the proper development, place/purpose, and implementation of necessary fences?

I have quite a few thoughts on this series, and several points of disagreement, but I’m going to save most of them until after part 2 I think (which posts tomorrow).

For now, I’m certainly agreed that discipleship has not been successful if there is no understanding and if we do not develop discernment. And I can also attest that one of the four Christian schools I attended growing up probably was thinking along the lines Mike describes here—to the degree it was thinking at all.

I’ll also grant that complying with a fence rule—or any rule (there are many non-fence rules)—does not necessarily produce any actual growth in the individual who complies.

The case that triggered the series and the Christian schools scenario in general do provide an interesting real-world setting for thinking about sanctification, the application of Scripture, how authority works, the intrinsic value of submission (or lack thereof) and many other issues… and I’m taking a closer look at the Pharisees as well.

I will say that I have seen a bit of a backlash against the rules-emphasis of (mostly) the past that is, on balance, about equally damaging (though in quite different ways). More on that later.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Mike, thank you for this article. I think understanding the concept of “building a fence (or ‘hedge’) around the Torah” is extremely important as it ties in very closely with legalism, as you clearly pointed out.

In Mishnah Pirkei Avot, we see the concept of building a hedge around the Torah as one of the most important things passed down from Moses:
Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah. (Ch. 1.1, http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html)
I, too, have some questions about the application of this, however. As you fully recognize, no organization can exist without rules. And legalism has nothing to do with how many or how few rules an organization has.

So I’m looking forward to the next part as you continue to explain your perspective.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

BTW, the following is Jewish Commentary on Mishnah Pirkei Avot that seems to have some relevance to the matter at hand:
The Great Assembly foresaw the coming deterioration of the intellectual ability of the people as they lost their involvement with wisdom was diminishing. As a doctor prescribes a remedy for a weakening organ to supplement what the organ is missing, the Great Assembly wanted to prescribe a remedy for the deteriorating grasp of wisdom that was beginning to develop.

A lack of knowledge and intellectual achievement within the Jewish people exhibits itself in three ways.

1. A breakdown in the civil judicial system which governs personal disputes. A judge needs to understand the fundamental principles of the laws, in order to reach a proper verdict. This understanding depends on an intuitive logic which is necessary to properly apply the general principles written explicitly in the Torah.

2. A deterioration in the quality of Torah scholarship, the more theortical dimension of Torah study.

3. A defeciency in a person’s observance of Mitzvot, where a permitted activity can mistakenly lead him to a forbidden activity (i.e when he sees it is permitted to cook chicken with milk, he will mistakenly think it is also permitted to cook meat with milk).

The instructions of the Great Assembly to the Jewish people at this time was to correct these three problems. In response to a deteriorating judicial system, they advised “Be deliberate and reserved in judgement.” In response to a deterioration in the quality of Torah study they advised “Establish a large cadre of students,” since an increase in the number of students nurtures clarity in Torah study. In order that commandments shouldn’t be violated in practice, they advised “Make a fence around the Torah,” in order to ensure proper observance of the Torah itself.

These three elements also encompass the three broad categories of the population. There are the leaders, who are responsible for correct judgements affecting the community, and their potential deficiency is being addressed with “Be deliberate in judgement.” Those involved chiefly in the study of Torah are admonished “Establish a cadre of students” which will ensure improved learning of the Torah. The third category are those of the community who aren’t involved in study, and they require fences around the Halacha, due to their lack of clarity. The Anshe Knesset Hagedolah saw that every group of the nation was deteriorating, and they made declarations to address the needs of each group.

The inclusion of the number, three, is also significant. (Since the Rabbis knew that we know how to count, the Maharal is always bothered when they have to tell me the number explicitly.) Firstly, the number implies that these declarations are all inclusive, because they encompass every category of the nation.

On a deeper level, these declarations were to rectify deficiencies of the “sechel,” the intellectual/spiritual dimension of man. This dimension of wisdom includes three levels, “chochma”, “binah” and “da’at.” “Chochma” refers to basic facts, and our grasp of the principles underlying these facts. “Binah” is our ability to generate new information from these facts and the underlying principles. “Da’at” is knowing how to apply this information in practice. (There are a number of ways to understand the breakdown of these three levels of wisdom. We will be touching on this a number of times, from a number of different perspectives.) These admonishments are to rectify each of these three levels of wisdom.

Grasping the underlying principes of specific facts is something that requires “svarah,” intuitive logic, which is the major intellectual component necessary for a judge to render wise judgements. “Be deliberate in judgement” instructs us to ensure that our basic analysis is logical and straight.

“Binah,” generating new Torah insights and information, comes from sophisticated intellectual inquiry and discussion. The antidote for a deterioration in this area is increasing the number of students involved in Torah study, thereby increasing the give-and-take and (hopefully) minimizing incorrect conclusions.

For people who lack “da’at,” not knowing exactly how to behave in practice, fences around the letter of the law will ensure that they not violate the actual law itself. (http://torah.org/learning/maharal/p1m1part2.html)

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Mike,

I really appreciate this article. I feel that this is an important discussion. Christian schools must do a better job at discipling students and getting them to live with an inward motivation of pleasing God rather than the outward rules restrictions.

Maybe you will address this later, but as I look at the Scripture, although I see some “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots”, I see many principles that help govern my spiritual walk. These principles are not specific and therefore need to applied via the Holy Spirit to my Christian walk. Furthermore, each person’s application of these principles differ from another’s. As I look at many of Christian educations non-funtional rules, they appear to be someone’s application of principles from the Word. Should we avoid this? If so, how do we avoid this? And, if we do away with many rules in Christian Schools, how can we govern behavior at these schools? All of these are questions that I have been re-thinking recently.

Thanks again for generating this discussion. I am looking forward to the next article and the discussions to follow.

Doesn’t exactly look like they are trying to figure out “what they can get away with” does it?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Mike, thanks for talking about a question normally verbotten in fundamentalism. I have spent some time thinking critically about the concept of “en loco parentis” in higher education, but after reading this I think my real problem is not with “en loco” per se. Rather I should be questioning the underlying issue: do structures of rules actually encourage Christlikeness?

If rule structures do not have inherent spiritual value, then we have to judge their worth by their utility. How effective are they at encouraging Christlikeness? Here is the rub. If we define Christlikeness primarily as an external set of behaviors, then preventing a high schooler from acting out their sin is justified. But if we define Christlikeness primarily as a heart relationship with the Savior, then preventing a high schooler from acting out their sin does little to promote true Christlikeness.

As with any policy, rule structures can fall prey to the “law of unintended consequences.” Not only may rule structures fail to promote true Christlikeness, they may also have bad side effects. Some kids (here is my personal struggle in high school) may struggle with implicit legalism, judging their relationship with God by how well they obey the school’s rules. Other kids will have their sinful hearts cloaked by their good behavior, thus preventing their sin from seeing the light of day where it might have been confronted with the gospel. Others might end up equating the gospel with external conformity, react against the unfairness of being held to what they believe is a manmade standard of righteousness, and flee Christianity altogether.

There is another common justification for rule structures that you might want to address: we need to protect our young people from scarring their lives with the consequences of their sin. This argument raises important questions about the sovereignty of God.

Anywho, Mike, thanks for taking on a hard topic in a gracious, self-effacing manner.

[Paul Matzko]

As with any policy, rule structures can fall prey to the “law of unintended consequences.” Not only may rule structures fail to promote true Christlikeness they may also have bad side effects. Some kids (here is my personal struggle in high school) may struggle with implicit legalism, judging their relationship with God by how well they obey the school’s rules.
Thank you for bringing up the overlooked victims - the naturally compliant. I will illustrate with a close friend of mine from BJU. She was raised in a very conservative Fundamentalism by good Christian parents whose parenting philosophy is heavy on ready obedience, submission to authority, and serving others. She grew up being good at doing good things for others and not being very attracted to most flagrant sins. She was known as “the good kid” in high school. Parents would tell their children, “Be like her.”

BJU was not that big of a shock for her. She was used to having most areas of her life mapped out by others and didn’t resent the rules structure. In fact, it was somewhat comforting. It wasn’t until a ways into her college experience that she realized something was wrong. She fell into a group of friends (not all ministry studies people) who were very ardently studying Scripture and examining their faith, and she didn’t have a clue what she was doing. She didn’t know how to explain the Trinity, or how to show that Jesus was God. Despite a lifetime of Christian schooling, she couldn’t take a passage of Scripture, read it, and understand it. In fact, the Bible confused her and when she did read it, it was because she was supposed to and not because she actually expected to understand it. She picked her church not because she agreed with its principles (or even knew what they were), but because she knew someone there. She had zero formed opinions on politics or larger society, because that was all “out there.” She didn’t understand why her friends were even interested in these things. Despite all this, she was a prayer captain (spiritual leader of a group of dorm rooms) and had filled in for her society chaplain. Why did people turn to her for spiritual leadership? Because she followed the rules and encouraged others to do so.

OK, why did I take all that space to paint that picture? Because I think that most of SI, at least those who post, are by natural disposition analytical and creative thinkers. We’re compelled by some inner force to think about all kinds of things and scrutinize, hypothesize, idealize, etc. However, there are a lot of people in our churches and in our schools who aren’t geared that way. They don’t want to do the hard work of developing their own convictions; they want prepacked convictions. They don’t want a challenging, missional environment; they like everyone around them acting and believing the same way they do. They don’t want to examine the doctrines and teachings of the Bible or to be skillful in using it; they want teachers to spoon-feed them answers, preferably in a “do this” format. Some people actually really like black and white lists of “do this, don’t do that.”

I think many discussions of rules in schools have focused on the rebellious kids and have ignored the often unwitting victims. A homogenous environment heavily padded with rules often allows a person (child or adult) to live on autopilot. Their discernment atrophies. Their knowledge of the Bible is reduced to a handful of memorized verses, often John 3:16 and (of course) rules. They are unable to spiritually lead their families, except for “Be a good little boy.” In churches, they might be willing volunteers (they love being given tasks!), but certainly aren’t capable of discipling anyone, and their mouths will occasionally betray just how biblically uninformed their worldviews are. Evangelistically, they are useless, because they are extremely uncomfortable around anyone who doesn’t live by the same rules they do. By that same token, they are very distrustful of Christians who live differently than they do, even in rather peripheral areas. Others make them feel insecure in their own choices, which are vaguely justified as “what God wants me to do.” The irony is that most of these people see themselves as “pretty good Christians” because, after all, they don’t have any big black marks on their record.

OK, I acknowledge that I’ve presented something of a worst-case scenario. However, I think it’s crucial for us to note that rebellion isn’t the only form of spiritual weakness, and that the good intentions of rule-makers can lead to an artificially “safe” environment where Christians let their guard down and drift into an oblivious daydream.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Again, I’m looking forward to the rest of the series. I’m especially interested in what Mike is arguing FOR. It’s very easy to argue against legalistic rules and argue for focusing on the heart. I whole-heartedly agree with that perspective!

But is it always either/or, or should it be both/and? Are there any parents among us who have no rules? I will strive to “shepherd the heart” of my children (to borrow from Ted Tripp), but I also recognize that the responsibility of the shepherd is to protect them from danger.

I’ve always chafed when people discuss whether or not we should “shelter” our children. Usually people argue against “sheltering” our children from the world. A “shelter” is an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Hopefully if you are under a shelter at the park when it begins raining, none of the rain will touch you because the shelter keeps it all out. (Another analogy that’s sometimes used is “bubble”.) If it’s a question of shelter or no shelter, I fully agree that we should NOT shelter our children from the world…Paul said if we want to disassociate from sinful people, we’d have to leave the world!

But I prefer the analogy of “filtering” rather than “sheltering.” We don’t “shelter” our car engine from motor oil because motor oil has harmful particles; no, we use an oil filter to filter out those particles while allowing the oil into the engine. There are some things that need to be filtered out of my children’s lives. Whether this is “building a hedge around the Law” or not, I don’t know. But hopefully at the same time I’m teaching them biblical principles to address these harmful aspects of the world so that when they are on their own they can make wise decisions.

As someone whose parents have devoted their lives to Christian school education, who graduated from a Christian school, who serves at church that has a Christian school, and whose children attend a Christian school, I’m very interested to hear how we can apply these principles to the Christian school environment.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

I too find this article, and hopefully the next one, interesting.

Greg Long, and perhaps others, maybe the issue is with schools trying to develop spirituality when that primarily rests upon parents and the church. And a school should primarily seek to educate the mind, not the heart. Of course, I am not arguing for no overlap within a Christian school, just perhaps the Christian school has taken on too much ‘education’ of the heart, and in some cases, to the neglect of the mind which should be their primary objective.

Just a thought…

Dear friends,

Thanks for your kind words and questions. I’m on the run today, but will respond to the questions tonight after prayer meeting, Lord willing.

Mike Durning

[Daniel] I too find this article, and hopefully the next one, interesting.

Greg Long, and perhaps others, maybe the issue is with schools trying to develop spirituality when that primarily rests upon parents and the church. And a school should primarily seek to educate the mind, not the heart. Of course, I am not arguing for no overlap within a Christian school, just perhaps the Christian school has taken on too much ‘education’ of the heart, and in some cases, to the neglect of the mind which should be their primary objective.

Just a thought…
Boy, Daniel, I’m not sure I agree with that at all. Parents delegate, in part, to the Christian school the education of their children. Although the parents should never abrogate their responsibility to train the heart of the child (and the problem is that many, indeed, do so), neither should the Christian school only focus on educating the mind but not the heart.

I don’t know that we can separate those aspects of a person out, anyway. Jesus said we are to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Jesus grew in wisdom, in stature, and in favor with God and with men. Both of these verses show us how closely intertwined are the intellectual and spiritual aspects of man.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

For me, discussions like this one center on what we believe is more important when raising our children: moralism or true spirituality. Moralism views proper behavior as the ultimate goal; true spiritually views proper belief as the ultimate goal.

Christian schools whose focus is heavy on behavior and light on belief, or who confuse the two, are teaching moralism instead of true spirituality.

Here are some good thoughts by Mohler on the difference:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/09/03/why-moralism-is-not-the-gospel-a…

There is no way anyone can judge most rules as good or bad unless they know the spirit and context in which it is administered. Rules without a relationship almost always lead to rebellion. True! But many rules, if done properly, can save a child from a lifetime of sin and darkness. Do any of you want this hanging on your shoulder as preachers or teachers of the gospel because your concerned that it might be legalistic? The word legalism is thrown around so loosely these days and often times it is used to water down scripture and disable the messenger. There is a balance and discernment that must be carefully applied. What I often see and hear is those that have a grievance with the KJVO crowd and want to distance themselves from them, but in the process, justify an incorrect view of scripture.

martin

Greg, That is not what I said, nor was implying. I was not saying that a Christian school cannot teach spirituality, which is why I used terms like primarily when discussing the responsibility to teach spirituality, which implies a secondary and perhaps tertiary group of people that are or can be responsible. And I also said I am not arguing for no overlap.

I was saying, in some cases, Christian schools have teaching spirituality as their primary purpose to the neglect, in many cases, of educating the mind, when it should be parents and the church that primarily teach spirituality. Can there be overlap? Of course, and I think as a Christian school it is only proper that there is. But when a school has as its primary purpose, in writing or in deed, the development of spirituality to the neglect of developing their intellect, I think something is wrong.

In the end, I am pretty sure you and I agree, and at this point I think we might be just arguing over word choice and things not spelled out in scripture. i.e. schools in general and what their primary and secondary objectives are and how close they are to each other.