Spotlight on the “Radical Home School Movement”
Spotlight on the “Radical Home School Movement”
From time to time it is necessary to investigate certain movements and their teaching so that we are not unwittingly drawn into falsehood through a gateway that seems helpful and wholesome. This is not to say that we are to spend all our time defining what we are against, rather than what we are for - or to live our lives in haughty criticism of anything except what we are doing. However, it is vital to continually compare every idea and trend of evangelicalism to the truth of the Word in order to determine its value. Thus, today, I would like to do a very brief investigation of the extreme edges of the homeschooling movement which has taken the church by storm.
I am a “home school dad”. Or more accurately, I am a father who enthusiastically supports all the time and effort my wife puts into homeschooling our kids. Yes, I oversee the process, take on some portions of the teaching load, and even grade papers as often as possible. But make no mistake, my wife is the workhorse of our homeschooling world!
With my enthusiasm for homeschooling stated, and credit given where it is due, I must also say that I have some grave concerns about where the homeschooling movement in general is headed. What started out as an excellent alternative to either public or private schooling is starting to take on oppressive and all consuming overtones. I am not concerned with homeschooling in general, but am speaking of what I have chosen to call the “radical home school movement” (hereafter referred to as the RHM), those who have taken the concept of homeschooling and used it as a centerpiece for an entire worldview. Buzzwords for this movement include, “family integrated,” “high priest of the home,” “biblical patriarchy,”and “courtship,” just to name a few.
At first glance the “home school worldview” appears biblically based, but when examined more closely there are some major reasons for concern. In this post I would like to examine the appeal of this movement, deal with some issues that are of concern doctrinally, consider a biblical response, and offer a proposal.
Reasons for Appeal
First, the appeal of the movement is that it draws upon some powerful Biblical truths. This movement honors Biblical roles of men and women, calling on men to be the spiritual leaders of the home who love their wives and are actively involved in designing the household in a way that honors God. There is a great emphasis on the importance of the nuclear family as a vital component of both society and the church and a strong encouragement for parents to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Additionally, many in this movement have a high view of the church and church leadership, seeing godly oversight by a plurality of elders as the best model for a healthy congregation. In fact, much in this movement is a response to the bad example of the modern church with its purpose driven programs, CEO style leadership, and worldly youth and children’s ministries. The vast majority of those in the RHM affirm the inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture.
Potential Doctrinal Problems
It is not my purpose in this post to provide an in-depth biblical analysis of each of the errors inherent in the RHM, but to paint them with a broad brush in order to provide warning and prompt careful, Biblical thought. Not everyone involved in the more extreme edges of the homeschool movement has succumbed to the errors below, but many are moving in that direction.
1. Unbiblical view of how the church impacts society
Perhaps the most dangerous error of this movement revolves around their view of how the church impacts society.
a) Theonomy/Reconstructionism
Many in the RHM are theonomists. Simply described (and I do mean very simply) this means that they would view Old Testament civil and moral laws as the proper pattern for all societies. Thus their desire is to use our secular governmental structure to enforce a pattern of biblical morality upon society as a whole. Unfortunately, this view leads to a dangerous merging of church with state, thus having a tendency to secularize the church and moralize the state.
Rather than the church being the agent of Biblical change in the transformation of hearts through the power of the gospel, a primary goal of believers becomes the imposition of Biblical norms upon unregenerate men through state institutions (ostensibly run by true believers).
b) Post Millennialism
Hand in hand with theonomy comes a view of end times events known as post millennialism. This view holds that it is the church’s mission to Christianize the society through the dual arms of both church and state, thus establishing the kingdom of God on earth. Only when this is accomplished, will Christ return to receive His kingdom. This is contradictory of a host of New Testament evidence which calls on the church to be a witness in the midst of an increasingly sinful world system, which will only be overcome by the bodily return of Christ to defeat his enemies and personally establish His kingdom.
The tremendous dangers of theonomy combined with post millennialism are seen throughout church history. Any time that an attempt has been made to combine the functions of church and state - grievous error, bloodshed, and spiritual darkness have followed.
Additionally, this theology has a powerful impact on how children are raised. Many in the RHM are grooming their children to enter the realm of government in hopes of “retaking” America for Christ. This seems to run counter to the entire tenor of the New Testament which clearly orders submission to governmental authorities, and proper involvement as good citizens, yet urges our primary concern to be the building of the church through making of disciples in all the nations.
Mt 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
2. Extra-biblical definition of church and church function
Many in the RCM seem to have an unbiblical or extrabiblical view of the church.
a) Church as a family of families
Vision Forum in particular facilitates errors in this regard. The Vision Forum Website, along with much good and helpful material, offers the following definition of the church: “(we) Recognize the church to be a spiritual “family of families and singles” who value intimacy and interaction and grow by the multiplication of family-like congregations;”
This sounds good until you realize that the emphasis is on the family unit, not on the individual believer. Everywhere in the NT the emphasis is on the individual nature of salvation and that the work of the Spirit brings those individuals into intimate fellowship and relationship with one another - not just families interacting with other families.
Ga 3:27-28 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
b) All family members must always be together for any type of worship or ministry
Another growing tenet of the RHM is that it is patently unbiblical for the family unit to be separated in any way, for any church function - particularly congregational worship. Again this view has truth at the foundation. The whole family is to be involved in worship. All believing members of the family are to be involved in the ministry of the church. There has been much harm done by the forced segregation of children from parents that goes on in many program driven churches. However, the Bible gives no prescription for the exact nature of how church worship is to be carried out. Every member of the family being present together to hear Bible teaching is not some special means of grace - God’s Word as illuminated by His Spirit is the means of grace. It is not the physical location of those hearing the Word that is important, but the content of the Word being understood by each individual as the Holy Spirit applies it to the heart.
Another quote from the Vision Forum website is as follows: “Equip whole households for ministry through heart-level relationships rather than activity-based programs, preparing and utilizing fathers as servant-leaders in family and church;”
This is generally a good principle, but it does not translate into the necessity or greater spirituality of every family member being present for spiritual instruction or for ministry. Nor does this statement affirm or provide for the full-orbed nature of the church in dealing with singles, families without children, single parent families, families with children who are grown, or the elderly.
c) Age appropriate/separated teaching is generally unbiblical
The RHM tends to equate any kind of separate teaching as competition with, or ungodly usurpation of, the parents role in teaching. In reality it is nothing of the sort, but rather a ministry of the church to equip parents in their role and come alongside them in encouraging children to love the Lord and obey their parents!
There are great benefits to having children of similar age groups learning things which are appropriate to their age. In fact, even spiritual instruction within the family most be provided in an age appropriate manner. My four and half year old cannot begin to comprehend the issues my thirteen year old is dealing with. Thus, although we have regular times of worship together as a family, I must still provide individual biblical instruction to each of my children - at separate times.
The bottom line is that God’s Word does not command a particular method of formal, spiritual, or secular education.
An unfortunate, and deadly, result of an improper emphasis on the family has been the devaluing of the local church and the exaltation of the family unit. Families are increasingly viewing the church simply as a means to strengthen themselves, rather than a community of faith in which each member considers the others as more important than themselves. Rather than pouring into the life of the church, families are pouring energy into their own concerns and ignoring the needs of the entire body of believers. This is an unfortunate, and unnecessary response to the opposite “ditch” of being consumed with the “ministry” of the church to the detriment and destruction of the family. This “family centric” view inhibits the mandate of the church to be salt and light in society as a whole and decreases the ability of the church to “equip its members for the works of service to the building up of the body of Christ (Eph 4:12)”.
Next time we will look at the last three potential doctrinal errors and propose a biblical solution.
Chris, I wonder if you could share a little bit on what biblical principles a church would use to arrive at a decision for how much *emphasis* to put
on formal children’s ministry.
You have pointed out that the Bible gives no specific format for the order of our worship on the Lord’s Day, but we do have clear patterns throughout Scripture for what emphasis to put on what activities..we aren’t left completely in the dark here. If the pattern, Paul’s pattern, etc was an emphasis on the teaching of the word, fellowship, prayer, and breaking bread.. (Acts 2:42)… and if a great deal of the epistles are spent talking about how to operate with one another “when you come together” for God’s glory, and as part of the Body of Christ in general… hospitality, prayer, etc as being a prescribed means to an end etc… then it seems using those means (all of them) to “do Body life” are important, and elders’ *emphasis* in *equipping the saints* should (I propose) be on those things. And God did not leave us with no means listed. There is nothing new under the sun. Paul could have emphasized the teaching of children in a formal church ministry or any other number of things. This wasn’t his emphasis. It doesn’t mean it’s bad, and it doesn’t mean it’s the best. We just want to acknowledge that many are spending their time and energy in Body Life trying to promote something/major on something that might be good at times, might be bad at times, but either way, is not a mandate for the Church or even a listed means to anything. Let’s just keep it in perspective & be humble about it, is all I am suggesting.
If a church is failing miserably in the clear, prescribed directions of Scripture for Body Life, is it wise to ramp up an extensive children’s ministry (which is not prescribed, but is likely permitted, in Scripture), that takes people’s time, energy, and focus? I appreciate and “amen” your comments about the ungodly focus on family in some homeschooling circles and some family-integrated churches. In churches which are rabidly going after children’s ministry, there seem to be a few problems that perhaps you could address so we could do it better, if we are going to choose to pursue it as a method. Many people generally aren’t training their children.. people aren’t systematically teaching their children the Scriptures at home (”beyond Bible stories”)… and many adults & teens spend a great deal of time outside the sermons during the gathering of the church (with *no* biblical pattern for this) to “serve” in the children’s ministry. Formal children’s ministry involvement is often held up as the holy grail of “sacrificial service” to the Body, to the neglect of all the specific commands for service activities in Scripture, which are often sorely neglected w/out too many elders shouting about it :).
Is something like Junior Church wrong in and of itself? I am not suggesting it is & that’s not the point. Certainly for some familiies coming newly into the assembly and life in the Body, these programs might be a help (especially having a nursery service) and we can’t ignore any means possible to help families where they need it. Sunday School has been a great evangelism tool for ages. I wonder about the extreme emphasis, the rejection of any other method, and treating these things as some Biblical mandate (evidenced by the “need” for so many articles on them and stern exhortations to get involved)…and whether it takes away from clear directions for the church.
Does it cause God’s people to be more devoted to the Word and to one another outside of program time?
Something I notice is that those who choose not to participate in any particular children’s program are often stamped with being “out there,” their reasons for not participating are assumed. Children’s church and similar ministries are treated as the standard instead of one of many methods and choices, any of which can be mis-used and perverted or idolized. I wonder if the Body misses out on the wisdom God has given us to utilize, by stamping those families or ignoring them as a resource, just b/c their children aren’t in every program a church has devised. Forming relationships btwn older and younger families is key in sustainable Body Life and transmitting the disciplines of life in Christ. Are elders under-utilizing the wisdom and experience of families who have chosen not to get involved in every formal children’s program, and opting instead to try to meet the same goals using classes and programs?
God is good, though, and much good has come out of ALL these various approaches in His Church.. and it’s good we can dialog on doing it better.
I am a home-schooling mother of five, our children go to Sunday School and thankful I am for their wonderful teachers. My 15 year old learns heavy World Views stuff from another father in our community and not in our family or church. I utilize tutors for some of our home-schooling. We have not sent our children to Jr Church, and very early learned that there were great benefits to be had in training young children to not need a nursery.. not b/c we think it is WRONG… NOT b/c we “don’t want other people teaching our children” (I will take all the teachers I can get!), etc… but b/c we have seen great fruit from being on a mission to “form the tastes” of our children (which can be a whole article in itself), having considered these things carefully and with counsel over many years. Some of the methods we have chosen, or not chosen, are to this end. Our choices are not always a rejection of another method.. we all make our choices and have to go with what we believe before God will serve His purposes *best*. Every situation is different and different choices will be best in different circumstances on some of these things. It is a result of this very rich Body Life, having once had wise older families (”consider those who led you, and considering the outcome of their conduct, imitate their faith”) that have led us into the patterns we are following for our own family, and some of our decisions about how much to emphasize (or not) a formal children’s ministry during the meeting of the church on the Lord’s Day, and where to “stick our service”
October 10th, 2008 | #
Hello Chris,
I am enjoying your posts so far. While I haven’t researched much on this movement I think like most things the education of children is taken too extreme’s either way. I remember in Lewis’ Screwtape Letters the one demon saying the best way to diminish a cause is to push it to extremes in any direction.
I do believe homeschool is the proper way and most arguments against it or for other methods usually fall short (except in case of no choice). But I also know that anything good can be taken to an extreme level. I am looking forward to your future posts on the next errors.
October 10th, 2008 | #
Chris, We have been in family-integrated churches on and off in the past. You stated:
” An unfortunate, and deadly, result of an improper emphasis on the family has been the devaluing of the local church and the exaltation of the family unit. Families are increasingly viewing the church simply as a means to strengthen themselves, rather than a community of faith in which each member considers the others as more important than themselves. Rather than pouring into the life of the church, families are pouring energy into their own concerns and ignoring the needs of the entire body of believers. ”
We aren’t an “all or nothing” mentality on family-integration.. we prefer it, most of the time, love the fruit we’ve seen from it (in general), but we can go either way on most of it.. so much *depends* on many variables. We love our current church and it is not family-integrated. But, what you have stated here is just not what we have seen in family-integrated circles. We have seen a great value placed on the body, on one-anothering, on the local church. Huge. Personal, individual discipleship and counseling, hospitality, caring for each other’s needs, faithfulness in training children in the same, etc. Far, far, far more than in program oriented churches… Exactly the opposite of what you are saying. And, despite children not being in their own little church on Sundays :), we have found that *in general* children know a great deal of Scripture and biblical principles and are trained well, and I dare say usually much better than those whose churches emphasis segregation (and I have already told you that we segregate some, and I am not making a dogmatic statement against it). You really seem to be promoting an image/strawman that is not the norm at all, and I hope you aren’t steering people to throw the baby out with the bath water for the sake of a few family integrated churches who might have gone off the deep end. You don’t want to do the same thing you are saying the family-integrated bunch are doing.. do you? :^)
October 10th, 2008 | #
Anna,
Thank you for you comments and for your desire to see churches help families bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord!
Your question concerning how much effort to put into formal children’s ministry is a good one. The most basic answer is, as much effort as the leadership of the church (with input from the congregation) feels is necessary to accomplish the goal of equipping the saints for the works of service (Eph 4:12) which includes helping parents be equipped to bring up their children in a biblical manner. This will look differently in different churches, countries, cultures, etc.. Everyone in the church will have preferences as to how various ministries should operate and so it is essential for each one to give input, pray, and joyfully come under their leadership in this regard.
Ultimately, all programs and ministry must reflect an underlying biblical principle and seek to enact it in a spiritual manner. I have had the privilege of seeing loving, godly, well-ordered families who love children’s church; as well similar families who do not! The problem of untrained parents and children does not come as a result of formal children’s programs (or lack thereof), it comes because, at some level, the church is not properly teaching and training its members to be in obedience to the Lord in this area.
I also appreciate you comment about being careful not to over react to perceived errors. However, it is my goal not to simply react according to perception, but to try to point out the biblical principles at stake and how some churches and individuals do in fact end up violating them. What seems a straw man to one, may have flesh and blood lying underneath.
I pray that you will continue to strive to love your church and raise your family in supreme exaltation of Christ.
Chris
October 13th, 2008 | #
Chris, Thank you for your good reply. Much appreciated, Anna
http://thorburnfamily.com
October 16th, 2008 | #
Does it work is the question? A father lead Sunday School
to me is Biblical.
Children should be able to see son (adult), father (adult).
and grandfather (certainly an adult) relate together in a
Bible class.
What works for your family might not work for someone else.
This summer at the chapel they suspended Sunday School for
the summer and the whole family sat together for the Family
Bible Hour. Children were learning to sit with their parents hearing
the Word of God.
It was special to me when my son and his family visited and
several generations were together hearing the Bible taught.
Children were able to see their father teach or preach during
the summer months. They were able to see their grandfather
or another older man preach and teach.
Sunday School classes have again been in session for the public
school year.
This is flavored in that various men of different ages share
in preaching and teaching during the 11:00 am Bible class.
I love Sunday School and am sad to see youth somehow feel
after the “high school class” they really donot need the 11:00
am Bible Hour with older adults. They are taught by society
that “church” is no longer for their needs. How do we change
this?
If my reading is right of the discussion family intergrated churches
claim youth will not leave the fellowship once they become young
adults and adults.
Does it work? I have never been in a so called “family intergrated
church” to know. The question is how do high school youth
transfer what they have been taught and become a vital part
of the local fellowship?
I do know that Dads need to step up to the plate to teach and lead
their families. Dad’s example is so important.
Lastly, we tend to put everyone into our own box or method.
My box or method or someone elses might not work in the
family involved.
It looks like you are a very involved dad with your family.
November 9th, 2008 | #
My wife came out of this movement and it has been a long process that we have gone on together to fully understand the errors of what she had been taught.
We believe that the underlying current that drives much of this sort of ideology is fear. It is fear of the world and its suductive ways that drive many parents into home schooling. And it is this fear that drives them the rest of the way into this radical theology that sets the home up as God’s instrument in creating holiness. In this movement, parents have absolute control over everything. Solization is only with approved individuals as outside forces may cause rebellion from parental authority. Even church is seen as suspicious and many in the movement - if they go to a tradional church at all - will not interact with non-homeschooling peers. Sadly, this parental control - most of the time -does not without pain. Girls, deemed as under the head of the father, must be properly transferred to their future husbands who will become the girl’s new head. This is done during courtship which ideally begins before the boy or girl have romantic feelings (if romantic feelings begin beforehand, the boy is accused of ’stealing’ the girl’s heart which belongs to her father alone) because the girl’s heart is given by the father.
I personally know of very few sucessful cases where the courtship process worked in an ideal way. In most cases of women who grew up in the movement that I am familiar with, either the girl leaves the family head (rebels) or in most cases, the girl stays under the authority of her father without any marriage prospects.
In the case of where the girl simply removes herself which is our story, the parents usually come around to accept the circumstances. However, many of these girls are forever disowned.
February 3rd, 2009 | #