fbpx
Articles

3 opportunities public education offers to Christian families

/
October 20, 2021

Choosing a school for your children can be one of the most difficult decisions that a parent makes. Our family’s choice was complicated by our kids’ particular needs. My wife Megan and I are deliberate people, and after taking some time to consider our options, we sent our oldest daughter, Rachael, to a two-day-per-week kindergarten at a classical school, one that we knew would emphasize reading old books, choral music, and learning ancient languages like Latin and Greek. The school was a great fit for her; she seemed to thrive.

But that same year, our second-born, Lucy, began her academic journey at a half-day Head Start program. Lucy had been diagnosed with what would now be classified as level 3 Autism. Her language, social, and self-care skills were already behind her 3-year-old peers, and she needed the behavioral, speech, and occupational support that our local public school system could provide. 

Choosing two different schools seemed like a wise decision at first. The two schools felt like just the right fit for our two daughters. But living in two different educational worlds at once was more difficult than we anticipated. Not only were our girls’ weekly schedules radically different, but the school calendars — the holidays, as well as the start and end dates for the two school systems — just didn’t mesh. Lucy also had daily therapy sessions after school in our home. Even if one child was on a break, another still had something going on. We felt like we were always on the go. In many ways, that was our first rodeo as parents, and Megan and I were exhausted trying to manage it. 

So, as the summer drew near, we pulled both girls out of their schools, went to Disney World with my in-laws (we found that restful!), and began a process of making certain that both girls would have the same school schedule the following fall. Our Lucy needed the public school system’s support for children with disabilities. So in order to unite our family around a shared routine (and actually enjoy family vacations!), we put both girls in public education.

A battle for minds and affections

Choosing public school is not a decision that any Christian parent should come to blindly. Megan and I sat down with a friend and advisor who walked us through a process of identifying our values, ranking them, and then finally making the decision. 

One thing that made the decision so hard is the reality that public education isn’t designed to reinforce Christian values. As James K. A. Smith has chronicled in his book Desiring the Kingdom, the rhythms of the public school and university campus are aimed instead at forming the next generation to value and worship competition, radical self-expression, and economic success.

And it’s not only that the secular worldview heralded in the public school curriculum seeks to regularly undercut a Christian worldview. Whether your kids attend a Christian school or a public one, the passion and regular rhythms of middle and high school extracurriculars —whether it’s athletics, academics, or the arts — will compete for your kids’ affections. 

Smith quotes Duke Divinity school professor Stanley Hauerwas’s striking observation that “Friday night high school football is the most significant liturgical event in Texas.” Now don’t get me wrong. I stand up and cheer for each touchdown pass as loudly as the next man (okay, maybe louder). Football, along with other sports, is a gracious gift from God, but that doesn’t mean Smith and Hauerwas are wrong when they see games and competitions as acts of worship that can compete with the faith. 

What makes this even harder in the public school context is that most public schools no longer take church activities into account. Gone are the days when sports and activities take a midweek pause so that students can be involved at their church on Wednesday evening. And when the band competition ends late on Saturday night, it’s hard to get up for church on Sunday morning. 

Why let Caesar educate your kids?

We know that young people are susceptible to the influence of their peers and cultural environment. So, if the public school environment is so hostile to Christian belief, why would any parent choose it? Why let Caesar educate your kids?

The truth is that without some vision for what it will take to navigate public school culture as a Christian, it’s unwise to make that choice. Ultimately, I believe that a Christian’s school choice is a Romans 14 matter — an issue of Christian freedom that will be worked out as each mom and dad weighs the options in light of their individual consciences. There are great reasons to choose a Christian school environment instead, but I believe there are also some opportunities that public education uniquely offers to Christian families. Here are three:

1. In public school, students typically experience greater diversity. After the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, many conservative white churches became bastions for segregationist opposition. Especially in the South, a number of private schools were founded by people who were committed to segregation and opposed to any possibility of interracial romance. As Michael Aitcheson observed on The Gospel Coalition’s As In Heaven podcast, “My grandmother in Orlando, Florida, remembers integration happening and our first private school was founded ‘six hours later.’”

Though they began as “segregation academies,” many of these schools have turned from their segregationist practices, and there are even efforts within Christian education to prioritize greater diversity. But on the whole, public education remains much more diverse than private education, and this presents lots of little opportunities for Christian kids to learn how to respect cultural differences and engage peers who differ with friendly curiosity rather than suspicion.

Public school exposes our children to ethnic and racial diversity, socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, and ability diversity. It’s good to hear in a sermon about how we should honor the dignity of every human person made in God’s image. But the student in public school also gets the opportunity to practice showing honor when splitting a pizza with her Hindu friends. 

2. In public school, kids encounter pressing issues before they leave home. Christian kids who attend a public high school today are going to hear a Christian account of creation questioned in science class. And that Christian student probably knows at least one person in their classes who identifies as lesbian, gay, or transgender. Theologian Michael Krueger observes that too often Christian parents think their kids are best served by being sheltered and protected from any discussion or exposure to such non-Christian thinking. But it shouldn’t be that way!

It’s good to help your child wrestle with how, for example, to square what the Bible teaches about gender with the empathy she feels for a friend who experiences gender dysphoria. We need to give young people the basic biblical categories and tools they need to deal with non-Chrisitan belief while they’re still living under our roof. 

And just as it’s good for us to repent and ask for our children’s forgiveness when we lose our temper with them, it’s also good for parents to admit to their kids when they don’t know how to answer challenges to the Christian faith. When we’re honest about what we don’t know, kids will learn what it looks like to suspend judgement, do some research (pick up a book; ask a pastor), and think through how to give a reasonable defense for the faith. 

3. In public school, Christian students have the opportunity to be a witness. Some Christians ask, “Why put your children on a school bus to Babylon? Here’s the reality: No matter how much you’ve sheltered your child, they’re still living in Babylon. The question is whether they’re merely assimilating or living as bold exiles. 

On the one hand, it’s essential for students to have a Christian community beyond their nuclear families. Every Christian needs to know that he’s not alone. That’s one reason I’m so grateful for our church youth group that includes kids who are in public, private, and home school. 

But if a young person is only around people who share his beliefs and, as a result, his faith is never tested during his growing up years, that youth may trade cultural conformity in a Christian environment for a more dangerous cultural conformity in his college dorm. 

The public school environment certainly tests a young person’s faith. But when that faith is tested, there’s also an opportunity to see its true mettle. The student who chooses to dress modestly, not to participate in an event on Sunday, or share how her views of social justice involve convictions about hell and final judgment will be seen as socially awkward — perhaps even weird. She’s also a witness. 

The biggest reason we chose public school in the first place was for the specialized care it provided for our daughter Lucy. Staying in public education has meant greater intentionality about teaching and modeling a biblical worldview to our daughters at home. 

At the end of the day, a family’s educational choice for their kids is just one factor in a child’s formative years. In his book Shepherding a Child’s Heart, Tedd Tripp warns against the danger of evaluating your parenting by your child’s educational success. He wrote, “Unfortunately, scores of disillusioned and broken people are thoroughly educated. It is possible to be well-educated and still not understand life.” For the Christian parents who help their students learn to celebrate other image-bearers, work through doubt, and stand for Christ even when it seems strange, public school can be a pathway toward gaining a heart of wisdom.

Jared Kennedy

Jared is the husband of Megan and father to Rachael, Lucy, and Elisabeth. After serving fifteen years on staff at local churches, Jared now works as an editor for The Gospel Coalition, coaches children's ministers through Gospel-Centered Family, serves on the Theological Advisory Council for Harbor Network, and teaches as an adjunct instructor … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24