Updated: 1/13/20
Christian Economics: Teacher's Edition
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king's palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans (Daniel 1:1–4).
This was public education in action. It was funded by the king of an empire. The king brought in young men from the conquered nationalities. He wanted them educated in the literature of the Chaldeans. After their education was completed, they would then be placed in positions of authority in the empire, serving as intermediaries between the Chaldean state and the subject nationalities. The king understood the centrality of state-run education in the hierarchy of control over the conquered nations.
The young men had no choice but to attend. Their names were changed as a mark of their new subordination (v. 7). But we learn that Daniel established a practice that revealed the sovereignty of God over the gods of the empire. He suggested a test.
But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.” Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king's food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see.” So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king's food. So the steward took away their food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables (vv. 8–16).
What was this all about? The Mosaic food laws had been imposed by God as a way to separate the people of Israel covenantally from the surrounding nations and their gods. Now the king was forcing the young men to eat his food. This was an act of inclusion, both theological and cultural. Daniel had no power to escape this, but he had a suggestion: run a test. The young men passed the test. They flourished on a diet of vegetables. There were no Mosaic law restrictions on vegetables, so the young men could lawfully eat the king’s vegetables. This was a practical way that Daniel could demonstrate the power of God over the power of the king’s gods. The chief of the school was pragmatic. He admitted that the youths looked better. He let them off the hook, covenantally speaking. He allowed them to maintain their dietary separation from Babylon. This incident brings us to the covenental structure of the issue of education.
Sovereignty. Who is sovereign over education? This is the issue of final sovereignty. Is it the God of the Bible or some other god? Who establishes the covenantal structure of society? The biblical covenantal structure is this: God, man, law, sanctions, and the future. Which God is God? This is the central question of existence. The Chaldeans had their gods. Daniel and the three young men had theirs. Which were sovereign? Answer: the one who brought sanctions. That was answered in Daniel 3: the story of the king’s idol (point 1), mandatory worship (point 2), the young men’s transgression of the king’s law (point 3), their survival in the fiery furnace, which killed the king’s agents (point 4), and their inheritance (point 5). “Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way. Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon” (Daniel 3:29–30). The modern world is replaying this confrontation. It is a battle between the god of man, grounded in Darwinism vs. the God of the Bible.
Authority. This is the issue of the covenantal content of education. It is manifested in the funding of education. Is primary funding provided by the state or the parents? He who pays the piper calls the tune. He who funds education establishes the content of education as well as its pedagogy: theory of learning.
Law. This is the issue of ethics. What is the source of law, both physical and ethical? The source of the law is the god of a society. The state says that collective man is the source of ethics. The state’s salaried educators say that impersonal evolution is the source of physical laws. The educators say that scientists can discover the laws of nature and society and thereby guide evolution, both natural and social. Christians say that God is the source of all law. Covenantal law is revealed in the Bible.
Sanctions. Who possesses lawful sanctions over education: parents or the state? The state asserts this authority. It makes education compulsory. In most nations, the state has a legal monopoly of education. In the United States, parents are required to pay taxes to support state-run education, but then are allowed to pay for private education for their children. About 15% of parents do this. The state’s bureaucrats (point 2) determine the criteria of academic success (point 3), and then impose the testing systems (point 4) that determine which people get access to the offices that guide society’s evolution (point 5).
Future. This is the issue of inheritance. Who inherits the world in history: covenant-breakers or covenant-keepers? The Bible teaches that covenant-keepers will inherit. “The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell upon it forever” (Psalm 37:29). They represent the Christ. “I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession’” (Psalm 2:7–8) “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). State-funded education teaches the opposite. In the name of religious neutrality, the state makes it illegal for teachers to teach Christianity. It is illegal to teach biblical creationism (point 1), parents’ authority over education (point 2), biblical law (point 3) and its civil sanctions (point 4), or biblical eschatology (point 5). Christians are required to fund the mass education of children by a school system that teaches the opposite covenantal viewpoint: the kingdom of man as reflected in the kingdom of the state.
This battle is judicial and economic. The judicial battle is over the primary authority over education: state vs. family. The economic battle is over the primary source of the funding: state vs. family.
The Bible is clear. This injunction is given to families: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). This advice was given by Solomon to his son. It was not a command given to his son to set up a system of public education for the nation.
Paul said this: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are” (I Corinthians 1:27–28). Christians should recognize that the state, which is intensely anti-Christian, will not allow foolishness to be taught in its schools. It makes war on this foolishness.
R. J. Rushdoony once said that Christians who oppose higher taxes but allow their children to be educated in state schools have their priorities wrong. “They tithe their children to the state, but then criticize taxes.”
Children do not fund their own educations. Parents do this. In the modern world, as in Babylon, the state claims to be the lawful source of the funding of formal education, meaning certified education, meaning education that grants certificates of educational performance. So, there are two buyers of education: families and the state.
The parents have covenantal concepts of sovereignty, authority, law, sanctions, and the future. These views may be consistent with the views of state-funded educators. Parents whose outlook is consistent with Darwinism are supporters of state funding, state control over schools, and restrictions on Christian theology in schools. Their justification of compulsion in education is this: without compulsion, some parents would not educate their children. In the name of the good of all children, Darwinists support compulsory state education. The anti-Christian content of state education is justified in the name of religious neutrality. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Christians support state education and its justification: neutral education. Yet Jesus said this: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30). The foundation of public education is a myth. There is no such thing as neutral education. It is an impossibility. It is the camel’s nose into the tent. Once inside the tent, it reveals its intense hostility to Christianity. But still the vast majority of Christians send their children into state-run schools. In most nations, it is illegal not to send them into state-run schools. These schools are the primary agencies of propaganda in the world. The propaganda is pro-Darwin and pro-state. The schools are run by the state for the benefit of the state.
There is a bidding war for educational services. The state is the primary bidder. It uses funds extracted coercively. There is no legal way for taxpayers to refuse to pay. So, most educational resources shift to state-run institutions. The state’s standards prevail.
A handful of parents can afford to send their children to classroom-based private schools. The elite do this, but the educations are as secular as state schools. A small minority of Christians also do this. But the great growth of Christian education through high school is homeschooling. Mothers invest time, but not much money. They are long on time, but short of money.
A few free market economists, beginning with Milton Friedman, propose that parents be given educational vouchers by local governments. The parents can use these to pay partial tuition to schools, public or private. These vouchers can be exchanged by schools for money. This will provide greater school choice. But the argument is silly. The state will not allow schools to participate that do not meet state standards. The states may not give away money autonomously. The recipients must meet educational goals said to be legitimate by the courts. In the United States, the courts have said that civil government may not fund sectarian ideas. This means that Christian schools, in order to be eligible to receive these funds, must adopt secular curricula. This was my argument in a debate I had with Friedman in 1993 in The Freeman. I had argued against vouchers in the May 1976 issue of The Freeman.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the state pays parents to pay pipers, the pipers must play the state’s tunes when these vouchers are returned to local governments in order to receive money. Wrong tune => no payment.
A seller of educational services must find buyers. There was a time when rich people hired tutors. They were imitated by middle-class people who bought a tutor for several families. They paid for school buildings that could accommodate several dozen students. Teaching a room full of students is different from teaching one or two students. Methods are different.
A seller must judge what targeted buyers really want for their children. He must structure the content and the teaching method accordingly. But he rarely has to make major changes. Parents are rarely confident about exactly what they want their children taught. They want them to be qualified to get jobs that require degrees. This has been true for the recorded history of formal education. This is why they enroll their children in schools. An educator can usually persuade parents that he is qualified to teach. The details are vague.
If a seller can gain licensing, he has a much better opportunity to find willing buyers. But if he can get a job at an institution subsidized by the state, which also offers tenure, he need not achieve much of anything beyond this. He is paid in terms of years spent in the school district and degrees earned at night school or summer school programs. There are no classroom teaching standards that are widely used as marks of merit for pay raises. There are no online videos of what they teach.
Were it not for tenure, schools could hire the best teachers to produce a year’s worth of videos, post these online, and fire most of the other older teachers. They would keep the best teachers to update their videos and answer students’ questions on student forums. Students would wear headphones and sit at individual carrels. They would watch video lessons on screens. They would do assignments at their desks. If they get stuck, they would ask questions online. There would be few disciplinary problems. Trouble-making students would be permanently expelled. Their parents would then have them take the courses at home online. These children would get educations. They would not disrupt others. Exams could be graded online. The schools would hire low-paid adults to monitor classroom behavior. At least 80% of the administrators could be fired. The cost of education could be cut by 60% or more. The teachers’ unions do not allow any of this. Neither do the administrators. Costs rise. Students’ test scores fall. Courses are dumbed down. Tests are dumbed-down.
Private charter schools are replacing conventional public schools in the United States. They are funded by public money, but they hire and fire on their own authority. They keep any profits. Most parents want their children enrolled in charter schools. There is more demand than supply. Access is rationed. The teachers’ union opposes charter schools. The news magazine U.S. News and World Report in 2017 rated three charter schools in Arizona as the three best American high schools academically out of 22,000. A fourth school owned by this company was #5. Public schools do not attempt to imitate this company’s program.
Pencils are used in schools. There will always be a market for them. This demand will decline as YouTube video-based instruction replaces classroom education. Students will take exams online. They will write essays online.
Pencils are not the focus of state-financed education.
The primary function of tax-funded, state-run education is to indoctrinate children in the Darwinian worldview of the educators. Another goal is to create a population that is subservient to the state. Parents who allow their children to be educated by bureaucrats who cannot be fired after a few years, and who will not allow any interference with their programs by parents or politicians, are compliant people. They will do what they are told. Tax-funded education is the most important single tool in the state’s control over the public. The teachers are not public servants. The voters are public servants. The teachers kidnap the children of the voters and train them in subservience. This program of government control was developed in Prussia in the late eighteenth century and has progressively achieved its goal ever since. The story of how strategy was implemented successfully in American schools is described in two books: John Taylor Gatto’s Underground History of American Education (2000) and R. J. Rushdoony’s Messianic Character of American Education (1963).
___________________________________
For the rest of this book, go here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/department193.cfm
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.