Higher Education...Good or Bad?

[Wormwood]

But that's not actually the question we were asking. Our question was much more specific, i.e., which parts of Christianity are losing young people (the whole college thing)? And as the stats showed, it is evangelical churches who are losing the youth in the greatest percentages. Their overall numbers are holding steady due to new older adults joining.


Could be. But I don't see how the reasons young people are citing are more of a problem in liberal churches.

If you are suggesting that more young people are leaving conservative churches, then I think you are very wrong. Statistics I have seen show that Mainline churches consist of 12% 18-29 year olds while evangelical churches are around 28% 18-29 year olds. If more young people are leaving evangelical/conservative churches, its because they have young people in the first place. I completely disagree that most young people are turned off by conservative churches. Other stats I have seen show that about 60% of the reason that young people in this age range leave church is due to "life changes." (Jobs, school, etc.) Less than 20% who left said it was because of doctrinal/faith reasons.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/02/17/religion-among-the-millennials/


So unless all the old people ONLY are leaving mainline churches, I'd say chances are that mainline is having more difficulty keeping both younger and older generations. That graph is staggering!

 

[sojourner4Christ]

.
From the OP:

Anyways, I'm kind of rambling here, but what are your thoughts on higher education and Christianity? I went to a wonderful public university and got an excellent education that was about the exact opposite of the brainwashing camp described in the first paragraph.

The usual argument against public education is very convincing. And very wrong. It runs something like this: Public schools have become breeding grounds for violence and sexual promiscuity; they often are outlets for socialist propaganda; they now constitute a formidable enemy of Christianity (by teaching evolution and prohibiting prayer and Bible reading) and of the family (by teaching sex education and deriding traditional authority structures). And so on — which is not an unmitigated tragedy, since it is being used, under the providence of God, to lead more and more Christians to abandon the system of public education. No matter what the reason, that is certainly a good result.

Unfortunately, the argument above is not as principled as it looks. It is not an argument against state education, but only against certain perceived ills of public schools as they now exist. Thus, even among Christians who agree with the argument, you will find the following attitudes:

1. "The real problems exist in the inner-city schools, but there's nothing wrong with public schools in a rural, Christian community with traditional values";
2. "We should work to make public schools more moral, by pressuring our legislators to reinstitute prayer and abolish sex-education";
3. "We should try to force the public schools to give Creation 'equal time' with Evolution."

These and similar positions all attest to the fact that much of the opposition to public schools is merely pragmatic: we are very willing for the state to control education, as long as we can be reasonably sure our children won't be beaten, drugged or raped in the library. To put it bluntly, we want our socialism, but we want it clean. If only the public schools would teach what we want them to teach, we would be happy to have our children's education funded by legalized theft. Quite an interesting position, philosophically: we'll give our children a "moral" upbringing by robbing our neighbors to pay for it.

As Christians, we do not argue against abortion simply by citing the dangers of malpractice; nor should we consider it sufficient to oppose state education simply because of its evil consequences. We do not work for safer methods of abortion; nor should we work to improve public schools. The basic biblical argument, you see, is that the very existence of state schools is immoral — regardless of the level of "morality" contained in them.

According to the Bible (see, e.g., Romans 13:4), the state has an extremely limited function, which may be summed up in two points: punishing criminals (as defined by God's law) and protecting the law-abiding. That's it. God has appointed civil rulers as His ministers, and their responsibility is to administer His laws. The Bible severely limits the powers of the state — and just in case rulers might misunderstand the extent of their commission, God built a "strict constructionist" interpretation right into the law: the ruler "may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or to the left" (Deuteronomy 17:20). The Bible does not give rulers the power to educate children; that responsibility belongs to the family. State schools are therefore immoral in principle. They exist only because God's laws have been violated — by greedy rulers who covet the powers of deity, and by greedy citizens who covet "free" education at their neighbors' expense. Viewed in this light, it is no wonder that the public school system has spawned a generation of illiterate criminals who assume the world owes them a living. Why not? According to their parents, the world owed them an education; they're just extending the logic.

The rise in public-school crime and violence is nothing but the humanistic superstructure built on a rotten foundation. It is quite predictable; in fact, it was predicted in Deuteronomy 28, the list of the curses which necessarily fall upon a culture that departs from God's law. If our educational principles are not founded on God's word, we have shut God out of our system of knowledge — and committed cultural suicide. Romans 1:28-32 tells us what happens to people who will not have God in their knowledge: it reads like a modern report card on "citizenship."

"But," it may be objected, "if the state doesn't provide education and force citizens to submit to it, some parents won't bother to do it themselves." This is true. It is also true that some people don't brush their teeth. We should therefore provide free dental care and send bureaucrats to each home every morning and evening, armed with dental floss, to enforce oral hygiene on the population. Right? Where do you draw the line? You draw the line where God draws it: in His law. God has defined the responsibilities and limits of the state, and whenever it falls short of those responsibilities, or transgresses those limits, it is playing god. The inevitable result is national damnation.

No matter what objection you have to all this, it falls the ultimate test: conformity to God's law. When you say the rural, "moral," community-oriented public schools are still OK, all you're saying is that the full harvest of apostasy hasn't caught up with them yet. But the fact that none of your bad checks have returned is no justification of forgery. Those wonderful schools are possible only by the illegitimate beneficence of a deified state which plunders your neighbors to give your kids a free lunch. There's just no way around it. Public schools are immoral, and always have been — even in the bygone, halcyon days of old, when students got regular doses of birch rods and McGuffey readers.

Look at yourself for a prime example. You went to a "nice" public school, and you didn't turn out so badly. You didn't take LSD in 5th grade, you didn't carry a switchblade in Jr. High, and you were a virgin on Graduation Day. State education didn't pervert you. Or did it? Consider your reaction to this essay. (Never mind that I'm begging the question for a minute.) Regardless of the biblical evidence, you still find it hard to swallow that the state shouldn't do something beyond God's requirements. You think the argument that public education involves theft is somewhat "abstract." Face it: you're a socialist. Many of your ideas about the proper role of government were fed to you from K through 12, and it's like pulling teeth to get rid of them. I'm constantly running into sincere Christians who are absolutely aghast at the thought of abolishing unbiblical government regulation. ("How will the mail get delivered?") I even heard one theologian boldly assert that the value of gold and silver comes from the paper money behind it!

The real problem with public schools is that they exist in the first place. They are an ungodly, unlawful, collectivist institution. The many evils now spewing out of them derive from the curse of God inflicted on all institutions that defy Him. He has commanded parents to educate their children in terms of His law; that cannot be done in a public school. If we want our children to fear Him, to grow into diligent workers for His kingdom, we cannot afford to train them in an institution which has as its fundamental presupposition that I am entitled to as much money as I can vote out of my neighbor's pocket.

Prayer doesn't belong in a public school (Proverbs 28:9). Your money doesn't belong in a public school. Most of all, your children don't belong in a public school. Institutions premised on sin must not be redeemed, but abandoned. We cannot send young maidens into brothels in the interests of "equal time for chastity." As the light of the world, we must set the standard. Our Lord never called His people to help build the tower of Babel in the hope of getting a Bible study in the basement. He commanded us to build our own city on a hill.

-- David Chilton

 

[Angelina]

...are you David Chilton or have you just done a cut and paste job? :huh:

 

[Wormwood]

soujouner,

A couple issues with your post. First, the OP is about "higher education" not high school. What are your thoughts about secular undergraduate and graduate schools? Are they the same? If you are opposed to all government funded public education, I assume the answer would be "yes."

Second, I think any effort to use the Bible to denounce public education is speaking from Scriptural silence. You are pointing to a verse about the government punishing wickedness...which has nothing to do with education. I dont think the point of those passages is to say that this is the ONLY role of government and the government functioning in any other capacity is evil.

Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt send my kids to public school even if someone tried to force me at gunpoint. However, my rationale is not because such education is prohibited by the Bible (it certainly is not). Its simply because I do not want to entrust my precious children to being educated by relative strangers, the influences of sometimes troubled young peers, and obviously some of the things being taught in the classroom. I think general biblical principles are sufficient to show that public school is usually an unwise choice for parents....but certiainly not a violation of an explicit command/teaching.

 

[River Jordan]

If you are suggesting that more young people are leaving conservative churches, then I think you are very wrong. Statistics I have seen show that Mainline churches consist of 12% 18-29 year olds while evangelical churches are around 28% 18-29 year olds. If more young people are leaving evangelical/conservative churches, its because they have young people in the first place.

You can believe what you want, but I posted the numbers to support my position. In my post #54 I posted the data showing that among older Americans, 30% are white evangelical Protestants, but among millennials only 9% are. That's an enormous shift.

I completely disagree that most young people are turned off by conservative churches.

Given the Barna Survey results, exactly which churches do you think millennials are talking about when they say they are too anti-gay, too anti-science, too exclusive, and too protective? Do those strike you as hallmarks of liberalism?

Other stats I have seen show that about 60% of the reason that young people in this age range leave church is due to "life changes." (Jobs, school, etc.) Less than 20% who left said it was because of doctrinal/faith reasons.

Do you have a link to that data?

So unless all the old people ONLY are leaving mainline churches, I'd say chances are that mainline is having more difficulty keeping both younger and older generations. That graph is staggering!

When coupled with the data I described earlier, it's clear that evangelicals are holding steady despite a decline in millennials. That's why I posted about conservative Christianity gaining converts among older folks while losing ground among young people.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Soujourner,

The Bible does not give rulers the power to educate children; that responsibility belongs to the family. State schools are therefore immoral in principle.

Thanks for posting the Christian Reconstructionist viewpoint. Fortunately the vast majority of Christians don't support their desires to overturn the government and replace it with a theocracy.

 

[aspen]

I am not sure my opinion is accurate on this subject, but my experience in conservative churches is that people seem to stay for a limited amount of time - those churches seem to be good at bring new people in, but have a had time keeping them. Mainline churches are good at satisfying the spiritual needs of older people, but are really bad at attracting new people and young people.

It is a gross generalization, but I've seen the trend.

I think the black and white teachings in conservative churches tend to appeal to 25s and younger.

 

[HammerStone]

You can believe what you want, but I posted the numbers to support my position. In my post #54 I posted the data showing that among older Americans, 30% are white evangelical Protestants, but among millennials only 9% are. That's an enormous shift.

I need to dig it up, but a numbers geek did a little searching and come to find out, this is not exactly a huge new trend. Youthful agnosticism and atheism was probably often masked by peer and cultural pressures. Even historically, there has been some drop-off with younger portions of the populace only to seem them return as they aged. I really wish I would learn to bookmark this article since I know I brought it up before in conversations. I will find it, and owe you that!

We also have an aging population, so we need to take into account that the now-retiring boomers et al. tend to be older and white while the millennial population tends to statistically have larger minority populations, which of course cannot be both Protestant and white, being limited to only the former.

One of my quibbles with all of these comes in how were the questions phrased? For instance, there are many that would shy away from the term evangelical. In fact, our generation tends to try and move away from labels in large part.

Given the Barna Survey results, exactly which churches do you think millennials are talking about when they say they are too anti-gay, too anti-science, too exclusive, and too protective? Do those strike you as hallmarks of liberalism?

This same population also ascribes to moralistic therapeutic deism, which is much more of a squishy middle than simple agnosticism or atheism. Most of the nones believe in something. The problem with the liberal side is that when you share lockstep values with wider society, suddenly the reasons for being in an outdated social club don't make much sense. This is as much a symptom of the Church's shift in roles in society as well.

I guess the crux of my point in all of this is that statistics can be sexy to explain things, but it also matters how things are asked. It's why these political polls seem to surprise us all and blow up from time to time. I'm not trying argue that everything is peachy-keen because there is some hemorrhaging, but I don't buy the popular narrative either.

I am not sure my opinion is accurate on this subject, but my experience in conservative churches is that people seem to stay for a limited amount of time - those churches seem to be good at bring new people in, but have a had time keeping them. Mainline churches are good at satisfying the spiritual needs of older people, but are really bad at attracting new people and young people.

Aspen, they call it church-hopping (or, more technically, church transfer growth) and it tends to be a symptom of being an American churchgoer. "Don't like something at XYZ Church? Try Another!" This is another thread in itself. I think your observations are accurate. My question is just are some of these larger churches (and smaller ones too) feeding into other churches?

 

[River Jordan]

I need to dig it up, but a numbers geek did a little searching and come to find out, this is not exactly a huge new trend. Youthful agnosticism and atheism was probably often masked by peer and cultural pressures. Even historically, there has been some drop-off with younger portions of the populace only to seem them return as they aged. I really wish I would learn to bookmark this article since I know I brought it up before in conversations. I will find it, and owe you that!

Looking forward to it.

We also have an aging population, so we need to take into account that the now-retiring boomers et al. tend to be older and white while the millennial population tends to statistically have larger minority populations, which of course cannot be both Protestant and white, being limited to only the former.

One of my quibbles with all of these comes in how were the questions phrased? For instance, there are many that would shy away from the term evangelical. In fact, our generation tends to try and move away from labels in large part.

Sure...no survey is perfect. They are rough estimates of reality at best.

This same population also ascribes to moralistic therapeutic deism, which is much more of a squishy middle than simple agnosticism or atheism. Most of the nones believe in something. The problem with the liberal side is that when you share lockstep values with wider society, suddenly the reasons for being in an outdated social club don't make much sense. This is as much a symptom of the Church's shift in roles in society as well.

I guess the crux of my point in all of this is that statistics can be sexy to explain things, but it also matters how things are asked. It's why these political polls seem to surprise us all and blow up from time to time. I'm not trying argue that everything is peachy-keen because there is some hemorrhaging, but I don't buy the popular narrative either.

I guess we'll see how things go.

 

[aspen]

Aspen, they call it church-hopping (or, more technically, church transfer growth) and it tends to be a symptom of being an American churchgoer. "Don't like something at XYZ Church? Try Another!" This is another thread in itself. I think your observations are accurate. My question is just are some of these larger churches (and smaller ones too) feeding into other churches?

I think it would be great if we could just learn from each other. I was a youth director at a liberal Presbyterian Church (way too liberal for my comfort) and I remember asking the head pastor if I could combine youth groups once a month with a dynamic conservative church across the street because our group of kids could have really benefitted from another perspective and new friends. I believe the request was interpreted as a betrayal. It was made crystal clear that our superior understanding of the gospel was not going to me dirtied by inferior minds. This was the same church where I found a Ouji board in the youth group closet and discovered that the last youth director really enjoyed using it with the kids. After throwing it away, I started my programs and lost the junior and seniors because of my closedminded ideas. It was a real mess for the first couple of years and really never turned around. They ended up highering the old youth director back after I left for graduate school.

 

[HammerStone]

River, this is one article, but I still remember a better one that cited some historical trends.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/may/dropouts-and-disciples-how-many-students-are-really-leaving.html?paging=off

 

[River Jordan]

River, this is one article, but I still remember a better one that cited some historical trends.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/may/dropouts-and-disciples-how-many-students-are-really-leaving.html?paging=off

Thanks HS for finding that. Very interesting. You should also check this out from the Barna Group: Five Myths about Young Adult Church Dropouts

 

[sojourner4Christ]

...are you David Chilton or have you just done a cut and paste job?

I am not David Chilton and the info is not copyrighted.

soujouner,

A couple issues with your post. First, the OP is about "higher education" not high school. What are your thoughts about secular undergraduate and graduate schools? Are they the same? If you are opposed to all government funded public education, I assume the answer would be "yes."

Yes, of course.

Second, I think any effort to use the Bible to denounce public education is speaking from Scriptural silence. You are pointing to a verse about the government punishing wickedness...which has nothing to do with education. I dont think the point of those passages is to say that this is the ONLY role of government and the government functioning in any other capacity is evil.

It has everything to do about what Godly government’s role is. The so-called “separation of church and state” is a lie, an abomination to the Lord.

Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt send my kids to public school even if someone tried to force me at gunpoint. However, my rationale is not because such education is prohibited by the Bible (it certainly is not).

The Bible commands the parents -- not the ungodly State -- to raise up Godly seed.

Its simply because I do not want to entrust my precious children to being educated by relative strangers, the influences of sometimes troubled young peers, and obviously some of the things being taught in the classroom. I think general biblical principles are sufficient to show that public school is usually an unwise choice for parents....but certiainly not a violation of an explicit command/teaching.

Of course, both are indeed a form of “teaching”...

Soujourner,
The Bible does not give rulers the power to educate children; that responsibility belongs to the family. State schools are therefore immoral in principle.

It’s not about the Bible giving anyone power. It’s about Godly people relinquishing their Godly responsibilities to the ungodly State.

Thanks for posting the Christian Reconstruictionist viewpoint. Fortunately the vast majority of Christians don't support their desires to overturn the government and replace it with a theocracy.

The attempt to marginalize and control via a worldly label is futile and the viewpoint is moot, as unfortunately, the vast majority of those who would claim the label of Christian are not born again. God’s “theocracy” is here, always has been. That a majority refuse, in ignorance or otherwise, to submit to it, does not diminish the reality.

 

[Wormwood]

It has everything to do about what Godly government’s role is. The so-called “separation of church and state” is a lie, an abomination to the Lord.

The Bible commands the parents -- not the ungodly State -- to raise up Godly seed.

So, I am trying to mesh these two statements. Is the government potentially "godly" or is it always the "ungodly State"? I agree that the "separation of church and state" is a ridiculous notion. I don't see how this addresses the issues of the OP. If the state and church should not be separate, then why is it immoral or ungodly for the State to have a role in education? If the State taught Scriptural truths, would it still be "ungodly" or is it automatically ungodly when it attempts to provide any form of public education? I'm trying to understand your point here. What if the parents do not want to educate the kids? Would it be "godly" of the State to allow those children to grow up in ignorance with no education and therefore no potential in life? Its easy to point to the ideals of Scripture, but the reality is that this is not how the world functions. Yes, parents should raise their children up in the Lord. However, I still don't agree that this excludes the State from playing a part in the educational process. I don't find any prohibition in Scripture saying the government must not have any role in education. In fact, I think the OT shows that the godly kings were very active in making sure the nation of Israel was active in the Temple and honoring God. Clearly the Sadducees were political figures and they were involved in educating Israel. Was this an immoral system as well? In any event, I think you are drawing lines in areas where Scripture is silent. Just because Scripture says that parents should raise their kids up in the Lord does not mean that the government setting up educational institutions is thereby inherently evil. That is like saying that because an elder/overseer must have respectful "children" that if they only have one child or no children then they do not meet the qualifications. I think that is taking the passage beyond its clear intent. Anyway, I simply think we must judge these institutions on what they teach, rather than condemning them for merely existing.

 

[River Jordan]

I've never really understood the whole "the separation of church and state is ridiculous" thing among conservatives. Logically the reverse of that is to have a government system where church and state are not separate. So what would that entail? An official state religion and denomination? What would that mean for citizens who don't belong to it? Would they be treated differently by the government?

I mean, I know "separation of church and state is a myth" is a popular conservative talking point for people who wish the government would more closely reflect, endorse, and/or enforce their religious beliefs, but I wonder just how much they've really thought it through.

 

[Wormwood]

River,

I think the founding fathers did not want an "official state religion." That is what they were escaping. That is not to say that they wanted the government to be void of religion or religious presuppositions (they had church services in the White House!). Clearly, if you read any of their writings, this is the opposite of what they believed. To suggest a government can establish laws, dictate morality or guide social functions of a people apart from religious discussion or reflection is ridiculous. As I have shared with you before, the idea that we can do everything on a purely secular level is a religious ideology. Religious reflection is inevitable when it comes to governing a people and making decisions about wars, laws and "justice." We are inescapably "religious" whether that religion is secular materialism or Christianity. Both are built on religious presuppositions about who we are, where we come from and the ultimate purpose and meaning of life, reason, morality and the goal of society.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

My comments are in red text:

This is strong meat, so please do not be offended.

So, I am trying to mesh these two statements. Virtually everyone is likewise trying to do that! But should they be? Is the government potentially "godly" or is it always the "ungodly State"? That question is more easily answered that most realize. Godly leaders are for Godly nations. I agree that the "separation of church and state" is a ridiculous notion. I don't see how this addresses the issues of the OP. It’s one in the same. Those who would place their trust in the image, by extension also place their children’s welfare (e.g. their “higher education,” an oxymoron if ever there was) in that same image. If the state and church should not be separate, then why is it immoral or ungodly for the State to have a role in education? Because the soulless State is of antichrist. If the State taught Scriptural truths, would it still be "ungodly" or is it automatically ungodly when it attempts to provide any form of public education? Because Mother Theresa did lots of ‘good things,’ does that negate the fact that because she was still an unbeliever and is now in hell? I'm trying to understand your point here. What if the parents do not want to educate the kids? By “educate,” do you mean teach them the ways of world, the ways to reject Christ, the ways to pursue mammon, the ways to pursue the ‘feel-goods’ of society? By “educate,” do you mean endeavoring to obtain a piece of paper from Caesar that acknowledges their child’s accomplishments in learning all the ‘desirable traits’ of one of the world? Would it be "godly" of the State to allow those children to grow up in ignorance with no education and therefore no potential in life? What those who would worship the State would call “ignorance,” and what God would call “ignorance,” are diametrically opposed. And since when does one equate “no [worldly] education” with “ignorance”? It is Caesar’s State-“educated” slaves who are “ignorant,” not God’s children. Its easy to point to the ideals of Scripture, but the reality is that this is not how the world functions. Should the child of God care “how the world functions”? The child of God is not to be found endeavoring to be of “the world.” Yes, parents should raise their children up in the Lord. However, I still don't agree that this excludes the State from playing a part in the educational process. No man can serve two masters. A little leaven leavens the whole lump i.e. when the two are blended, the bad destroys the good.
I don't find any prohibition in Scripture saying the government must not have any role in education. That’s true ONLY if that government is Godly government. I’ll give you a simple real-world example:

Scripture tells us to test people, to see if they are of God or not.

1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

This only makes sense, when one is sincerely interested in associating with godly people, while avoiding the contamination and influence of ungodly men.

The key, however, to the rejection of the rule of God was Article VI, Clause 3, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several state Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This is why, if you’re one who is claiming the benefits of being a “US citizen,” you have Satanists ruling over you today. This is why you have jack booted thugs with badges breaking down your doors, etc. etc. The word “God” does not even appear anywhere in that humanistic manifesto; it begins with “We the people...”! The intended deception of the worldly “US Constitution” was built in to the foul thing at the onset. Touch not the unclean thing...

How many of you, citizens of the State, reading this post now, have even bothered to READ the State’s document outlining how your leaders have been, and will be, chosen?

We don't find Christ there, it's men ruling other men, giving benefits to one another. And when the natural man gives a benefit to you, there's a duty attached to it. There's no “freely” giving (Matthew 10:8) and expecting nothing in return, as scripture tells us. We are not to touch the unclean thing (2 Corinthians 6:17), and the US Constitution is an unclean thing, based upon selfishness and commerce.

The USA nation has rejected Christ and his rule over them. They must pay heed to the warning of Jeremiah 12:17, "But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD." In the meantime, the battle is not over. You can still repent and turn to God.

There are several other Satanically authored problems with the “US Constitution.”

In fact, I think the OT shows that the godly kings Godly kings were very active in making sure the nation of Israel was active in the Temple and honoring God. Clearly the Sadducees were political figures and they were involved in educating Israel. Was this an immoral system as well? Politics? State “educating”? Was Jesus involved in these things of the world? For instance, is the pledge of allegiance to the flag considered idolatry by God? Well, let's begin by asking ourselves a question. "What would Jesus do?" Can you picture Jesus Christ, in the first century, placing his hand over his heart and saying the pledge of allegiance to the state of Israel? If not, why not?

If Jesus Christ were in America today, can you picture him pledging allegiance to the flag? Well, one might bring up the point that America is God's chosen nation. Well, wasn't Israel God's chosen nation when Jesus was in the flesh? So, if Jesus would not pledge allegiance to God's Holy Land in the first century, why would he pledge allegiance to any other 'holy land' in our century?

The answer is simple. To pledge allegiance to anything else but God, is to pledge allegiance to something outside of God. Nobody can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). Just like Jesus could not pledge allegiance to both Israel and God at the same time, man cannot pledge allegiance to both country and God. Remember, God's kingdom is not of this world (John 8:23; 17:16; 18:36). Even though Israel was considered "godly", and America is considered a "godly" nation, it is still placing ones allegiance to something other than God himself. Israel is not God. America is not God. Nations are outside of God.

Jesus did not believe in borders. He commanded to break down and penetrate borders between nations (Mark 16:15). Followers of Christ are not to be citizens of any earthly nation, but we are to be fellow citizens "of the household of God" (the Ephesians 2:19). Jesus prayed that "...all may be one" (John 17:21). Jesus said, "And the cares of this world…choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful" (Mark 4:19). Paul said, "And be not conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2). Isn't pledging allegiance to the flag, or country, conforming to the ways of the world?

In any event, I think you are drawing lines in areas where Scripture is silent. I’ve drawn no lines -- God has. And he’s not silent, not by a country mile. Just because Scripture says that parents should raise their kids up in the Lord does not mean that the government setting up educational institutions is thereby inherently evil. The government is on God’s shoulders. There is only one Lawgiver. That is like saying that because an elder/overseer must have respectful "children" that if they only have one child or no children then they do not meet the qualifications. That would depend on which master that “elder/overseer” is rendering to. I think that is taking the passage beyond its clear intent. Rather, let’s continue, with Scripture, to illustrate its “clear intent.” Anyway, I simply think we must judge these institutions on what they teach, rather than condemning them for merely existing. Touch not the unclean thing, and he will receive us. What fellowship has light with darkness? NADA.

You hear the phrase, "The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land." That's not what the Word of God says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Did the Constitution create the heaven and the earth? So how could it be the law of the land? Only He who creates, God, is the Law of the land. "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). Christ is before the Constitution, and by Jesus, not the Constitution, all things consist.

John 1:3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

All things were created by Him and for Him, not "by the people, and for the people" (Democracy); not for our enjoyment, not for our wants. We were created for God.

The sole purpose of constitutions is to free human beings from God's Law in order to chain them to the morality of the State dictated in its codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, public policies, executive orders, laws, etc. All constitutions were created by the fallen reason of the natural man, and are molded by the "reasonable interpretation" of human beings wearing black robes. Private rights are always weighed against the greater public good and are regulated by the "police power".

Those who thus rely upon the words of any constitution for support are leaning upon a broken reed; and their sense of security is a false one. The Constitution does not protect persons or property against unjust invasion, or prevent government control and regulation of business. After all, this depends on the interpretations and applications of the courts. Constitutional law is the morality of fascism and comes from the vain imaginations of men. It is a code, rule, or regulation for the dead thing it brings into being. Corporations are dead, at law. The United States is a Federal corporation. Thus, the United States is a dead thing.

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Charles Evans Hughes, Supreme Court Justice, in Dictionary of American Maxims (1955), p. 88.

God’s children are not to obey the State because the State is not God.

When you’ve joined yourself to society, you’ve become dead just like them, and everybody that’s in that society is the walking dead. At 7:30 in the morning you put on your commercial mask, you work as an ‘employee’ and work for an ‘employer’ and you work for the ‘State’ because the employer and the employee is one of those legal entities comprised within the State; then you go back to your ‘home’ (that’s another legal entity defined as your principle place of business, under the IRS Code); and you go back to your ‘spouse’ (which is another legal entity); and you take care of ‘your children’ (which is another legal entity); who have ‘educational rights’ (another legal entity) in a government run school that can be enforced even against ‘the parents’ (another legal entity). And you can see that every word has to do with a legal entity or person, it has no truth in God’s Word at all. You don’t find any of those things in God’s Word. You will find the word ‘children’, but all children are His, not yours.

So, let’s say you find yourself all wrapped up in these legal entities because you’ve been trained to speak like the world speaks. How do you begin to tear down these images? What are we supposed to do? You learn of Him. That’s where you begin. You learn of Him and look to Him for all Truth, because that is the only place you will find Truth. And from there, you will see what to do and what not to do, because he has showed us everything.

Just like when Jesus said to the Pharisees that they show people the Kingdom of God, but prevent them from going in, Churches today say, "There is Jesus. Here are all the leaders. You must go through us before you go through Him." They are showing people the way, but not letting them enter. They set up a wall between God and themselves. When they stand before the Kingdom of God and you, they don’t care what the Law of God says (Isaiah 5:24), they have cast it aside. Their back is turned towards the Kingdom of God, and they are facing whoever wants to come in through Jesus’ door (Revelation 3:20). So they have cast Jesus aside. It’s all self-will. They have cast the Law of God behind them, and anyone who wants to get into the Kingdom of God, they can’t do it.

When our brother Paul was accused by the Jews of persuading men to worship God contrary to the law, the courts of law of the Roman Government refused to judge religious matters, because they recognized they had no authority to judge in matters of "religious freedom" (Acts 18:12-16), as did the governments before Christ (Jeremiah 38:4-5).

There is not one time in scripture where Christ ever submitted to the Roman Imperial law. Period! He said his true family are not his blood relatives, but only those who "shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 12:50). Jesus Christ, nor any servant of God for that matter, has never, ever, never, ever said anything about doing the "will of man on earth", only the "will of your Father which is in heaven."

Our Lord taught us to resist evil when he said, "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). Resist evil and it will flee from you (James 4:7). We are not taught to overthrow the government, but to throw the wickedness out of government. We are to overthrow that which is ungodly and wicked by speaking the truth, and establish in its place that which is godly and holy. The only lawful government is that which governs according to God's Word.

There is no command in the Word of God to confess the State to the glory of the State.

Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If men would "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), this world would be a much better place.

The 23rd Welfare State:

The Government is my Shepherd, I need not work. It alloweth me to lie down on a good job; It leadeth me beside still factories; It destroyeth my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politic's sake; Yea, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit-spending, I will fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic Utopia for me, by appropriating the earnings of my own grandchildren. It filleth my head with false security; My inefficiency runneth over. Surely the government should care for me all the days of my life, And I shall dwell in a fool's house forever.

 

[River Jordan]

You want to see something creepy? Read soujourner's post as if it was written by a Muslim. Replace "God" with "Allah" and you'll see that "The only lawful government is that which governs according to God's Word" becomes "The only lawful government is that which governs according to the Word of Allah".

IOW, he's advocating for the Christian version of Sharia Law.

 

[Wormwood]

Virtually everyone is likewise trying to do that! But should they be?

I don't understand. I was just trying to make sense of what you were saying. The two statements appeared to contradict one another.

It’s one in the same. Those who would place their trust in the image, by extension also place their children’s welfare (e.g. their “higher education,” an oxymoron if ever there was) in that same image.

So if a child wants to be a computer engineer, and their parents don't know anything about computers....are they just out of luck? I strongly resist the idea that Christians should only be educated by Christians. To suggest that unbelievers have nothing of value to offer the believer intellectually ultimately turns the church into a siege against the world. I don't think this is what Jesus or the Apostles taught or demonstrated in their ministries.

Because the soulless State is of antichrist

Huh? You just said the State could be godly if it had godly leaders. Make up your mind here.

Because Mother Theresa did lots of ‘good things,’ does that negate the fact that because she was still an unbeliever and is now in hell?

Um...Mother Teresa believed in the grace of God in Jesus Christ. That is what compelled her to do her benevolence for the dying in Calcutta. I would be very cautious about making such judgments as you will be held to the standard you use. If Mother Teresa's faith was inadequate to enter Christ's kingdom, I fear for you. Your blanket classification of all Catholics is telling. Are you a Seventh Day Adventist or Jehovah's Witness?

By “educate,” do you mean teach them the ways of world, the ways to reject Christ, the ways to pursue mammon, the ways to pursue the ‘feel-goods’ of society? By “educate,” do you mean endeavoring to obtain a piece of paper from Caesar that acknowledges their child’s accomplishments in learning all the ‘desirable traits’ of one of the world?

Um, no I mean teaching kids to read, write, add 2+2 and maybe have the necessary skills to provide for themselves as adults. You need to make up your mind as to whether you are talking about parents raising up their kids, or higher education. You keep bouncing back and forth.

It is Caesar’s State-“educated” slaves who are “ignorant,” not God’s children.

You are dodging the question. Is it not godly for the State to make sure that basic education is provided for children whose parents are negligent in teaching their children in any fashion?

No man can serve two masters. A little leaven leavens the whole lump i.e. when the two are blended, the bad destroys the good.

You are ripping both of those verses out of context. One has to do with loving money and the other about sin and sexual immorality among the fellowship of believers. These verses have nothing to do with kids going to public school to learn how to read and write... or someone going to college to learn how to program computers. Clearly you have a view and you will make the Bible fit that view...regardless of the context of the verses you are referencing. Very troubling. Anyway, I cant respond to everything here...and frankly, most of it doesn't warrant any.

You want to see something creepy? Read soujourner's post as if it was written by a Muslim. Replace "God" with "Allah" and you'll see that "The only lawful government is that which governs according to God's Word" becomes "The only lawful government is that which governs according to the Word of Allah".

IOW, he's advocating for the Christian version of Sharia Law.

Yeah, not too fond of his post. Yet we should be cautious about pointing to extremes to reject a concept outright. Originally abortions were argued on the bases of rape-victims who became pregnant. Now 1.2 million abortions are done each year and less than a percent of those are in any way related to rape. Just sayin...

 

[River Jordan]

Yeah, not too fond of his post. Yet we should be cautious about pointing to extremes to reject a concept outright.

Definitely. But I don't see too much non-extreme things in soujourner's posts.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Huh? You just said the State could be godly if it had godly leaders. Make up your mind here.

Yes, I said could be. In other words, I gave you hope. There is always hope -- IF we REPENT, God will restore, and he will heal our land. That’s all it would take. Let’s say, the USA takes one day off, just one day, from the president all the way down to the street sweeper, we all agree to take just one day off and repent. How likely do you think that is gonna happen? Well, then, you’d better prepare for the coming persecution, because it is at the door.

Um...Mother Teresa believed in the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

Satan “believes in the grace of God in Jesus Christ.” George Bush says Jesus is Lord, but you’ll never hear any of them say, “Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour of MY life.” ‘Believing in the grace’ saves no one.

Your blanket classification of all Catholics is telling. Are you a Seventh Day Adventist or Jehovah's Witness?p

It was merely an example! I couldn’t care less about any denomination i.e. man’s once-removed-from-the-truth organizations/corporations/images. I love those who affiliate with Catholicism as much as I love the King himself. Please stop trying to kill the messenger and rather answer the scriptural imperatives I posted.

Um, no I mean teaching kids to read, write, add 2+2 and maybe have the necessary skills to provide for themselves as adults. You need to make up your mind as to whether you are talking about parents raising up their kids, or higher education. You keep bouncing back and forth.

My offspring are taught by my wife and me, at home. The #1 teaching tool is the AV. They are sharp as nails. And they are taught life skills as the servants of the Most High God they are ordained to be; we are raising Godly seed.

I understand that because you can’t seem to see any other way, it would seem like “bouncing” to you.

You are dodging the question. Is it not godly for the State to make sure that basic education is provided for children whose parents are negligent in teaching their children in any fashion?

Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?...Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Mat. chap. 7).

'Shall we turn our Godly parenting responsibilities over to the God-less State when we have failed our duty to them?’ Even a broken clock is right twice a day! Beware, as even rat food is 99.99% good food! Rather, the body of Christ, the community of the born again saints, takes care of its own.

And BTW, what is your definition of “basic education”? That is a very important question, because it indicates whether you are giving life to the State’s dead thing (i.e. State-issued credentials, licenses, etc.), or whether you are truly teaching your children Godly life skills with which he/she will glorify the King. Raise the child up in the way of the Lord, and he will not depart from it.

People don’t like to hear this, because it means they would be 100% accountable for their child’s failure and/or success. It means they could no longer consider themselves virtual DINKS (Double Income No Kids) as when they handed their child off to the world for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, while the husband and wife went out into the world chasing mammon. Let’s face it, most reading this post are, on average in USA, $14,000 in debt, living beyond their means.

You are ripping both of those verses out of context. One has to do with loving money and the other about sin and sexual immorality among the fellowship of believers. These verses have nothing to do with kids going to public school to learn how to read and write... or someone going to college to learn how to program computers.

If you wish to continue handing your children, and your responsibility, off to the Godless State, then you are certainly free to do that. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Clearly you have a view and you will make the Bible fit that view...regardless of the context of the verses you are referencing. Very troubling. Anyway, I cant respond to everything here...and frankly, most of it doesn't warrant any.

That is because you are unable to answer what I have posted. Attempting to summarily dismiss what I have posted won’t make your problems go away.

And I do understand why. I was just like you, many years ago. Some people come to like the chains of bondage which they have voluntarily submitted themselves to. I didn’t. So I sought the Lord on it, intensely. I’m not here to be your best friend, or to tell you what you want to hear, and I don’t care what you may think of me. My call is to make sure that God’s people arrive at the time and the place he has appointed for them.

Yeah, not too fond of his post. Yet we should be cautious about pointing to extremes to reject a concept outright. Originally abortions were argued on the bases of rape-victims who became pregnant. Now 1.2 million abortions are done each year and less than a percent of those are in any way related to rape. Just sayin...

This is good, because it contains hope. We all know something is wrong, but we are not sure what it is. I’ve given you a taste, and you don’t like it (and I don’t blame you). My lifestyle is already considered “extreme” simply because I don’t ship my children off to the world every day, they are unpapered (no birth cert’s, passports, etc.) and are not citizens of any country on earth.

God always makes a way where there seems to be no way. It is the essence of faith. Trust him, seek him out, and he will guide your path.

If your reaction to being told that there are faults in Caesar's statutes is to rush to defend them, it is because you cannot envision life without them. This is normal for someone who can only see one kingdom: the kingdom of this world. Yet this world is passing away, as are our own bodies. There is only one thing in life more certain than Caesar's taxes. So we are really here as a test of whether we can “see” and then choose those things that have eternal value. Are our energies devoted to laying up earthly treasures, or treasures in heaven? Are we slaves devoted to building the kingdom of this world, or are we seeking first the kingdom of God? We cannot even know where to begin unless we can see God's kingdom, which is the true meaning of being born again.

God in His sovereignty has provided the perfect means of testing whether we can make the distinction between the two kingdoms. Caesar has usurped God's authority, but his kingdom is built entirely with our consent and by using legal fictions. His authority over us is imaginary. We do not have to render ourselves to him unless we believe that we belong to him. Most people believe with all their heart that they do, for they cannot see the alternative. But if you know that you belong to God, along with your labor, your family, and everything else you have, then you will already have a deep-seated unease with the multitude of demands Caesar makes on you.

If this is the case, then make a list of those things that rightly belong to God but you have in ignorance given to Caesar. Then develop a plan of action for returning them to their rightful owner. This is not easy, but it is necessary. You will need to learn much more about God's Law so that you can discern what true obedience requires of you. If you trust the State to provide for your needs rather than trusting God, it should be clear which master you are serving. As no man can serve two masters, you have a choice to make. Scripture is clear that obedience to God comes at a price, and we must first count the cost. But once you can see the eternal kingdom, you will realize that any price is worth it.

Matthew 13:44, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.”

I would be honored to answer those sticky questions you may be harboring. Iron sharpeneth iron. Jesus came to set the captives free. Let's get set free.