“But just as you excel in everything – in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us – see that you also excel in ths grace of giving.” (2 Corinthians 8:7, NIV)
The study of English literature is intended to promote a deeper understanding of the written English language, demonstrated by the student through reading comprehension, discussions and essays. A student is taught how to identify symbolism, satire, and underlying themes or messages intended by the author to stimulate thought … thought that might also promote action against some type of injustice identified in society at the time of the written piece. Classes are best run with an openness to opinion, and the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech to where a student or teacher cannot be punished or silenced for expressing their opinion on a subject being discussed. If a person believes their rights to free speech are, in fact, being violated, that person first needs to humbly consider whether THEIR message was correctly received.
For example, suppose an English literature class is discussing Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (published in 1852) and a student offers an opinion that all people with black skin should be taken as and forever remain slaves. A knee-jerk reaction will most likely occur immediately — “How can this opinion be allowed in a public school classroom??” But it is just that: An opinion. The Constitution allows such an opinion to be freely discussed in a classroom setting. In fact, a different student also has the freedom to offer the words of 1 Corinthians 12:13, which suggests that in God’s eyes, both slave and free of every race are equals as human beings in need of the fullness of God’s love and redemption. What one student intends for evil (possibly), another student can use the Word of God to change the tone of discussion for good.
Paul commended the Corinthian believers for excelling in speech and in knowledge, and the study of English literature promotes growth in those areas. Members of society need to decide what works best to promote that growth, and school districts encourage parents to participate in selecting curriculum — it is for their children, and public schools cannot function properly without the involvement of parents. Inevitably (and by necessity), curriculum is selected with some bias — it is impossible to fit every scrap of literature into a yearly program, and those who select materials intend to do so to fit a broad collection of ideas and viewpoints. Christian parents are free to participate in that selection process in an effort to choose materials that will best promote excellence in speech and knowledge … and by doing so, honor Christ as did the Corinthian believers.
Dave,
I have two thoughts on your comment that “school districts encourage parents to participate in selecting curriculum.” I’ll put thought #1 in this comment, and thought #2 in a second comment.
Thought #1: in European history, this is new. The ancient Athenians had a kind of democracy, but it is only in the last couple of centuries that Europeans have experimented with democracy again. We are fortunate to live during this democratic experiment: oppression, tyranny and religious persecution are all too easy when the people have no real say in their government.
But democracy demands “liberalism” in the sense that it demands tolerance. If we don’t tolerate each others’ differences, then democracy becomes impossible. Without tolerance, government degenerates into a power-struggle in which each group tries to dominate and oppress the others. We can see this attitude in Hank Williams Jr.’s recent outburst, calling the President of the U.S. “the enemy.”
What you have consistently tried to do in your blog is to hold out the hope that participatory government does not have to degenerate into religious intolerance and persecution. I applaud your efforts.
My second thought on your comment that “school districts encourage parents to participate in selecting curriculum” is a reflection on the idea of parents reasoning with one another regarding school curricula. In his essay on 1 John 5:7, Jonathan Swift said this:
“Let any man but consider, when he hath a controversy with another, although his cause be ever so unjust, although the world be against him, how blinded he is by the love of himself, to believe that right is wrong, and wrong is right, when it maketh for his own advantage. Where is then the right use of his reason, which he so much boasts of, and which he would blasphemously set up to control the commands of the Almighty?” (Jonathan Swift, On The Trinity, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/12746/pg12746.html).
Selfish pride so easily induces people to set up their own convictions as God’s Word, and once they are convinced that their convictions are Divine, they close their ears, minds and hearts to all opposition. This is blasphemy. Listen to those Christians who are against secular public education – don’t they sound like just these kinds of blasphemers? Don’t they seem to be trying to whip up just this kind of blasphemy amongst believers? Doesn’t their kind of political activism go clearly beyond the clear instructions of Micah 6:8, and venture into the realm of “theocracy,” setting themselves up as those who “control the commands of the Almighty?”
By inviting parents to participate in selecting school curricula, democracy is opening the door to these kinds of people. Defenders of democracy must be constantly vigilant. We must tolerate the intolerant, and hope and pray that their efforts to undermine justice will be met with solid reasoning: Isaiah 1:18.
Don,
Thank you for your kind encouragement and your thoughtful contributions to this blog — very much appreciated! One of the things that bothers me about the “no public school” crowd is how loosely they play with the truth … and also how they are simply ignorant of the truth (I guess that’s two things). They love to point out how evil the system is, but they fail to acknowledge that there are literally thousands of students and teachers doing it RIGHT for every one that is doing it wrong … and I would also believe that examples of “wrong” are not the norm.