Dr Greg Bahnsen - Hot Potatoes: Why Johnny Can't Pray (Part 4)

I'd like to give you a series of issues that public schools need to resolve. Let's remember these are public schools, and these issues need to be resolved in a pluralistic fashion. A pluralistic fashion to the satisfaction and the equitable treatment of all taxpayers and all viewpoints. If it's a public school and issues are to be resolved pluralistically, then they must be resolved to the satisfaction and the equitable treatment of all taxpayers and all viewpoints. The first one we're going to take up is the one that gives the title to tonight's lecture, and that is publicly acknowledged prayer in the public schools or publicly acknowledged time for private prayer in the public schools, whichever way you want to go. Now, that is a hot potato. If you've ever been to a local school board meeting where this is being debated back and forth, you will not be real impressed with the low level, analytical, scholarly approach of most people. I mean, this immediately gets a visceral response from people, both negative and positive. Right? People feel strongly about this issue. It's not just the local school board meeting. You just watch the evening news. You see, when people get together on both sides of that issue. 60 Minutes loves to grab these school prayer issues, you know, and ballyhoo them and so forth. This is hot stuff. Well, how should the public school resolve the controversy over the question of publicly acknowledged prayer or prayer time in the public schools? First of all, there's the question of compulsory participation. Should we compel children to participate in prayers at the public school? Now, how might they be forced or compelled to participate? If we had a blackboard here, I would list out for you all these options. And one of the things I'd want to turn around and do after we've listed them is say, now which one of those is the Christian answer? Now, should children be compelled to participate in the recitation of prayers? Should they be compelled to recite prayers? Some Christians might think so. What's it going to hurt? Right? Most people don't hold that view. But all I want you to see at this point is, nevertheless, that's controversial. Some people would say it's not enough the children are present when prayer is being done. They should recite the prayer. They should participate. Or is compulsory participation to be interpreted as heads bowed? You don't have to say the prayer, but you have to at least show respect for the praying. And so you will bow your head. Even if you're an atheist or come from an atheist family, you will bow your head and you will participate in that way or should compulsory participation be seen as compulsory silence? You don't have to recite the prayer, you don't even have to bow your head in respect, but you must be silent during this time. Some people think, well, that's the minimalist option and that's the way out here. We're not really compelling anything. Well, I want to suggest to you that if you compel a child to be silent so that other people may pray to that degree, you are one, forcing that child to participate in your religious ritual, to respect it when he or she might have no respect for it. And secondly, you're ostracizing those who will not participate. Because if somebody is disrespectful and talks and gets punished for doing so, basically the teacher, the principal, the school board will be applying their religious standards, as weak and as general as they may be their religious standards, to this particular child. Or maybe that child is simply being ridiculed on the playground for not participating. So you have to understand that compulsory participation is going to have to be addressed and interpreted if you believe that there should be a publicly acknowledged prayer or time of prayer in the public school. Second problem with praying in the public schools that has to be addressed is the wording of, of the prayers. Will the prayers which are uttered in the public schools be redemptively expressed or moralistically expressed? You realize those are the only options. Some prayers come to God in a redemptive vein, saying that we come to you knowing that we are sinful and unworthy, and it's only by your grace that we come. Other prayers, like the Pharisee that Jesus talked about in the story, come to God, saying, well, thanks, we've done a great job, God, you must be really happy with us. Now, maybe people aren't so crass as to state it that way, but you know, that's the character of prayer. It's either you either come in a redemptive mode knowing that you're a sinner and you need God's acceptance by grace, or you come because you think somehow you're worthy to be heard and you're asking God, make us all very good children that obey our teachers and our parents. Now, what kind of prayer is it that a Christian is supporting in the public schools? The moralistic type or the redemptive type? Thirdly, we have to ask, are prayers to be given through Christ mediation or are they to be generic prayers? Well, you see the controversy there. If you pray in Jesus name, then all those who are not Christians are offended. Pardon me if you don't pray in Jesus name. All those who are Christians are offended. They should be if they understand the theology of prayer. So generic prayer is unacceptable to the Christian. Specifically Christian prayer is unacceptable to generic religionists and atheists and others. So how do we resolve that? And then we can go further. How about Mary? Should prayers be given in the name of Mary? Should we ask for her intercession in our public school prayers? Well, if you're a Roman Catholic, yes, absolutely. We're taught to do so. And that's only appropriate if you're not a Roman Catholic. You're of course offended by that. Should prayers be given in the name of Sun Young Moon? If we go through the Messiah Jesus, can we go through the even higher Messiah moon according to their theology? Or should prayer be given in the name of Jehovah and only in the name of Jehovah so that Jehovah's Witnesses are not offended? If in your community you have atheists and Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Moonies, Roman Catholics and Protestants, Hindus and Buddhists, and the public school is to pluralistically resolve the controversy over prayer, then I want to ask you which of these options that I've given tonight as to compulsory participation, as to the character of prayer and as to the question of mediation or generic praying, which of those positions is the public school position on prayer? And my answer is none of them. Not any of the options that I have given you can possibly pass the test of being public, by which I mean pluralistic resolution so that all viewpoints and all taxpayers are equitably treated. You cannot possibly pray and satisfy every one of these concerns. It cannot both be generic and mediated prayer. It cannot both be mediated by Jesus alone and also Mary. It cannot both be through Jesus name alone and Sun Young Moon. It cannot be both redemptive and moralistic. Compulsion cannot be with respect to recitation and you don't have to recite. Compulsion cannot be resolved. The issue of compulsion with respect to requiring a bowed head, but you don't have to recite. Some people don't even want to bow the head. And on and on it goes. To put it very simply, there is no way to equitably resolve the public school prayer issue. And therefore the reason why Johnny can't pray in school, if I can explain it to you real simply, is because Johnny's going to a public school, and rightly the public school is not able to resolve the prayer issue. If somebody says, okay, well, then in the public school they just got to forget praying. No, no, no, no. That's not resolving the prayer issue. Because from a Christian standpoint, we're supposed to pray. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge. Everything that we do is to be done to the glory of God. We are supposed to pray. So yes, we must pray. But other people say, no, we must not pray. And then there's the whole question about what kind of prayer, what kind of compulsion, what kind of character, what kind of mediation, all of those issues. The reason why Johnny can't pray is because he's going to a public school. And secondly, the public school cannot resolve this issue. Cannot resolve this issue. I'm going to say it again. Cannot resolve this issue. We're still going to get questions later where people forget. The public school cannot. I'm not saying this resolution is better than that or that is worse than the other. I'm saying no resolution will work. None, zip, nada. It's gone. You can't do it out of here. You can't have prayer in the public schools, nor can you avoid prayer in the public schools and equitably treat all viewpoints and satisfy all tax payers. Cannot be done. But you see, the problem here is more than just praying. Let me move on to another issue. The lifestyle of teachers is an issue that cannot be resolved in the public schools either. What am I getting at? Well, the question is, should the public schools hire homosexuals? Be mediated by Jesus alone and also Mary? It cannot both be through Jesus name alone and Sun Young moon. It cannot be both redemptive and moralistic. Compulsion cannot be with respect to recitation and you don't have to recite. Compulsion cannot be resolved. The issue of compulsion with respect to requiring a bowed head, but you don't have to recite. Some people don't even want to bow the head. And on and on it goes. To put it very simply, there is no way to equitably resolve the public school prayer issue. And therefore the reason why Johnny can't pray in school, if I can explain it to you real simply, is because Johnny's going to a public school. And rightly the public school is not able to resolve the prayer issue. And somebody says, okay, well then in the public school they just got to forget praying. No, no, no, no. That's not resolving the prayer issue because from a Christian standpoint, we're supposed to pray. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge. Everything that we do is to be done to the glory of God. We are supposed to pray. So yes, we Must pray. But other people say, no, we must not pray. And then there's the whole question about what kind of prayer, what kind of compulsion, what kind of character, what kind of mediation, all of those issues. The reason why Johnny can't pray is because he's going to a public school. And secondly, the public school cannot resolve this issue. Cannot resolve this issue. I'm going to say it again. Cannot resolve this issue. We're still going to get questions later where people forget the public school cannot. I'm not saying this resolution is better than that or that is worse than the other. I'm saying no resolution will work. None, zip, nada. It's gone. Can't do it out of here. You can't have prayer in the public schools, nor can you avoid prayer in the public schools and equitably treat all viewpoints and satisfy all tax payers. Cannot be done. But you see, the problem here is more than just praying. Let me move on to another issue. The lifestyle of teachers is an issue that cannot be resolved in the public schools either. What am I getting at? Well, the question is, should the public schools hire homosexuals to teach? Can all viewpoints and all taxpayers be satisfied on that question? The people who hate homosexuality are not going to be satisfied if you hire them. And if you refuse to hire them, those who think that there is no immorality in homosexuality can't be satisfied. How about abortionists? Is it acceptable to hire an abortionist to teach in a public school? Same thing. Some people think abortion is murder. Some people think that it's a woman's privacy rights. Somebody is not going to be satisfied no matter what you say about that. You can't escape answering the question. And you can't answer the question to the satisfaction of all parties. How about advocates of free love? Should they be hired in the public schools? Should teachers who openly flaunt the idea that sex is just one of those pleasures like eating and sleeping and all the rest, and the children, teenagers, whoever, should engage in it whenever they want. People who hold to that point of view, should they be teaching in the public schools? You know, it's not just Christians who are concerned about that. We have a lot of licentious people who are non Christians. But you know, if there's somebody advocating free love in the public schools, I would suggest you go to the next school board meeting and see just how, you know, violent the argument is going to be over whether people like that should be hired. But you can't satisfy all viewpoints on that. How about those who engage in the use of recreational drugs? How about anarchists? How about members of terrorist groups? May they teach in the public schools? Or the old question, how about communists? It used to be a time where if you were declared communist, you couldn't teach in the public schools because you are committed to the overthrow of the U.S. government. But you know, that's not a consistent application of public school philosophy. That's one of the philosophies of life. You can't exclude that any more than you can exclude any other view that is part of the pub, part of the public. How about the lifestyle of teachers who use foul language? Is it acceptable for teachers to be overheard by children using four letter words and worse? If you say no, that's not acceptable, then you have. What you're basically doing is bringing some kind of moral absolute position in to the teaching in the public schools. But there are always going to be people who say, I don't share that worldview. I don't share that. I don't understand there's anything wrong with that kind of language. How about Hindus teaching math and telling children, well, of course what we're studying here is Maya, it's all illusion because really everything is one acceptable in the public schools or Hindus screened out? How about this one? If you want a hot potato, try this one. How about sexual involvement with students? Is that acceptable in the lifestyle of teachers? May teachers date their students? Now, there are people who feel very strongly about that and there are people equally who say, you have no right to impose your point of view on me. All depends on your morality, doesn't it? All depends upon your worldview. Now, on any of the issues that I've raised under the rubric of the lifestyle of teachers in the public schools, can you resolve them pluralistically to the satisfaction and equitable treatment of all taxpayers and viewpoints? My answer is the same as with respect to prayer, it's impossible to do. It's not as though there's better and worse. There is no position that can be taken that in fact is truly a public answer to those issues. Thirdly, what about school social behavior, not the lifestyle of teachers, but now the behavior, the social behavior of students? How should dress code disagreements be resolved? Can you satisfy everybody that's a taxpayer with respect to dress code? Some parents don't think that children should have dress codes at all. Some think uniforms are necessary. Some think that gang paraphernalia should not be allowed. Well, there's an ambiguous one to apply. Some people say that girls shouldn't wear Slack. Some people say girls shouldn't dress salaciously. I guess boys shouldn't either. But it's usually girls who get picked on that way. Now, who's right? Who's wrong here? Can all taxpayers be satisfied on the dress code issue? No. How about the issue of distributing condoms? Is that something the public school legitimately may do? On one worldview, yes. You take a different approach to life and morality? No. Should school lunches include pork? Well, can you satisfy everybody on that? Talk to Jews or Orthodox Jews and Muslims? Talk to those who are not Orthodox Jews and Muslims and you're going to get a different answer. And you can't satisfy both. When I was growing up and I happened to be in public schools. I'm not endorsing that, but I was. And if I bought my lunch at school on Friday, it was always fish. I felt I was being compelled to be a Roman Catholic. Why should I have to eat fish? I'm a Protestant. Give me those hamburgers. You go to the school board meeting. How can you resolve that? You can't. If you insist on fish on Friday or no pork for the sake of Jews and Muslims and so forth, you're going to satisfy one party and the other party's not going to be satisfied. By the way, should school lunches have meat at all? What about the vegetarians? Don't they get represented in public schools? Here's a good one. How about schoolyard disputes? Should we let schoolyard disputes be settled by violence? Don't take for granted what you have always thought and what you've seen so many people around you think. I mean, we always think teachers should stand in and break up these boys who are having a fist fight. I want to tell you something. Not everybody agrees with that. Not everyone thinks that's the right philosophy of life. There really are some fathers and I guess some mothers out there say, johnny better get used to taking care of himself out there on the playground. That's what life's all about. So, boy, I hope he blackens the eye of the other kid. Don't get in the way of my child. Let him learn about the rough and tumble of life. That's one philosophy of life. And another philosophy is, oh, no, you gotta protect children from themselves and so forth. Can you satisfy all the taxpayers on this question? No, you cannot. Should you allow homosexual couples to go to the high school prom? That's no joke. I mean, I would have thought it was 30 years ago, but that's no joke. There have been school boards that have been torn Apart over that issue, parents who are offended that the high school allows homosexual couples to go to the prom and equally those who will go to the ACLU and bring a lawsuit if you don't allow homosexual couples to go to the prom. Now, can the public school resolve in a pluralistic way to the satisfaction and equitable treatment of all taxpayers and viewpoints, any of these school social behavior issues? The answer is no. The school. The public school cannot resolve the prayer issue. The public school cannot resolve the lifestyle, a teacher's issue. The public public school cannot resolve school social behavior issues. But it's worse than that. I mean, some people might believe, well, we can get. That's all externals. We can get beyond all that in the classroom. There's no problem. Oh, yeah. What is it that should be taught and what is it that should be considered as a viable option if you're going to look at different ones? What is it that should be taught and. Or what should be considered about questions regarding origins? Where did man come from? That issue comes up in a broader context than you may think most people think, oh, yeah, the Scopes trial, right? In natural science classes, the whole issue of whether evolution will be taught. That is an issue that's an important one. But, boy, you've missed the boat if you think that's all of it. Because this issue comes up in social science, comes up in history courses, comes up in the liberal arts, and comes up in natural science throughout the curriculum. Whatever you teach students in one way or another is going to reflect the view of origins. Now, should it be evolution and creation or only evolution, or should it be only creation? You know, there are people on all those sides, some who say, present evolution, present creation, present both, only this, only this, or present both. And you have people who have other options too. What should be presented in social science, history, liberal arts, natural science, about man's moral condition, what's wrong with man? You know, the public schools teach something about what's wrong with man, either implicitly, usually explicitly. And the psychology that is fostered in the public schools is not one that corresponds to the Christian view of what's wrong with man. In fact, generally, what's taught in the public schools is that children should be shown that they don't need to feel guilty. It's not their fault in one way or another. I won't go into all the 57 varieties of how we get rid of our guilt. But the public schools teach that. They teach it in literature courses, they teach it in natural science courses, they teach it in Social science courses and history courses, you can't escape it. You have to have some view of man. When you have a Jeffrey Dahmer kind of situation that's considered in the public schools, is that to be considered an aberration? Or is that supposed to be the revelation of the true nature of man apart from the grace of God? Which is it? Should we say, well, hey, everybody makes mistakes. People are all basically good, you know, despite the violence you see at lunchtime, you know, and all the problem with unwed pregnancy and poverty, and on and on and on. Still public schools, it's just incredible. It's like, don't you have to. You have to wear blinders to go to public school? I think I don't want to look at the world. People are all basically good now. Listen to the evening news. And yet you're going to teach one way or another. You're going to teach that man is fallen. You're going to teach that he's not fallen. You can't avoid that. You cannot satisfy all taxpayers, you cannot satisfy all viewpoints when it comes to the moral condition of man. You can't satisfy all viewpoints when it comes to origins. Nor can you satisfy all viewpoints when it comes to the solution to man's predicaments. What is the solution? You know, the Christian says there is no solution outside of Christ. And everybody else in the world says, oh, no, we've got a Messiah, we've got a salvation, we've got a program. We've got something that will solve man's problems. Religion is just over in this corner over here. Christians say it's not in the corner. That's the only solution you have for any of man's problems, be they psychological, emotional, ethical, interpersonal, financial, political, on and on. Are humans unique from animals in the first place? Are humans superior to animals? Is it acceptable to dissect a frog in the science lab? They say you got different viewpoints. We don't even have to bring Christians into this one. Different viewpoints on that. Is man superior to the frogs? So man can cut up dead frogs? Is that fair? Is that right? Some people say, oh, that, that. No one argues over that. Listen, you are not paying attention. I'm not even paying that much attention. I know better than what you just said. That is a dispute as to whether animals may be used in the public schools in that way. So you see, you can't get away from some kind of view of man. Origins, man's moral condition. What is the answer to man's Predicaments, you can't escape that in social science, in history, in the liberal arts and natural sciences. Moreover, to say nothing about these things in social science, history, liberal arts or natural science would make it impossible to teach those courses. You can't teach literature without having a view of man. It's just impossible. I defy you to try it. And finally, what is the public school resolution of the problem over the existence of laws? Three kinds of laws, real quickly. Laws of math. Are there laws of mathematics? If you say that there are laws of mathematics, you're committed to a view of the world that says there's more than matter in motion out there because laws are not material and they're not in motion. And so some people say we shouldn't teach math in terms of math laws. Of course, if there are no math laws, there's no predictable way to balance your checkbook. Should we teach that there are laws of science? Well, if you believe there are laws of science, you must also believe something about the natural world and its regularity. But if you happen to hold, or someone in your society happens to hold to a more random approach to history and eventuation is more committed to chance in the exciting, creative, always changing world in which we live, as we like to say, then they aren't going to be happy about this rigid law like teaching of either math or science. How about laws of morality? Are there laws of morality? Should a student be punished for cheating on an examination? If the student is punished, is that only because the teacher has decreed like an autocrat that it must not take place? And that's why? But then, of course, you've got another kind of law of morality, don't you? If it's even based. I mean, if it's based merely on the decree of the teacher, then the question is, why are people under obligation to obey the teacher? And so are there laws in math or science or morality? You can't satisfy all viewpoints on this. You cannot give equitable treatment to all taxpayers and all opinions on this matter of prayer, lifestyle of teachers, school social behavior, what to teach or consider about origins, man's status, man's moral condition and solution to his predicaments, and fifthly, to the whole issue of laws versus randomness and particularity in the material world. And so what is the public school answer to these problems? There is no public school answer to these problems. Pose a question. Should people be forced to finance what they disagree with? When you go to the school board meeting and you see all these people yelling at each Other, you know, from the different sides. When I see that sort of thing, be honest, I mean, mindlessness sometimes makes me indignant. I don't like the way in which people talk to each other. But, you know, I'm really sympathetic to both sides in the public school setting when they do this because, you know, as stupid as I think this man's opinion over here may be, I don't think that he should have to pay for this opposing view over here. I don't think it's fair to force him to finance what he disagrees with. And so what's the way to peace in the public schools? And I'm going to give you the answer. Finally, the way to peace, rather than to rancor in riots, at school board meetings, is the free market. The way to peace is to let parents make their own choices and pay for them. The way to peace is for all schools, all schools, all schools to be privately funded. That's the way to peace. And people don't want to hear this. I have no illusions that people are just going to jump at my answer tonight. But I dare say I'll be prophetic here and that will be the only way it will ever be resolved. You will never get peace in the public schools. Never, ever. Nada. It's impossible. Logically impossible. You cannot satisfy all taxpayers in viewpoints. Unless, of course, you had a community that had no disagreements on anything, then maybe you could. But of course, we're not talking about that kind of world. Should your children be raised and molded contrary to your values and convictions as their parents? Shouldn't all of us be able to answer that, Christian and non Christian alike? Your children shouldn't be raised and molded contrary to your values, contrary to your convictions. Justice requires that parents be allowed to act according to their conscience when it comes to these school issues. Parents should be able to decide if they want their children taught by homosexuals or not. Parents should be able to decide whether in the classroom their children are taught we came through the evolutionary cycle, or whether we're the special creation of God. Parents should be able to decide whether condoms are part of the lifestyle of their teenagers or not. Parents should determine the values and the molding of their children, and therefore schools should be chosen by parents and not assigned by the state. Parents should be able to look out at the available options, or maybe even the possibility of opening their own more to their liking. Parents should be able to look at the available options and determine which of those options closest approximates the views of our home. Should anyone be obligated to pay for the education of his neighbor's children according to his neighbor's parental choices? This is a slightly different question. Imagine I don't even have children. I'm not part of all this debate at the school board meeting. Should I be compelled to pay for the education of my Hindu neighbors children according to Hindu standards or Muslim standards or atheist standards or evolutionary standards or homosexual standards? You can carry it out. Should I be under obligation to pay for that? I don't agree with that point of view. I don't agree with that lifestyle. Why then should I subsidize it? Why should I be put in a position where I must help my Muslim neighbor's children learn Muslim values or my homosexual neighbor's children learning homosexual values? They see that's just fundamentally unfair. That's wrong to do. And so my point tonight is that public schools are inherently impossible. Public schools, emphasize the word public. Public schools are inherently impossible. And thus in the case of any public school identified as such, what you have is hypocrisy, play acting. We're satisfying all taxpayers and all parties. No, you aren't. No, you aren't. And you cannot do. So basically, what people mean by public schools is not public. They mean majority view schools. And actually they don't even mean that because no one bothers to try to get the majority opinion of the parents. In fact, if you know anything about public school administrators, you know they don't like parents coming to school board meetings. They wish they wouldn't. They wish they'd just stay home. They don't know what they're talking about and stop giving us a headache. They do not go out of their way to say, let's make sure that 100% of the community is canvassed here before we make a decision. That's pure hypocrisy. They don't even want the majority opinion. And so what you get in the name of public schools is that opinion which is most politically clever. And by clever, I simply mean those who know how to manage the ropes of the political system are the ones who get their way in the public schools. Public schools are inherently impossible. Public schools are necessarily hypocritical. And thus public schools finance the wishes of one group out of the wallets of others. That's why Johnny can't pray at school. The problem there, the prayer issue, is just really the tip of the iceberg. If we were to be consistent, we would find out you cannot answer that question in a public school manner or any of the others necessary to education. Public schools are a fraud. They are financing the wishes of one group out of. Now, I'm not such an unintelligent boob that I don't realize that we're going to have great social problems if the public schools were to all close their doors tomorrow. There's going to have to be a gradual phasing out and a phasing in of a new approach. No doubt about that. But as soon as possible, the public schools should be closed, each and every one of them. To put it as one of my friends recently did, our approach to educational reform is not one brass farthing. That's our approach to educational reform. Not a penny, nothing. Because you shouldn't be doing it at all. Because when you try to have a public school, you're being a hypocrite, you're being a tyrant. And it's impossible. It's impossible to achieve what you claim to be doing. There are no public schools. Now, I know there are things called public schools. Well, my point tonight is there are no public schools there. And that's why Johnny can't pray. Christian parents, therefore, should first of all look for the closing of all public schools. Pray for it as soon as possible. Secondly, Christian parents must be concerned for far, far, far more than whether Johnny may pray in school. Christian parents must be concerned that their children be educated in every area of life in a way that is pleasing to. It's my biblically based conviction that the Lord has appointed to parents the responsibility and the final authority to secure to guide and control the education of their children. And God requires that parents train their children regarding this world and in all areas of life, to think God's thoughts after him and to walk in all his ways. The Bible teaches us that man was created as God's likeness, and he was created for God's glory, to study this world, to subdue this world, to develop this world in a way that God would require of him, to take this world in which God placed him and to develop it to the glory of God. We see that in Genesis 1, verses 26 through 28. Now, from the very beginning, naturally, who is it that would teach children to carry out that task of seeing everything in the world in a God glorifying way? It wasn't the public schools, wasn't your neighbor, it was parents. Parents are to educate their children. And by that I mean it is theirs to guide and control the education, whether they have somebody more competent do it under their direction or they themselves do it. It's parents who control the education of their children. And naturally, from the very beginning, it belonged to parents to instill this perspective that God wanted in children and to help them to pursue it in the world. But now, as we read on in the Bible, it isn't very far. Chapter three of Genesis, we find that man has come to ethical rebellion against God. And that ethical rebellion has resulted in a curse on mankind. And that curse on mankind, the Bible teaches, is experienced not only spiritually. I think this is really the key to convincing people their children should be in Christian schools, not public schools, that the curse of sin is not just a spiritual problem. It is that, of course, but it's also an intellectual problem. The curse of sin applies to the way we think. Paul says, knowing God, men refuse to glorify him as God and they become fools in their reasoning. Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, the natural man is not able to discern the things of the Spirit. The outlook that the Holy Spirit would give is not even available to him. In Ephesians 4, verses 17 and 18, Paul tells us that there's a difference between the thinking of the world and the thinking of God's people. And the thinking of the world is ignorant, it's foolish, it's blind, it's stupid. And so sin, which we read about in the third chapter of Genesis, sin has intellectual and therefore schooling and learning implications. Not only that, the bringing of sin into this world has introduced an unavoidable antithesis, a hostility, a perpetual antagonism between those who follow God and belong to the promised seed, the Savior, and those who do not. Now, Christians cannot overlook what I've just taught you. Creation. The doctrine of creation says you as a parent must educate your children to glorify God and to see his world in the way he wants. Sin has been brought into this world and therefore your children cannot be assumed to be taught in a godly fashion by just anybody. There is an antithesis and it cannot be negotiated away. We can't go to a school board meeting and come to some principles of detente between atheism and Christianity and Islam and the others. That antithesis cannot be removed. And so the task of pursuing a proper knowledge of the world and developing a God glorifying culture in this world is going to encounter tremendous obstacles and tremendous distortions which make it imperative that parents who have from the very beginning the obligation to educate their children within the perspective and power of God's word. Parents are going to need God's direction and grace. The redemption which Christ has secured for us doesn't simply save us spiritually and eternally from the wrath to come. But according to the Bible, it also delivers us from intellectual futility and from foolish reasoning and our methods and our learning about the world in which we presently live, as well as the world in which we will live in the future. So Proverbs 1:7 tells us that genuine knowledge begins with what? The fear of the Lord. That's not the end of the process. It's not like go to the public school all day and then make sure you come home at night and get the icing on the cake called religion. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowing. It's not the end of the process. Colossians 2:8. Paul tells us that we are to have a philosophy that's according to Christ and not according to the traditions of this world. John 17:17. Christ says that he sets apart and sanctifies his people by the truth. God's word is truth. And so neutrality and education is impossible. It's more than impossible. James 4:4 says it's immoral. Anyone who would be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. And that's why the aim of Christian parents must be to encourage their children to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. 2nd Corinthians 10:5. They are to have their children, see Colossians 2:3. That in him are deposited all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And if they do not do this, they are not being neutral, they are being enemies of God. And that's why, from the very beginning of history, it was a parental duty to give children an education that is governed by the word of God, the revelation of God. That's why in light of the fundamental nature of any knowledge, children must not be trained according to public or neutral standards, but according to the word of God. That's why, in light of the fact of sin and the antithesis that exists and the outlook of people in this world, Christian parents must make sure their children are educated according to the truth of God's word and not turned over to alleged hypocritical, neutral teachers. Fathers are to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The Bible says it's in the light of God that we see any light whatsoever. Now, what I have been saying here as the second point of my answer about public schools has really been part of the confession of faith of God's people through all the generations, through all the centuries, going all the way back to the formation of God's people at Mount Sinai. If you look at the Mosaic Law, you will see that it was the confession of faith, what Jesus called the first and great commandment of God's people in Deuteronomy 6, verses 4 and 5, that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, strength and mind. And what is the first and immediate application of that commandment? You know. And therefore these words shall be taught to your children in everything they do. If you are faithful to me, if you love me, if you are a covenant keeper with me. God says it will be seen first and foremost in that when your children rise up and when they go to bed at night, and when they go through the doorway or through the gates of the city, when they're sitting home or walking in the way, in everything that they do, they will see things from the perspective of my word. And that's why my law shall be written on your forehead and upon your hand, so that everything you see and think, everything that you do in this world is governed by me. That's how you teach your children these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children. And therefore, whatever children learn from math and science to history, social studies, literature or the arts, parents have a God given duty to keep covenant with him. The Christian answer, the oven mitt approach to the hot potato prayer in the public schools is to not have our children in the public schools, but to make sure that they are educated either at home or under your tutelage in a Christian school where you can keep covenant with God and how your children learn about the world. World. Thank you.

Again. Thank you, Dr. Bonson. We do thank you not only for the oven mitt techniques and learning and instruction for these two topics tonight, but for our previous times together on Tuesday night and also particularly for Geneva last night. And we do want to at this time wait upon you. If the Lord has moved your heart to help with to pray some of the cost of this conference. We'll pass around those collection plates at this time and allow you to so do so. I'd ask Paul and Tim and Carl again if you would just do that. In the meantime, think of the questions that you might want to ask just from what you just heard from this lecture. In a minute we're going to dismiss for five minutes or break up for five minutes. There's still some index cards over there. We've got a tremendous stack from the.

First hour, but we will try to.

Screen them and put some in from the Second hour as well. It will be a brief break, so don't wonder too far. We still have the drinks up here and we'll be right back for our closing segment in just a few minutes. Parents to kill children. Have other societies allowed this? They have at least allowed infanticide. Why is it absurd?

Well, first of all because when people say that historically other societies have allowed this, you need to look at what has been allowed and over generalizations are not going to be helpful. They don't generally allow parents under any and all circumstances to kill their children, no matter what their age and so forth. Moreover, even those historical examples that you can bring up are not relevant to what we have to address now. Because after the progress of Christian civilization, even though I'm not happy with our civilization and so forth, what I'm saying is it is for present purposes anyway, one of the most extreme, extremely unlikely things to happen that the US Government's going to say. Oh yeah, children can kill their, I mean parents, parents can kill, I'll say this right, parents can kill their children. And that's what I meant, that it was absurd. It isn't absolutely impossible, but it's so highly unlikely under present circumstances that it isn't genuine. Genuinely helpful to the debate.

Dr. Bonson, are we required, that's the word used here.

Are we required to use lesser force.

To save babies lives?

Are we required to use lesser force if it would be effective in saving the lives of babies over against more lethal force? Is that the force of the question?

That may be the force of the question. I guess I'm going to try to impress it in this way. Are Christians required to be out there doing something less than lethal force?

Okay, okay, I see. I understand that, yes, absolutely. Christians are under obligation to apply all lawful remedies that are at your disposal and every opportunity that you have to do what you can to save the lives of children. If you don't, it may be your own children's lives that you're forfeiting because I'm not here as a, you know, a doomsdayer at all. But if I read the Bible correctly, you mustn't expect that God's going to overlook the sins of this country any more than he does anybody else's. What we sow, we will reap. And if we sow destruction and death, God will bring us destruction and death. And so yes, we had better do everything we can to save the lives of unborn children. But all lawful means, and becoming vigilantes is not one of the things God allows his people to do.

And following up on that question and answer, what about Operation Rescue type protests at abortion clinics?

Okay, I have to be very quick about this because time is short and there are so many questions, and I'm aware that a quick answer only promises to offend somebody you know, either I don't say it right on this side or on that side, so please forgive me in advance, but here's my quick answer. The rhetoric of Operation Rescue is not, to me genuine. It is not persuasive, because Operation Rescue, the rhetoric argues that we have the right to intrude a limp body between, well, in the doorway of an abortion clinic, let's say. And so we can use a minimal form of oppression and coercion. People think because it's not aggressive, it's not violence, but that's playing with words philosophically. When you use physical means to obstruct other people from doing things, you're using violence. Okay, but the point is, it's using a form of oppression to accomplish the saving of lives of children. But if, if, if it were morally justified to use physical remedies to save the lives of children, then a limp body is morally insufficient. At that point, you should be doing everything possible. Basically, you've come to a warfare situation. And what Paul Hill did is correct. If Operation Rescues rhetoric is correct, and I say it's not, but if it is, what it justifies is much more than the kind of passive resistance given at the doorway. It justifies the actions of Apoll Hill. But I have already condemned morally the actions of Apoll Hill, and therefore I must say that I also condemn morally the actions of Operation Rescue. But now, quickly, lest anybody get too terribly offended, that doesn't mean all the actions of Operation Rescue, because anybody who knows about that organization realizes they do far, far more than try to have rallies and block abortion clinic doors with their bodies. Many of the things they do we all ought to be engaged in doing, from sidewalk counseling and protesting and trying to engage our legislators and so forth. So praise God for all, all that. But I cannot agree with the use of physical means to impose our view on others.

What about tubal pregnancy, Dr. Von Is it morally right for a doctor to terminate a living fetus in its mother's tube in order to save the mother's life? And I would just add my own.

Two cents to this.

What defense or what argument would you put forward, if not self defense? How would you frame it?

Okay, let me first of all just explain. Because most people use tubal pregnancy in Arguments of this sort, and they don't know what they're talking about. I don't mean they don't know what a tubal pregnancy is, but the threat to the life of a mother in the case of a tubal pregnancy is not the tubal pregnancy. It's ignorance of the tubal pregnancy. You understand what I'm saying? If a woman does not know that the fetus is developing in her fallopian tube, then it's very dangerous, because once that tube bursts, she may hemorrhage to death before the doctors can do anything to save her. But if doctors know that the woman has a tubal pregnancy, she's not going to die even if the tube bursts, because she's going to. If they do things right, she can be put under medical supervision, hospitalized, and they can be there available to her to save her life. If that happens. It is very, very rare. I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but. But it is occasionally the case that a tubal pregnancy goes term. And so in the case of a tubal pregnancy, the answer should be, we'll do everything we can to save both lives. And when the day comes, in the providence of God, that the child's not going to live because the tube bursts, then we will save the mother's life. That really isn't the tough one. I can tell you what some of the tougher cases are, although I hate to do it, because then people try to make general principles out of extremely rare cases. But cases where the mother's being poisoned by the fetus and so forth are much more difficult. In some cases, the development of the fetus, for various reasons, is also a threat to the mother. What's the Christian answer there? The Christian answer is to save as best you can. Try to save both. No, no, I'm not done. Try to save both. But you see, knowing that the morally right thing is to try, try to save both doesn't mean that you have some kind of fairytale view of the world where in fact, you think it's realistic. Both are going to be saved. But you do everything you can. Doctors ought not to go in and purposely destroy the life of a child. They ought to do everything they can to help the mother. Help the mother, save the child, Help the mother, save the child until such time that it's just impossible to do otherwise. And God will take the life of the child. That is different from going and saying, look, the only hope here is to kill the child. So let's just do that. People will think, Dr. Bronson aren't you splitting a very thin hair? Yes, but because it's a moral hair that I'm splitting, it's important that you do it right. And so it makes all the difference in the world that even though you may lose the child, knowing you're doing this procedure to save the life of the mother, you're going to do everything you can to keep the child alive. See if you can do so, rather than to just decide in advance we're going to kill the child. Sorry.

Shifting over to the second subject here.

To see how the time goes.

The average person believes that two plus two equals four, the sky is blue, and gravity makes him perfectly false. The Christian believes the same. How are these concepts taught from purely. From a purely Christian basis and not just food facts?

Okay, well, I would dispute some of the things we're supposed to all know about the sky being blue. It appears to be blue, as a matter of fact, given certain light refraction. And so that sort of. And in fact gravity is not what hurts us when we fall. But we'll forget all the things. There are certain things that everyone's supposed to know. And there may be better illustrations. Two plus two is four. Now, how come those things cannot be taught from. From a completely neutral standpoint? Let's just take the math. 1, 2 plus 2 is 4 in this particular case before me. Now, what I want to know is, is two plus two equal four in the next case, if two oranges plus two oranges equals four oranges, will two apples plus two apples equal four apples? See, when you. When you say two plus two is four, usually you don't mean by that in a particular case, I saw that two plus two is four. You mean universally two plus two is four. But you see, non Christians don't have any way to assert a universal truth like that. Only Christians have a basis for asserting a universal truth because they know the God whose mind stands behind the laws of mathematics or the God who regulates this universe in a regular way. So it's only Christians who can teach math because we're the only ones who have an underlying philosophy and that makes math possible.

If a voucher system were implemented to finance public and private education.

Would it.

Be appropriate for a Christian school to participate and accept governmental funds provided there is no accompanying governmental influence over the.

School'S curriculum or operation? Oh, yeah, and is there a Santa Claus too, providing there will be no government interference or attempt to influence you. I'm sorry, I'm not at all being insulting to the person who wrote the question Many of us have a very naive view of the government. The government doesn't give anything away. Don't ever think the government is simply giving money away. It always comes, always comes with strings attached. So if there were a voucher system in place, should Christian schools accept money from the government? No, you shouldn't accept money from the government because you don't believe that the government has the right to collect money to educate your children. First of all, it's immoral. What if some. What if the, you know, highest paid prostitute in town came to the office of your Christian school and said, I really have more money than I need and I'd like to help see these children get educated in a Christian way? Would you take money from a prostitute? Now maybe this is not a good example because some of you might be saying, yeah, of course we would, but you shouldn't. You know, the money is immorally or illegally being extracted or earned. Well, it's not earned, but whatever. If the money is secured in an immoral way, you shouldn't say, well, that's all right, let it profit my Christian ministry. You know, the means is not justified by the end. And so, no, I don't think Christians should take money from a voucher system, first of all, because it's immoral for the government to be financing education. Secondly, I don't think Christians should accept money through a voucher system because it is totally foolish and naive to the point of sin for us not to recognize that that's going to come back to haunt us, that the state will in one way or another try to strike strong arm the school. If nothing else, the state might say, okay, fine. Because what happens is a Christian school that starts taking that money is going to build up its clientele, its teachers, expand its contracts, its equipment and so forth. And they're going to have to have that steady stream of government money to stay in business, aren't they? And then the day will come when the government says, okay, well, we're not going to do it anymore for you or the state. You say, we're not going to let the state interfere. The minute they try to interfere, we'll just step back. Oh yeah, once you've become dependent upon it. That's like a drug addict saying, I can quit at any time. No, you can't. And so, no, I don't think Christian schools should take state money. On the other hand, and people may assault me for this, I am willing to say that Christians may support a measure, a ballot measure that goes to the voucher System. System, even though we're not going to take advantage of it. Do you understand what I'm getting at? That you may vote for the state to go to a voucher system and then say, but our school will not use vouchers. Why would I do that? Because I believe the voucher system may be used in the providence of God to destroy the public schools or to bring at least competition and some accountability. And that's better than the situation we now have. So I might vote for the voucher system, but the question is, would you utilize it? And I'd say no.

Dr. Bonson, do you think that it is biblically wrong for Christian adults to teach in public school? If yes, how would you account for the vast number of Christian teachers who claim to be called and placed in that position for the purpose of reaching the lost?

The way I account for the large number of Christians who claim to be called of God to be reaching the lost in the public schools is fallacious thinking and a failure to clearly apply the full teaching of God's word. I haven't said anything about motives here. I love people who have that motivation. By the way, I know many people and many are my friends who are doing that very thing. But I would still say to them, who are my friends, and to you, who are perhaps, you know, strangers to me, that one way or another, this is not biblical and you're not thinking clearly when you attempt to do this. By the way, if you were to declare to the public school, which you're now declaring to me, and of course in the presence of God to piously justify what you're doing, public school would fire you. That should tell you something. If you're in the public school to evangelize, why don't you go ahead and let that be known? Go to the next school board meeting and say, by the way, thank you very much for my job, because the reason I'm here is to evangelize for you people. I dare say you will not be at work at lunchtime the next day. So think about that. That Christians may have an ameliorating effect on the public schools and that there is some evangelism take place. I have a very good friend who's one of the best history teachers in a public school somewhere in America. I won't mention because I don't want him identified. And he feels very awkward about that situation. He doesn't have any other options. He has to support his family and so forth. Do I think he should quit tomorrow? Well, in terms of what I said tonight. Yes, no question about it. But there may be other factors involved there that have to be taken into account before he can do what is the right thing. And I have no doubt that this particular teacher, who has been teacher of the year, I think eight out of 10 years in his high school, is very well liked. Many kids have come to his church and have been converted through that. So I know that that kind of thing can happen. It's exceptional, it's unusual and so forth, but it's still not the Christian approach to things. I think it's wrong for us to voluntarily willfully do that, enter into it. It's another thing to say, how do you get out of it once you've been part of the system? Perhaps one or two more.

Back to the first topic this evening. Is it biblically justifiable to disable or kill an abortionist who is in the act of committing an abortion? What if the abortion abortionist is in the act of aborting one's own child or grandchild?

No, it's not biblically legitimate for you to do that. When I talked about the self defense or the protective defense justification in a court of law and according to biblical morality, what I was getting at is that in the cases of abortion violence, we're not even talking about such situations because they're all anticipatory, that is, they're all killing of doctors in parking lots or outside their homes and that sort of thing. And that if it really was the protective or self defense case that was being run, it would have to be something you do as the doctor is actually assaulting the child and so forth. But even there, because of all the other considerations, it would not be morally legitimate because God hasn't made you the vigilante to enforce his law. Only the magistrate may do that. All of those illustrations had some particular point in application to the abortion clinic violence. But of them, I think the one that may be most helpful for you to go home and remember is would you have thought it right for a person in the mid-60s who thought the war in Vietnam was immoral to shoot a soldier dead in an airport getting ready to go to Vietnam? And the answer is it cannot be right because God did not give it to you you to determine and impose on others the criminality or justness of that war? The civil magistrate bears the responsibility for that. Likewise, the civil magistrate bears the responsibility for the protection of these unborn children. I'm not one whit happy about the way the civil magistrate is failing to live up to that I told you I think civil magistrates should execute doctors who engage in this. But on top of that, I have to tell you that even at the point of an abortion, God has not made you the hangman.

That's a good question, Dr. Monskoff. This will be our last one and it is a more general question dealing with some of the views that you've put forward in the past, not just that has helped to structure your oven mitts in these particular topics. Could heaven and earth passing away in Matthew 5, 17 and 18 refer to the same event as in Matthew Matthew 24:35?

In other words, could both passages be.

Talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? Would this allow for changes in the jots and tittles of the law in the New Testament narrative?

No. And that kind of thinking is really stream of consciousness exegesis. Well, actually it's a failure to do exegesis and that's why it's stream of consciousness in its character. The passing away of heaven and earth in Matthew 24 is not a reference to through the destruction of Jerusalem, first off. Secondly, even if it were, in the other passage, Matthew 5, the context clearly shows that Jesus is talking about something which has enduring long term effect or it wouldn't be worth making this dramatic point until everything happens until the passing away of heaven and earth means the destruction of the physical cosmos. Secondly, the expression heaven and earth is used for throughout the Bible, Old and New Testament as a reference to the physical cosmos. And therefore given local context, broader context, and an accurate reading of Matthew 24, there's no reason to think that the passing away of heaven and earth refers to the fall of Jerusalem. And the fall of Jerusalem does not take away anything about Jesus reasoning regarding the validity of God's law being permanent because God's law reflects his authority and his character. And when God changes, then his law may change. But until that time his own character stands behind the validity of his law. His stipulation.