Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Christian Schools That Cave to Culture Will Lose Their Souls
Christian Post ^ | 08/04/2017 | Michael Brown

Posted on 08/05/2017 8:57:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Time and again in the Gospels, Jesus warned His listeners, "For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it" (Matt. 16:25). This applies directly to our Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries. If we try to "save our lives" by capitulating to worldly standards, we will "lose our lives" in the process.

More than 20 years ago, a fellow-Old Testament scholar talked with me about the challenges his seminary was facing. At that time, there was a dispute about women in ministry, and his school was receiving some pressure over the issue. But that, he explained, was minor.

The day might well come, he said, when they would to have to make a choice. If they wanted to remain accredited, they would have abandon the biblical teaching on homosexuality. If they wanted to hold to scriptural orthodoxy, they would lose their accreditation. For him and his school, being strongly conservative, the choice was easy: They would lose their accreditation rather than lose their soul.

After all, what's the use of being accredited as a seminary if you no longer uphold scripture? What's the use of being recognized by people when you are no longer recognized by God? How can you train your students to stand fast for the gospel, no matter what, when you have chosen to compromise rather than suffer loss? And what will you say to Christians around the world who refused to renounce their faith with a gun to their heads when you surrendered your principles at the threat of a non-violent educational agency?

In an article in First Things last month, Carl Trueman, himself a seminary professor, warned that "the cultural Battle of Waterloo will be won — or lost — on the campuses of Christian colleges . . . ."

What if these schools are threatened with the loss of federal funding because of their failure to conform to government sanctioned, LGBT activism? (For anyone following the news, this is not an abstract question.) What if they're threatened with the loss of accreditation? What if they face the wrath of the left-leaning NCAA, making it virtually impossible for their student athletes to compete in meaningful ways?

What if the schools are told they cannot uphold their codes of sexual morality for faculty and students? What if some of their classes are deemed unacceptable? What if they are required to change their housing regulations? What if they are directed to expand their view of "gender," following in the steps of a school like Princeton, which now gives 6 gender options to their students (including, not surprisingly, "other")?

Conservative journalist Rod Dreher echoed Trueman's concerns in two articles, in the first quoting extensively from Trueman and noting that, "Dialogue is not possible with power-holders who think you are evil and that goodness requires you to be crushed" (his emphasis).

Then, in his second article, responding to a Christian college professor who seemed to suggest that there might be some constructive compromises to make, Dreher closed with a dire warning: "Neuhaus's Law holds that, 'Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.' You watch: Within 10 to 20 years, every college involved in this conversation that believes that Christian orthodoxy on the LGBT issue is optional will have become a college where Christian orthodoxy is anathema."

Dreher has hit the nail on the head, whether his time frame is accurate or not.

If we cave in here, we will cave in elsewhere. In fact, if we cave in here, that is probably evidence that we have already caved in elsewhere.

In the height of the Civil Rights Movement, followers of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., paid a high price for their confrontational, non-violent resistance. It was a costly stand to take, and some of the leaders recommended that they step back from their activism, because of the very real risks they were taking.

King addressed these concerns in a classic speech in Selma, Alabama on March 8, 1965. Speaking to a packed house in a church building, with others listening outside, he said this, "if a man happens to be 36 years old as I happen to be and some great truth stands before the door of his life — some great opportunity to stand up for that which is right — he's afraid his home will get bombed or he's afraid he will lose his job or he's afraid that he will get shot or beat down by State Troopers; he may go on and live until he's 80 but he's just as dead at 36 as he would be at 80 and the cessation of breathing in his life is merely the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.

"A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right; a man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice; a man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true. So we're gonna stand up right here amid horses; we're gonna stand up right here in Alabama amid billy clubs; we're gonna stand up right here in Alabama amid police dogs if they have them; we're gonna stand up amid tear gas; we're gonna stand up amid anything that they can muster up, letting the world know that we are determined to be free" (my emphasis).

Note again those highlighted words, which articulate the warning of Jesus about trying to save our lives. To cave in is to lose our soul – to lose our integrity, our principles, our heart. To compromise and capitulate is to lose our honor, even more, to lose our freedom.

Will we live as free people before God, or will we be slaves to the praise of man or the approval or man? Will we do what is right, or will do what it is expedient? (Here's a great moment to ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?")

In my forthcoming book Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation, I devote one chapter to the subject of "Reclaiming Our Schools and Learning How to Think Again." There, among other things, I address the issue of bowing down to the accreditation system, writing that we must "develop more Christian alternatives for undergraduate and graduate studies, with the end goal of either influencing current accreditation institutes (which often lean left) or rendering them unimportant."

And as an educator and professor myself, I addressed the issue of bowing down to the god of secular academics, asking, "But why must the state (or accrediting agency) set the standards? What if that school has a unique purpose and function? What if it needs to major on things the state considers minor and minor on things the state considers major? Why must it conform? To offer degrees, of course! This too is idolatry."

The bad news is that, barring a radical turning of the cultural tide in the next 10 years, Christian schools (all the way down to elementary education) will face increasing pressure to conform or else. The good news is that we can set our own course by choosing to do what is right. And if we will honor and uphold God's principles, He will bless the labor of our hands.

Eventually, either those opposing us will blink first, or we will establish something new and better that displaces the old system. After all, weren't schools like Harvard and Yale and Princeton and many others all founded by Christians?

What is interesting is that Rod Dreher and I agree on the urgency of the hour, recognizing how sickly the patient (our nation!) is right now. But we differ on the prescription for the patient, he in his book The Benedict Option and me in Saving a Sick America.

He writes in his book, "Could it be that the best way to fight the flood is to . . . stop fighting the flood? That is, to quit piling up sandbags and to build an ark in which to shelter until the water recedes and we can put our feet on dry land again? Rather than wasting energy and resources fighting unwinnable political battles, we should instead work on building communities, institutions, and networks of resistance that can outwit, outlast, and eventually overcome the occupation."

Yet his recent articles, focusing on the predicament of Christian schools, remind us that we must fight the flood today. Do we really have a choice?

So, while Dreher calls us to retreat and rebuild, I believe we must do the opposite, shining ever more brightly in the heart of the darkness and refusing to bow down to the pressure of the world, fortified by our faith in God.

The only question is: Will we? That is a question Christian educators cannot avoid.

TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: christianschools; education; secularism

1 posted on 08/05/2017 8:57:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What if these schools are threatened with the loss of federal funding because of their failure to conform to government sanctioned, LGBT activism?

Eliminating the Department of Education would serve many good purposes. It would eliminate a powerful progressive pressure point on Christians and conservatives. It would also pop the extremely destructive higher education debt-bubble. That in itself would destroy many of the ridiculous cultural-marxist social movements taking place at the moment

2 posted on 08/05/2017 9:23:30 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

If you take the King’s penny you are the King’s man.

Christian schools such not take government funding

3 posted on 08/05/2017 9:29:36 PM PDT by Fai Mao (I still want to see The PIAPS in prison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I work at a school for missionary children in Eastern Europe. We have an entire staff of Christian teachers and do not take any money from the Department of Education. So we are entirely free of the allurement of federal funds.

So you’d think there would be positive results. Not so. Divine viewpoint? Nope.
Devotion? No, again. It’s very disappointing to see us chase down every new teaching fad or worldly gimmick that’s current in the USA. Liberalism is nearly as rampant as in any regular public school.

If my experience serves as any guide, I’d say home schooling is far more preferable to “Christian schools.”

4 posted on 08/05/2017 11:53:23 PM PDT by EliRoom8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

That’s why I don’t like Vouchers. They will get the Camel’s nose into the tent.

5 posted on 08/05/2017 11:55:45 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

I blame scotus.

A string of decisions have, for practical purposes, banned public Christianity. Yet most people will not believe in nothing. In its place are islam, social justice, and climate change. None of which are conducive to civil society.

Another set of opinions so much as encourage society to ‘off itself. From the phony ‘right’ to contraception in the 1960s, to abortion, buggery, and fag marriage, Americans aren’t replacing themselves.

Scotus isn’t just a supreme court; it has assumed the powers of supreme law-giver and sets itself higher than God.


6 posted on 08/06/2017 3:23:05 AM PDT by Jacquerie (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We need to stay involved with our schools to keep this from happening.


7 posted on 08/07/2017 9:54:57 AM PDT by joma89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson