In response to my introductory set of questions i got several interesting responses, and i'd like to address one of these now.  

In this post i'm somewhat guilty of putting the cart before the horse, in that i'm going to address an issue that probably ought to wait until about ten foundational issues have been addressed first.  But i've had a reader response that sets my thought process spinning in a particular direction and i want to go with it.  Look for a more systematic treatment of the subject of education beginning, hopefully, in my next post.

The reader in question (RachelStarr) agreed with my use of the term "conformist monstrosities" in reference to the kinds of kids who are so often churned out of the public institutions.  She observed that if you're going to throw a puppy to the wolves, it will either get eaten or it will become a wolf.  And this is exactly the appropriate response to one of the most commonly articulated arguments against home education.  That argument is, of course, that kids need to be "socialized"--that is, they need to learn to fit into society--and that this is best achieved by immersing them in an institutional setting where they will be surrounded by dozens, or hundreds, of other kids their own age.

Oh my word!  What a silly idea.  It is not logical, it is not borne out by experience, common sense revolts against it, and it's absolutely the last thing that the Word of God would advocate. 

This idea--that all children ought to be hurled into large institutions where they are surrounded by masses of other children--would not have been taken seriously by anyone prior to the modern period.  It only sounds convincing to people who are already accustomed to the large-scale institutionalization of children and have learned to view it as normal.  Such an idea would have seemed a perversion to someone who lived prior to the revolutionary era of the late-1700's and early 1800's.  It is in our own era of impersonal institutions and collectivization that such an idea is able to seem anything other than a disturbing nightmare.

Let's take apart the idea that "socialization" is one of the primary purposes of a child's education, and that this socializing process needs to take place among crowds of kids.

Objection #1.  Parents, family members and other mature adults are much better equipped to train a student in sound, mature patterns of behavior than are mobs of 12-year-olds.

Come on.  Seriously.  Think about it.  If we hadn't all grown up with the idea of throwing hundreds of kids together in large institutions, can you imagine a parent saying to himself, "Hmmm.  I want little Biffy to be a well-adjusted child who is going to grow into a mature adult of substantial and sound character.  How may i best accomplish this?  [Scratches beard for a minute.]  I've got it!  I'll immerse him in a tide of other children his own age, so that he may pick up their habits, their speech patterns, their values and their perspective on reality."  Only the rare and particularly idiotic parent would have drawn this conclusion before the advent of widespread public education.  (And by "public" i simply mean education involving large groups of people and conducted out in the marketplace of society, rather than in the security of the home or perhaps a cozy, small-scale church environment.  These criticisms apply in almost equal measure to the government-run schools and to most of the privately-operated ones.)

Far superior would be the solution of training little Biffy to model his behavior after that of his parents and other adult relatives, and their friends and spiritual associates. 

Sure, there are lots of bad eggs out there who are not the best role models for their children.  But you know what?  They are the parents that God has given to those kids, and by and large, the adult population of our country, as screwed up as they are, make up a much more reasonable body of persons from which the young may learn how to be mature, than are the other kids their own age.  You don't learn how to grow up by imitating ten-year-olds.  And it must be added that one of the major reasons why the adult population of our country are so messed up is that they, themselves, are the products of a public, institutionalized system of education that's been in place for over a century.

Objection #2. The "socialization" that most school-children learn involves a retardation of the maturing process, a terrible self-concept, a complex of insecurities and neuroses, an addiction to shallow and grotesque popular culture, a reduction of vocablulary and acquisition of weak, slangy speech patterns, an inability to communicate clearly and articulately, a loss of the ability to think rationally, an incapacity to interact comfortably with adults, a tendency toward coarseness, rudeness and disrespect for authority figures, and an almost overwhelming tendency toward the breakdown of moral thought and intuition.  I do not think this is the sort of society that anyone ought to be advocating. 

I have not even mentioned the specific dangers that many parents fear: the violence in schools, often involving weapons, the widespread expression of sexuality in appearance, innuendo, speech patterns and physical indulgence, the tendency to pick up naughty language and other habits such as smoking, drinking and the use of illegal drugs.  As dangerous as these things are, i do not see them as the primary reasons why one should look askance at institutional education.  Granted, these things do constitute strong reasons for keeping a student out of a poisonous environment.  My point is simply that they, obvious objections though they be, are not the strongest reasons.  There are worse demons than drugs and violence lurking in those halls.

It is not the isolated incidents involving knife-fights, drug use and girls getting pregnant that make the schools a terrible place to be.  The point is that the entire school environment is one which encourages dissoluteness of moral and intellectual fiber, and which inhibits the maturing process.  I have to add this: these criticisms are true of most private schools as well, whether "Christian" or no.  A crowd of thirteen-year-olds is a crowd of thirteen-year-olds.  I don't care whether the school claims to be "Christian" or not, i'm not going to immerse my own children (when i have them) in such an environment.

Objection #3.  Contrary to the argument used against home-educators, "socialization" is not part of the purpose of an education. 

Kids become "socialized" simply through participation in healthy relationships with adults and with other healthy kids their own age.  The collectivized education mills are not the place to find healthy kids, and the kids who have been damaged by immersion in that environment are not generally going to be a good influence on anyone else's kids.  The whole setting just breeds immaturity, unreason and dissoluteness.

"Socialization" is a product of relationship, not education, and genuine relationship is the one thing that many kids in the public institutions never learn how to engender.

These three objections to the idea of education-as-socialization ought not even to require articulation.  They really are kind of obvious.  The point bears repeating:  the reason why we are even open to this kind of thinking is that such a system of education was foisted on us as children, and on our parents and grandparents as well.  We tend to accept as normal the things we've grown up with, whether they actually make sense or not.

There is a disturbing "Christian" version of the socialization argument.  This is the idea that Christian young people ought to be placed in godless environments so that they can be a good influence and win some of their classmates to Christ. 

How absurd!  This is no more the purpose of education than "socialization" is.  Education's purpose is to train and equip the student in such a way that, when he does enter the larger social context, he will be qualified to set an example and share the gospel with people.  This role ought never to be assigned to children of elementary and middle school age, and only the rare high school student is prepared for it.  I would venture to guess that at least half of the adults in our evangelical churches have not qualified themselves to be a strong witness in a godless culture.  It is a shameful misapprehension of what education is for, to view it as a setting in which we use our little children as shock troops against the kingdom of darkness.  If you have ever done this to your kids:  Shame on you.  When they become adults, if they have been properly educated, then they will be able to take their places upon the field of battle against the kingdom of darkness.  Children who have been cast into institutional schools from an early age rarely become strong enough in the faith to take on this role, even as adults.  By hurling them onto the battlefield before they were ready, you have crippled them. 

So:  If educational institutions are such a bad idea, how ought the poor tykes to receive their education--and, in the process, become properly "socialized"? 

God has, of course, provided the ideal environment (or "institution," if you must use such language) for the maturing and acculturization of children.  It is the home.

Families are the ideal environments for the "socialization" of children, in combination with vibrant networks of relationship and spiritual accountability.  The kinds of sound, strong children that are produced in such environments grow up to become sound, strong adults.  And honestly, guys--anyone who is reasonably bright can pick up fairly quickly the social and cultural patterns current among one's peer group, if such an acquisition is even necessary.  In truth, it's probably far better to be an individual endowed with the kinds of personal eccentricities that make people interesting.  A society made up of such people, each with his own unique landscape, would be a society well worth participating in, and participation in so rare a society would be a pleasure.

Before i get around to beginning my next blog series, which will be a Christian perspective on the nature of education, i'd like to reprint something from the blog of a Xanga member who never fails to mount substantial, spiritually challenging stuff to her blog.  I recommend it highly: her username is abbasfriend.  The content of her most recent post follows.

     *     *     *     *     *     *

I've been working through the "Experiencing God" bible study this summer in a small group. I don't often find the study materials very thought-provoking, although our weekly conversations and discussion have been fantastic.

But this really stuck out to me in the study guide:

"Truth is not just some concept to be studied. Truth is a Person... I do not adjust my life to a concept or a philosophy but to a Person [Jesus Christ]."

We don't really think of this, even when Christ says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." We think of truth as a set of statements or beliefs that we must give affirmation to. Considering truth instead as a Person with whom we have a relationship gives it a much more dynamic and vibrant character.

It impacts everything. How we understand God's Word, how we live our lives, how we evangelize. Instead of being concerned about whether or not someone believes all the right "Biblical axioms" we instead want to introduce to a Person who IS the Truth and who molds and shapes the lives of all who know him. Instead of treating the Bible as a textbook or answerbook, we see it as alive ("living and active" - Hebrews 4:12), pointing us to a relationship with Jesus and all the Truth that life with him holds for us.

So it seems that when we move away from thinking about Christianity in terms of what is true vs. what is false (or even what is "right" vs what is "wrong") and towards understanding it as a living and vital relationship with the One who is The Truth, our eyes and hearts and minds are opened to an ever-expanding horizon of all the Truth might entail.