Straight paths through crooked roads

Tolerate or accept

There is a great difference between toleration and acceptance.  We are told that we must learn to tolerate values different from our own as though they were as "good" as our own.  That means acceptance.  Common sense declares this  cannot be if you are to hold to any belief with genuine value. 

The secret to getting along with others is NOT to accept the beliefs of others to be as valid as your own.  The secret IS to separate the belief from the believer.  We can accept civil relationships with others who do not agree with us.  In fact, it is necessary in everyday life to do so.  So, we can discern the beliefs of (not reject or "judge") another person.  That is the original meaning of "tolerate".

However, Today's social and political leaders have changed that connotation of tolerance to mean that we should accept the deepest beliefs foreign to our faith to be as true as our own.  Does that mean we should accept athiesm as having the same value as faith in Jesus Christ?  Today's "politically correct" would say, "Yes." But, for us to accept atheism to be as valuable as faith in Jesus Christ is to destroy the value of a person's faith in Jesus Christ.

We can find a parallel idea in scripture.  There is a faithful saying that we can separate the sin from the sinner.  We can reject the sin, as God rejects our sin.  But we can love the sinner, as Christ has loved us.  That is NOT to say that we should accept criminal or morally depraved behavior, which is clearly what the Bible would call "sin".  But, we can discern what others think and feel and how they act without condemning them as beneath us.  That would be to "judge".  We must discern without such judgement. 

So, we must discern the difference in value placed upon faith in Christ versus faith in self or human philosophy without condemning others for so doing.  We need to cooperate with others of different beliefs as they should cooperate with us. 

Toleration of belief should not mean the same as acceptance of others' beliefs.  Toleration allows us to keep our beliefs in tact while cooperating with others.  Acceptance of others beliefs to be as valid as our own means to surrender the value we place on our beliefs that they are true.

God Bless

The parent’s authority for the education of their child.

     First, it is an important reminder to Christian parents that wisdom, compassion, and strength is needed to face issues of putting their children into public schools.  These strengths are not found in just factual information but in the redemptive life of the Holy Spirit within us.  We will need not only the gifts but especially the fruits of the Holy Spirit.  There are many fine, dedicated and also many quite human educators who teach our children.  However, sometimes we have issues with our educators.

     This article is about dealing with the issue that some public educators have an attitude of being superior to the wishes of parents even when it comes to issues that touch on attitudes and faith.  (Examples are sex education, discipline, agnostic philosophy applied to the personal view of “self-esteem”, evolution-creation, immorality as a viable life style, abortion, etc.) 

     The answer is in the explanation to the legal basis of public education called “in loco parentis”, meaning “in place of the parent”.  This legal premise is the basis upon which public schools are entrusted by parents with the care of their children as students.  This legal concept promises that the school will only treat students as if the school were acting as a wise and compassionate parent and with respect for parental rights.  The school would only do with the students what a wise and compassionate parent would do if they were the educator.

     What public schools may actually be doing on a more frequent basis is following a different legal premise called “parens patria”.  This legal description means that the state or government is the parent.  Thus, the government has a superior role to the parent.  The professional educator’s role is to treat and teach the student as their professional standing allows them to do in accordance with the law.  Therefore, when the law of the educational code says that students should be taught ideas contrary to what parents might wish, (such as ideas contrary to their religious faith), the educator has the obligation first to the law before to the parent.  Thus, when controversial things might be presented to students, notifications sent to parents put the burden on the parent to act to take the student out of the classroom, rather than eliminating such controversial issues. 

     These two ideas (“in loco parentis” and “parens patria”) are self-contradictory, mutually exclusive.  That is to say, the more you follow of one the more of the other you automatically eliminate. 

     So, parents need to speak to those specific educators who seem to be arrogant to them by reminding them of the idea of “in loco parentis”.  Parents do not need to be arrogant themselves, and parents do not need to actually use the phrase “in loco parentis”. 

    Parents can simply remind educators that they have chosen to entrust their students into the hands of professional educators.  But, that it is NOT the final responsibility of educators to see that their children are educated.  It is the legal responsibility of the parents to see that their child is educated by either public or private educators, or even to home-school them. The parents can say that it is not their desire to move their students to private education.  However, the parents do desire that the public educator keep in mind the following when the educator chooses to expose their students to some issue.

     If parents have the responsibility for the education of their children, then they also have the authority to decide how their child will be educated.  So, the professional educator is not the final authority over the education of their child.  The parents are the final authority over the education of their child.  That needs to be totally respected by the public educator.

Saving faith of Christian students in public school.

     This article is not about evolution.    Evolution is a part, only a part, of a humanistic educational philosophy that results in making anyone's religion a mere element in the system of values and ways of thinking presented in public schools.  The result may well be the undermining of the faith of Christian students in public school.  This overall philosophy is described in detail in an official publication of the State of California "Toward a State of Esteem".

     The challenge to Christian students can be soft or hard, indirect or direct, only suggested or demanding.  I once attended a conference of educators, mostly public school teachers, hosted in Monterey California.  One of the key speakers there, who shall remain nameless but who is very real, held a small group session which I attended. 

     It was hard to believe that she was really saying this:  "I'm going to teach some things that may not agree with what you have already been taught at home or at church, but as a thinking human being you have a responsibility to deal with the facts I am about to give you."  She was a PhD, a professor of anthropology at an important public university, and she was speaking to public middle and senior high school teachers.  This was so that these teachers could convince evengelical Christian students to give up belief in the Biblical account of creation and accept instead evolution as the only accepted explanation of how human beings developed into what we are today.   

     The reason evolution is vital in public school goes beyond its place in biology.  Evolution is a vital foundation for saying that it is not necessary to believe in God in order to understand who we are or what should govern our lives.  Rather, a different way of thinking is taught in public schools.  Its label is "self-esteem" but it means far more than just feeling good about yourself.  "Self-esteem" is a whole philosophy that puts human thinking above all other beliefs.

     To help Christian students faced with this challenge to their faith, it is important to understand the following.  All of the agnostic self-esteem philosophy is based upon a word mentioned above:  "empirical".  Empirical means that knowing anything can only be based upon what you can actually see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or have some physical instrument do it for you in such a way that you can interpret what the instrument indicates. 

     However, there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking.  Knowing itself is not empirical.  Beliefs are not empirical.  The Holy Spirit is not empirical.  These things all can have empirical results.  However, knowing God for humans is a spiritual relationship.  To only accept ideas coming from empirical information is limiting.  If you accept the challenge by the PhD mentioned above, you will find her "facts" are nothing but some empirical object to which she or someone else has connected some logical conclusion. 

     As a student, you can listen to what a teacher says but rather than accepting it as truth, simply choose to recieve it as information.  You may use the information in your class without accepting it as something to be accepted in your own mind and heart.  Instead, preserve the faith that establishes and keeps your relationship to your Savior and Lord.