Written by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera

Forty years ago, a group of evangelical leaders and scholars took a clear and unapologetic stand on a fundamental tenet of the faith.

This month marks the fortieth anniversary of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which was signed in October of 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders, including R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and Francis Schaeffer.

The Chicago Statement was not only a landmark document in evangelical history, it played an important role in the work of the late Chuck Colson and our ongoing work at the Colson Center.

Here’s a bit of history to set the stage. If there was one phrase that summed up the ethos of the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was “Question Authority.” The phrase emerged out of opposition to the Vietnam War and Watergate, but then it spread well beyond the world of politics into various arenas of culture, even into the church.

We know, for example, the story of how liberal “mainline” churches doubted the Bible and its claims of supernatural miracles. But the culture-wide distrust of authority crept into Evangelicalism, as well, which has—given its diversity and independent congregations—kind of always struggled with ecclesial authority.

Phrases such as “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship” entered the lexicon and became an excuse for some to radically privatize the faith, to reject historical teaching, and even embrace new ways of reading and interpreting the Bible.

For instance, a survey of students at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the mid-70s found that the longer a student attended the seminary, the less likely he was to agree with the statement “Jesus is the Divine Son of God and I have no doubts about it.”

In 1971, messengers at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting passed a resolution that supported abortion, not only in cases of rape and incest, but also in cases where there is “clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

This was just two years before Roe v. Wade.

I don’t mean to pile on the SBC. First, by no means were they alone… this stuff was in the air. Second, the SBC has since experienced quite a renewal, which is at least partly due to the Chicago Statement.

The Statement was about more than a particular way of reading and interpreting the Bible: It was an unequivocal assertion of biblical authority over the lives of believers and the Church, in an age when all authority was being questioned.

It was an unequivocal assertion that Christianity, while it does involve a relationship with God, is also a “religion,” in the original sense of the Latin word “religio,” which means “bond,” “obligation,” and “reverence.” It’s a faith, in other words, with content, not just a warm fuzzy feeling.

Anyone who followed Chuck Colson can see how he was indebted to this effort. For him, Christianity was objectively true, and that truth could be communicated to others, both inside and outside the Church.

And the primary way God had revealed truth to His Church was the Scriptures. Not personal experience, and certainly not popular intellectual fads.

The need to reassert biblical authority may be more urgent today than it was forty years ago. When we hear things like “the Gospel is about radical inclusivity,” that just means the Gospel is being defined without Scripture. When we hear that “Jesus would’ve baked the cake,” that Jesus is not the Jesus of Scripture.  When we hear, “It’s a relationship, not a religion” still, that often means we are ignoring the significant portions of Scripture that describe the people God is calling out to restore and activate for His Kingdom.

This article originally posted at BreakPoint.org

As stories pile up of public schools teaching first-graders it’s normal to have two mommies or two daddies or hosting “coming out” events for transgender students, one might sympathize with the urgency many parents feel to get their kids out of “government schools.”

But for some, such as those lacking the time and resources for private schools or homeschooling, the options are limited. And let me be clear: There are many good public schools and many dedicated Christian teachers in those schools who deserve our support. But it’s also clear that current trends don’t bode well for public education in America.

So perhaps it’s time for the historic Christian commitment to creativity in education to make a comeback. Glenn Sunshine, a Senior Fellow here at the Colson Center, often says that wherever Christianity goes, education follows.

The examples are stunning: from the monasteries in Ireland that preserved learning and civilization after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, to the cathedral schools that reintroduced education to Europe and eventually evolved into universities, to the Brethren of Common Life that churned out some of the most brilliant minds of the Reformation, like Erasmus and Martin Luther.

Then there are figures like Hannah More, who helped bring education to women and poor farmers in England. Or William Carey, “the father of modern missions,” who helped consolidate Indian languages and facilitate education on an unprecedented scale there. I literally could go on and on.

These Christian forebears should encourage us, even as the American education system groans beneath federal bureaucracy and secular ideology intent on deconstructing reality, to join in this Christian heritage of educational innovation.

Thankfully, there are already some good models to look to and take seriously. For example, there are innovative charter schools, many of which are led by Christians. And I’ve worked with many private Christians schools over the years that are not only committed to academic excellence and virtue cultivation, but also to being more accessible. And then there are the para-educational programs that supplement school—before, during and even beyond college and graduate school—cultivating leaders, like Summit Ministries, Impact 360, Link Year at Kanakauk, plus post-graduate programs like the John Jay Institute or the Blackstone Fellowship.

Another set of options, which my wife and I are particularly pumped about, is what you might call “hybrids.” We homeschool, but we don’t do it alone. Partnering with other homeschooling families to offer a common curriculum and hold once-or-twice-weekly classes can be a powerful way to educate and still become part of a larger, like-minded community. Our daughters take advantage of both in-person and online hybrid opportunities.

But among the most exciting models are those reaching students in places where opportunities have long been scarce. The gold standard for this is Chicago Hope Academy, which boasts an unmatched record for affordable, private, Christian education in the inner-city among families that traditionally would not be able to afford any educational choice.

Now in my view, none of these emerging models are in and of themselves “the solution.” But all of them together are heirs to the rich Christian heritage we have of creativity in and commitment to education. Taken together, they’re the beginnings of a promising alternative to state-run education. And we ought be clear on this point as Christians: no matter what we use among the public, private, homeschool or hybrid options, ultimately the education of our children is a parental responsibility—one that we cannot outsource.

This is no time for guilt-tripping or judgment. Rather, we’ve got to build on this momentum, and join the long tradition of Christians educating the next generation with excellence, even if in less-than-ideal circumstances.