1

The Neutrality Myths – Part 2

In the previous article, we looked at the first two myths about neutrality in education:

  • Myth #1: Neutrality is possible.
  • Myth #2: Neutrality is acceptable.

Let’s move on now to the third of the Neutrality Myths. 

Myth #3: Neutrality Is About Facts; Worldview Is About Spin

This myth may not be as pervasive as the first two, but I wonder if it may affect some Christian parents. It’s the wrong idea that neutrality is all about facts and that anyone who brings a worldview to the discussion is going to skew or spin the truth.

Yes, it’s true that some worldviews distort, ignore, or manufacture their own “facts.” In truth, all worldviews except Christianity are guilty of getting some facts wrong. But we must never forget that the Christian worldview is, in reality, true. It is not neutral, but it is true. This is a key distinction and one we must understand. Presenting our children with a distinctively Christian education is not a disservice to them, as if they won’t understand the real world if they are taught according to the Bible. Indeed, only Christians can properly understand the world, because Christianity—the biblical worldview—is all about reality.

Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey point out in their book How Now Shall We Live? that every worldview follows a three-part grid: Creation (how did we get here?), Fall (what is the problem with the world?), and Redemption (what is the solution to mankind’s problems?). Only Christianity offers the correct answers to these questions and thus gives us an accurate view of the world around us.

The greatest truths in the world are that God exists, He has spoken, and He has sent His Son in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem a lost world marred by sin. This is true reality, and God intends that these truths shape everything about our lives. For the Christian, neutrality must retreat in the face of this truth.

God is the Author of all truth. Thus, an education centered on a correct understanding of God and His Word will never be neutral, but it will be factual, truthful, and an accurate representation of the world as it really is.

This brings us full circle to my opening point in Part 1 that we often overlook the significance of education in the lives of our children. Neutrality tells us the ultimate meaning of nothing and tries to keep us from taking sides, even if truth demands it. We would never think of joining a neutral church nor of being a neutral family. So why is it that we believe neutrality in education is no big deal? Why do we take such a large slice of our children’s lives and say it doesn’t really matter what the content is or how it is presented? We have lost sight of what education is meant to be.

A True Education

Biblically speaking, education is not meant to be a purely intellectual transfer of facts from one mind to another. God is certainly not anti-intellectual; He does, after all, command us to love Him with our minds as well as our hearts. But to reduce education to a completely intellectual pursuit is to make it something God never intended it to be.

Let’s go back to the study of history as an example. In Psalm 78:4–8 we read:

We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: that the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments: and might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God.

We see here an overtly spiritual purpose to the typically intellectual (and secular) study of history. In God’s model, the study of history involves the mind and the heart. As knowledge of their past was gained, the goal was for children to learn of God and follow Him. The heart and mind were both engaged.

Israel Wayne points out in his book Full-Time Parenting that, biblically speaking, education is discipleship. In other words, education is meant to be something more than the mere transfer of information. As planned by God, it is meant to be transformational, impacting the complete person, both mind and heart.

If this is true, then we have a clear mandate to center education on God and His truth. Even academic subjects should be taught within a biblical framework. This means that attempted neutrality, rather than being desirable or acceptable, should be banished. God calls us to something far higher.

Moving Boldly Forward

If we are to raise up a generation that is everything God desires it to be, we must reject convictionless education. We must reject the idea that our public schools are neutral and that neutrality would be acceptable even if it were possible. We must embrace the biblical concept of education, which is to shape and mold our children’s hearts as well as their minds. And we must stand boldly on the Word of God, centering our educational efforts on God’s eternal truth. We must teach our children in the fear of the Lord, for it is this—and not a hollow mask of neutrality—that is the foundation of all wisdom and knowledge.



A Night With Rev. Franklin Graham!
At this year’s annual IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st. You don’t want to miss this special evening!

Learn more HERE.




Frozen Embryos: A Matter of Life or Death

Ever notice how the media has a knack for pulling on our heart-strings in an attempt to divert us from the real facts of the matter? In logic, this fallacy is called, “A red herring.”

A great example of this is the news coverage surrounding an amendment proposed by U.S. Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) regarding the protection of embryonic stem cells. But before we discuss the current legislation, let’s get a running start, and get some background on the issues behind it.

The Christian, pro-life position is that human life begin at conception. A normal human embryo has all 46 chromosomes innate to human development, and is already pre-programmed with the biological data needed to grow to a fully-formed adult. Every human embryo contains an eternal soul that must be protected.

The Ethics of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

When an infertile couple is seeking to conceive, one method they may pursue is IVF. In this process, it is common for multiple embryos to be created. The ensuing problem is that some of these embryos are not used by the hopeful parents, leading to the dilemma of what to do with the frozen embryos that are left over from this procedure. Storing the embryos indefinitely can be costly, and often the parents have no practical way to bring them to full-term.

People choose different approaches to dealing with these embryos, including:

  1. Donating them to another infertile couple who “adopts” their embryo and attempts a successful pregnancy and delivery (this option is rarely chosen).
  2. Donating the embryos for stem-cell research.
  3. Thawing without donating (thus terminating the life of the unborn embryo).

From a Christian worldview, clearly only one of these choices is viable (adopted embryos), as the other choices destroy human life.

Stem Cell Research

We must be careful in our discussion of these topics with others, that we have the issues clear in our mind. Christians are NOT opposed to stem cell research. There are different sources for stem cells, including adult stem cells derived from human fat. These stem cells offer the promise to potentially cure all sorts of physical maladies. We encourage this kind of research and hope for medical breakthroughs along with everyone else.

What we oppose, is the practice of conducting stem cell research on human embryos, because of the fact that a human life is destroyed in the process.

The Harris Amendment

So back to the current legislative situation. Military personnel who serve in our armed forces are sometimes injured in their line of duty in a way that causes permanent reproductive harm to their bodies. Our government has decided to fund IVF options for those veterans who wish to grow their families through this means.

Representative Harris has presented an amendment that specifies that any federal funding provided in any act of law may only be used to provide IVF treatments if such treatments do not result in the destruction of viable human embryos before embryo transfer. His amendment was adopted by a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee by a vote of 29-21.

There has been an immediate push-back on this, because it would eliminate the immediate thawing, or research options, leaving only continued freezing (at a cost) or donation for embryo adoption. The argument is that this bill is not practical. It is inconvenient and will make this process more difficult for those who want to choose IVF.

The “red herring” in this story is that this involves our wounded military veterans. The media is choosing to portray this as showing a lack of support and compassion for those who have given so much (even potentially their hopes for a future family), in defense of our nation. Anyone who supports the Harris Amendment could be portrayed as unpatriotic, or unsympathetic to our troops.

What Is the Right Choice?

In any situation, we must avoid the tug of emotion and always ask ourselves, “What is the right thing to do?” Pragmatism is the view that “Whatever works is right.” The end justifies the means. It doesn’t matter what approach or method you choose, as long as you get the desired outcome. The problem with that view is that it isn’t wise or safe. Pragmatism has been behind many human atrocities in the past century, including eugenics.

As much as we want to see our veterans receive proper care and medical services, we cannot do so at the cost of human life. They put their life on the line to defend U.S. citizens, and that defense should be extended to unborn Americans as well.

A friend of mine recently put the matter as concisely and clearly as I believe it can be expressed:

“Any legislation that ends with,
‘And then the baby dies…’
is bad legislation.”

Opponents of the Harris Amendment suggest that an embryo isn’t truly human life because it is too small (size), or the embryo doesn’t have cognition (level of development), or it isn’t in the mother’s uterus (environment), or because it can’t sustain life on it’s own if unfrozen (degree of dependency).

Christian apologist, and pro-life advocate, Scott Klusendorf, has created an acronym (SLED) from these arguments that can help us to remember them, and be able to articulate a consistent and rational position on the defense of human life. None of these elements define human life. If you argue on that basis of any of them, you can easily also argue for infanticide or euthanasia.

The worth of a human life can never be equal to convenience on the scale of justice. Once intrinsic human life is devalued, on any level, it is only a matter of time until the taking of more lives will be justified by the same extended arguments.

Let us pray that efforts like Congressman Harris’ will find a hearing and that those in our nation’s leadership will seek to defend the most basic tenet of our inalienable rights: the immutable right to life.


Bachmann_date_tumbnailIFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

register-now-button-dark-blue-hi