Why Bad Things Happen to Good Schools

Abdication and usurpation . . .

If a Christian school is to thrive, it is absolutely essential that certain key principles are understood and guarded. And probably the most central truth that must be protected is the truth that responsibility for education has been granted, not to the state, not to the church, but to the parents.

God has established His church as the Ministry of Grace. He has established the civil magistracy as the Ministry of Justice. And He has given us the family as the Ministry of Health, Education, and Welfare. To the extent that a Christian school has any legitimacy at all, it is because it has received delegated authority from the parents. In a healthy school, the parents are extremely involved—whether in classroom help, board service, or, as is most common, working with their kids at home. It is true that even in the best schools, there are parents who enroll their kids, hand over the tuition money, and that is all they do—whether at school, or at home. This is the sin of abdication.

Under such circumstances, the Christian school must be extremely careful, or it will complicate matters with the sin of usurpation. Now in order for this usurpation to occur, it is not necessary for the concerned parents to protest. Indeed, in some cases, the usurpation is applauded by them. If the problem is not addressed when abdication makes it tempting, then the problem will spread. If teachers do not remember the primary responsibility of parents, then it will be easy for usurpation to begin in the lives of children whose parents have not abdicated in any way.

Suppose that a student is in tenth grade at a Christian high school. Suppose further that one of the goals of the Christian school is evangelism of any non-Christian students and to help Christian students mature in their Christian walk. This is as it should be (although it should be stated in the literature the school provides to prospective parents). Now if a teacher in the school begins “discipling” this Christian student in any individual way, without being directed by the parents, then that teacher has begun to compete with the role of the parent. The problem is usurpation. “Building character” is the job of the parents.

This spiritual authority of the parents must be acknowledged, even if the spiritual lives of the parents are a basket case. How is this done? Suppose a student is not a Christian, and after school one day he asks a teacher, “What must I do to be saved?” Can the question be answered and the gospel be shared without usurpation? Yes, but it cannot be done thoughtlessly. The teacher should certainly present the gospel. He should also immediately notify the administrator and contact the parents to keep them informed about what has occurred. The information should be presented to them respectfully and with the demeanor that what he did was a service to the parents. Someone may object and say that unbelieving parents will say they want nothing of the kind presented to their child. If they object this way, then the administrator should meet with the parents to see if they really want their child enrolled in a Christian school. But whether they stay or go, their spiritual authority must be acknowledged at all times.

But such dilemmas are not the common difficulty. A more frequent problem lies with the relationship of the school with Christian parents. It is unfortunately possible (and sometimes easy) for teachers to assume that abdication on the part of Christian parents has occurred, when it has not. If our home is any indication, students in a Christian school can receive a tremendous amount of instruction from their parents about life at school, which the teacher may never know about. And while the parents are responsible to know what the teachers are teaching, the teachers will most likely not have much of an idea of what the parents are teaching at home. The teachers are accountable to the parents, and not the other way around. (Of course, parents should give any helpful information to the teachers. But there are many things taught at home about school which do not fall into this category.)

This can mislead the teacher, because he knows that he sends home worksheets, study questions, textbooks, report cards, etc. while the parents send nothing to the school but an occasional note about an orthodontic appointment. But this does not mean the parents are not teaching. It simply means that they are not accountable to report to anyone at the school what they are teaching at home. So the teachers should be encouraged to remember that silence (from their vantage point) does not equal abdication.

When parents abdicate at home, the results are usually pretty obvious—and also provide us with the sort of situation which may test our assumptions. (Unfortunately, such situations are not very rare.) Suppose a young girl from a Christian home is enrolled at a Christian school, If she gets pregnant, what is the reaction of those who know her at school? If they believe she reflects badly on the school, then usurpation has occurred.

Consider it another way, perhaps more strongly. Let us say that a teen-ager, who started his education in kindergarten at the local Christian school, starts getting in trouble—stealing, lying, cheating, being profane, etc. If the teachers and the administrator of the school feel that the school is primarily responsible, then the sin of usurpation has occurred. There is no way the school is responsible in this way for the spiritual state of the child. A rebellious teenager is a reflection on his home and not on his school. Although the right of expulsion ensures it will not continue long, horrible sin can manifest itself in a well-managed godly Christian school. The same cannot be said of a well-managed godly Christian home.

Does this mean the school is responsible for nothing? The school is responsible—to the parents—to provide those instructional services which can lawfully be delegated to them. But the responsibility to bring them up in the “way they should go” cannot lawfully be delegated short of adoption. This means that when a school sins against parents and their child in a usurping way, the issue was not that the school “failed to do enough.” The problem was that they attempted to do too much.

Recognizing this truth does not indicate an “uncaring” attitude. When moral tragedy strikes a family, godly teachers and administrators will ache for them—and pray for them. At the same time, there must be an acknowledgement that well-meaning attempts to perform a task which God has assigned to someone else is nothing less than rank disobedience, and we must recognize that such disobedience does not provide true help.

Originally published in Credenda Vol. 5 No. 1