This is part two of my look at the question of Christian education and home schooling. There are some people who chose to home school for practical reasons. That might be because of practical reasons such as they can’t find a suitable local school, their children don’t find school education works for their needs or even that they are concerned about the kinds of things that their children are picking up from school around ethics and beliefs. However, there are also those who believe on principle that parents are responsible for their children’s education in an exclusive manner and so children should be educated at home. This often, though not always fits with specific views on the responsibilities of husbands/dads and wives/mothers.
The basis of this principled approach has wider implications because it tends to be based on a more general understanding about where authority and responsibility lies. In 1644, puritan Samuel Rutherford published a track called Lex Rex meaning “Law is King.” The idea was a challenge to idea of monarchs having absolute sovereignty, that they had a divine right to rule and were above the law. This was important in the context of the Civil War. We may also need a timely responsibility of this idea in our present age when politicians act as though they are above the law. The rule of law needs defending now as much as ever.
However, there were some more detailed ideas contained within the doctrine. If monarchs were not above the law and not absolute, then this meant that they operated within a specific sphere of responsibility and authority. In a Christianised context therefore, it seemed fitting to talk in terms of three spheres of authority.
- The King/State/Government
- The Church
- The Family
Tyranny was not just about acting oppressively towards those under your rule but was also about seeking to exercise authority outside of your sphere of responsibility. You may remember that this argument was employed by some during COVID to argue that Governments were acting tyrannically by implementing measures that encroached on what churches could and couldn’t do. Similarly, some within the home school movement would see state education or government regulations on home schooling as an encroachment into family responsibilities.
Like many concepts, Lex Rex can be a helpful model to help us think about things like abuse of power and separation of powers but also like so many concepts it can end up being a neat and tidy model that over simplifies things and leads to a form of legalism which goes beyond God’s Word. Everything looks neat and tidy but does Lex Rex actually reflect, not just life today, but life as seen in ancient Israel? There can be a tendency to assume that this approach is the uniquely Christian view of law and authority, yet we may both wonder whether or not it does provide a specifically Biblical approach ands whether or not there are alternative approaches.
For example, it may be argued that the pattern we see in ancient Israel is of families that cluster together into clans which are in turned grouped as tribes and these come together into nations. The pattern in ancient times seems to be that decisions were made by the heads of clans and leaders of tribes coming together to listen to one another and make agreements. It might be argued then that the nation functioned as an extended family. Under such an approach, we might consider the possibility that the modern state, especially with elected representatives in a democracy functions in a similar manner with our political leaders comparable to such tribal heads. Indeed, some countries will look to the head of state as acting much like a father or mother of the nation.
From such a perspective, it would be difficult to argue that education is solely the responsibility of parents. To be sure, they cannot be excluded from it however this probably points to the sense that the responsibility for raising children falls not just on a nuclear family but on the wider community.
Faithroots 