The supreme courts decision which seeks to eliminate religious activity from all government schools has served to focus attention on the problem of education. There has been a renewed interest in private religious schools. Yet parents who would prefer sending their children to a private school find it difficult to do so because of the expense involved. By their taxes they already are paying for the support of state schools and yet must pay for the private school as well.
In order to combat this inequality many Roman Catholics and religions leaders of other faiths, including many Calvinists, have joined cause to seek a federal subsidy for private schools. This, they are convinced, will solve the inequality involved and enable parents to choose between secular and religious education.
Some of these people are convinced that this subsidy will involve no unreasonable controls. Cases of state subsidy to government and private schools in Europe are cited as proof of this fact. They may be inclined to overlook the fact that in some of these countries there is no opposition either to religious instruction of a certain nature in the state school, in fact, in some countries such instruction is required. Also overlooked is the fact that our Supreme Court has declared that it is proper for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.
Regardless of whether this subsidy brought unwarranted controls or not, it is hardly an acceptable and moral way of solving the inequality involved for those who are supporting both government and private schools. It is necessary to challenge the two basic tenets of their beliefs.
1. That it is a legitimate function of the government to compel its citizens to secure a minimum amount of education and the state may, and in fact should, establish its own schools for this purpose.
2. That the state should also collect taxes and then subsidize all private schools, religious or secular. While it should subsidize, it should not define the content of the education but leave that decision to the parents who select the school of their own choice for their children.
The first belief denies the fact that the education of children is the responsibility of parents and not of the state. The state is the ann of coercion. The Bible speaks of the state as the bearer of the sword. Education can never be by force! Learning must be a voluntary process. The state may force children to attend school for a number of years; without the will to learn, education will not be the result.
Education requires a philosophy of education and must be rooted in a world and life view. To some, the mind of the child is only a material substance that is to be molded by the instructors to fit purposes they consider socially beneficial. In socialist countries the aim of education may be to mold the mind of the child to serve the purposes of the all-powerful and atheistic state.
In a republic how can the state educate? What is to be its philosophy of education? What is its concept of God and truth? An education that aims at offending none of the diverse elements in the school can not be an integrated education. Neutrality in education concerning God is a form of vicious hostility to true religion. The state, whose province it is to bear the sword for the punishment of evildoers, to administer justice under laws in conformity with the law of God, is incompetent to educate. It may teach certain skills but it can not educate in the true sense of that term.
Education is essentially a religious activity. It is a training of the mind to see the created world, man, and truth in their relation to and dependence upon God. True education must be Christian education. To deny God who is the Creator, the source of and interpreter of all truth, is to teach falsehood; it is to fail to educate. The Christian grants the right to the unbeliever to teach apart from the fear of the Lord, but he does not grant that true education is the result.
Since the state is illegitimately in the education business, it is also wrong for it to subsidize private education. The solution to the problem is to seek to disestablish the government schools.
Granting that the state is likely to be in the educational field for some time, this does not make government subsidy to private schools legitimate or moral. Those who wish the state to subsidize parental groups, the schools, or the students, insist that the state has no right to define the content of that education. This is demanding irresponsibility on the part of the state. Why should it support education and have nothing to say about what is being taught? Granted governments often act irresponsibly; we should be the last ones to insist that they so act. This general subsidy means that the taxpayers are paying to support the teaching of the Roman church, of atheism, of the cults, as well as Calvinistic education. The ever expanding state is also supporting schools that vigorously oppose strong centralized government. Should the government support these schools and would the schools feel free and have a clear conscience about accepting the government subsidy to finance teaching that opposed present trends in government? Can any truly Christian school in good conscience accept subsidy from the pagan state? Would not the very acceptance of the subsidy tend to modify the nature of the teaching? The Supreme Court has declared that it is proper for the government to control what it subsidizes. Whether it would or would not as a matter of fact is not vital to the question. It is only responsible conduct for it to do so.
The question of subsidies is a matter of both economics and morals. If it is the responsibility of parents and not of the state to educate their children, the most economical method is for parents directly to pay for the schools of their choice. It is extremely wasteful to send that money in the form of taxes to Washington with a sizeable amount removed for handling charges and the remainder returned to the parents. This is so obvious that it seems strange that it would ever have been suggested except for the hope that more will come back than was paid in. This is the real rationale behind the subsidy idea. Those who have no children or whose children are grown are expected to pay also for the education of our children. This concept is out of accord with Christian morals. We have no rightful claim on the money of others. The education of our children is our own personal responsibility. To use the arm of force, the state, to force atheists, Roman Catholics and others to finance the education of our children, or to be forced to pay for their schools is contrary to the commandments of the Moral Law. An individual would hardly consider it ethical conduct to forcefully seize money from his neighbor to help send his son to a Christian College; but many are conscience free when the same is accomplished by passing a law that effects the same end. Legality is not necessarily morality!
The solution to the problem of paying for both state and private schools, apart from the disestablishment of the state school, lies in charging people for the services which they receive from the government Those who use state schools should pay for that service, those who prefer private schools should not be required to pay taxes to support state schools. The proposed solution of charging everybody for the education of all children in private and state schools, with a large percentage of the tax consumed in bureaucratic handling, is hardly an equitable solution.
Why should we advocate having our tax money used to finance the education of Roman Catholic, atheistic, and Calvinistic schools? Christians must pay taxes that are used to support godless secular education of the government schools because they have no other choice. The state also uses tax moneys for many other causes unrelated to its proper function as the power of the sword to suppress evil. Caesar has invaded the realm of God, Let us not use this as a rationale for supporting still further intrusions.
If we directed our energies and substance toward voluntarily supporting true Christian education instead of toward seeking tax money paid by others to enable us to fulfill our God-given duty to educate our children in the fear of the Lord, we would better glorify our covenant God and advance the cause of Christian education.