The recent decision of the Supreme Court regarding religious exercises in the public schools was not unexpected. The General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America scooped the denominations by stating at their 175th assembly that “Bible reading and prayers as devotional acts tend toward indoctrination or meaningless ritual and should be omitted for both reasons.” Acceptance of the statement was not unanimous, and most of the arguments over the report of the Committee on Church and State were on this question.
There would be no disagreement on the part of a large segment of the Church on the arguments given for omitting Bible reading and prayer in the public school: that we live in a pluralistic society in which people of all beliefs and of no belief attend our public schools; that we do not want our public schools to be part-time churches; that we would not like to live in a society, such as Spain or some of the South American nations, where religious doctrines are crammed into the minds of those who attend government schools; that merely to read a few verses of Scripture and have a prayer that makes no mention of Christ becomes a mere routine with little vitality of religious devotion.
Responsibility Of The Home
We would agree wholeheartedly that the responsibility for the religious training of the child is first that of the family, and second that of the church. Certainly the Scriptures support this fact. We read: “And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day? Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children” (Deut. 4:8, 9, RSV). It was the second generation of liberated Israelites who heard these words, for the first generation of those who escaped slavery died in the wilderness because they disobeyed God. The righteous laws and ordinances were to be taught by one generation to the next, and in the family tribal system of Israel this was the responsibility of the family.
All through the Old Testament, religious instruction took place in the home, whether that was a tent or a house. When the Israelites were taken into captivity in Babylon, it was impossible to make the pilgrimages to the temple of Zion. In all probability the plan of the synagogue came into being then. Families exiled from the “City of God” would, in a strange, hostile land, continue to “train up the child in the way he shall go.”
The eighteenth chapter of Matthew relates how Jesus once put a child in the midst of the disciples. He instructed them to be humble as the child, to receive such a child in his name, and to be concerned that the child would not be led astray or caused to sin. This certainly implies moral conduct on the part of adults and their teaching right concepts to the children. The God-given responsibility of those who believe in God and of Christians who believe in Christ to teach their children the commandments of the Lord is unequivocally declared throughout the Bible.
Not what was said about the Supreme Court decision and the reasons given for the United Presbyterian position so much as was what was left unsaid troubled me. The instinctive cry which came from my heart as a father and as a pastor of a congregation in which there are young people was, “Give me back my child!” As a parent, give me back my child so that I can teach him in the manner of the Old Testament family. Today the family is not the center of life as it was in ancient times. As a minister I plead that my church child, whose time is devoured by the community and public school life, be given back to the life of the church. Who would plead on behalf of the parent and the church in the high courts of our land that even one hour of one day be given over to the home when it would be unlawful for the school to schedule events and activities? But one asserts that after-school activities sponsored by the school are voluntary on the part of my child and my church child. The higher authorities have already stated, however, that although pupils may abstain from the religious exercises, there is a tendency to put pressure on those who do not participate. The same argument certainly could be given for after-school extra-curricular activities.
The argument of the dissenting Justice Stewart of the Supreme Court is poignant: “It might be argued that those who wish their children exposed to religious influence can adequately fulfill that wish off school property and outside school time. But this argument seriously misconceives the basic constitutional justification for permitting the practice at issue. For a compulsory state educational system so structures a child’s life that if religious exercises are held to be an unpermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage.”
Certainly we are naïve if we think that the home and the church as they are situated in the governmental structure of our day will have the child to teach, to train, to nurture. We are thankful to God that there remains the freedom to worship in a church or synagogue in our land, and that the child is not taken out of the home for full-time government training, as is done in some countries. However, if the state continues to demand more and more of the time of the child, it may yet be difficult in our democracy to have the child, even for a brief time, to teach the precepts of God.
The United Presbyterian assembly brought out the discouraging fact that at a time when there are more young people than ever before of school age, the Sunday school continues to show a decline. Almost any pastor, if candid, would report that of those registered for Sunday school, only about half attend consistently.
It is no secret that for the past two decades colleges have been out of bounds for the Church and for Christ. Many state institutions have established a separation of church and state so drastic that any subjects but religion can be discussed on college campuses. My last pastorate was only two miles from a state university institution that forbade the holding of any class, lecture, or discussion in religion. When one attended a seminar, however, he was more than likely to hear the Church, the Bible, and faith in God ridiculed or caricatured. At the same time we are told that from 40 to 50 per cent of college drop-outs are caused, not by lack of intellectual capacity, for all colleges now take only the upper half of graduating classes, but because of moral and emotional failures.
Changing Patterns Of Church Life
In the past few months some of our church leaders have been saying that the pattern of church life is changing. Dr. Colin Williams, of the National Council of Churches, calls for a new parish structure. “The parish system now in use dates back to the middle ages, when industry and education centered in the home, and the church controlled everything. The reformed Church, also residence-centered, was a place where a fellowship gathered. The Word was preached, and the Sacraments administered. Because of radical changes in social patterns, which have occurred in the last two decades, this system is under attack in the modern world. The trend is to see the relevance of the first century church, a body of believers moving out into the world.” Paradoxically, we are to move out into the world of industry, of racial tension, of inner city, and all the rest, but the place where the child spends most of his time and where his recreational and social contacts are made is declared, with the agreement of the church, “out of bounds.”
King Solomon, who prayed for wisdom and was given it by God, had to make a difficult decision concerning a child. The incident, related in the third chapter of First Kings, concerns two mothers who came to Solomon with one child, each claiming to be the child’s mother. Solomon ordered an attendant to bring a sword and divide the child in two, so that each mother could have half. The real mother was so desirous of keeping the child alive that she agreed to give up the child to the other. Solomon returned the child to her.
Splitting The Child In Half
It seems that the church, unlike Solomon, has allowed the child to be cut in half, or, more likely, that the church and the home will have only a fifth of the child. Can the child really live as God’s child in the modern world? Can he live as a schizoid? If the time ever comes—and surely there are strong groups advocating it—when governmental tax funds are given to parochial schools regardless of denomination, we in the Presbyterian churches will be without a child, for we have always defended the public schools against the charges of being “Godless.” Remember, for instance, how at Omaha the Presbyterian church, in a statement written by Dr. Ganse Little, went on record as defending the public schools against this charge.
Why did we not tell how the church and the home were to get back the child? No program has been so revised and changed in the church as “young people’s work.” There is always a new approach, a new fad, a new gimmick to appeal to our youth, and each one like a firecracker makes a big noise, then dies out. Never once since I have been a pastor has the cry been raised, “Give me back my child, that I may teach him in the things of the Lord.”
Whether or not we agree with the decision of the Supreme Court, we must live with it. We must regain the child by standing out against the increasing community and public school pressures exerted on him. Most of them are good, but we will now have to choose for the child between the merely good and the best. The best is that the child know God in Jesus Christ, His Son, and that he live in the power of a daily commitment to Christ.
As parents we no longer dare to be indifferent to Johnny’s religious training, or tossed to and fro by his every whim not to learn the things that pertain to God. For in the future the home and the church may be the only place where the child can get religious training.
Joshua, commander-in-chief of the Israelites when they fought to make Palestine their land, told the people that they would have to make a choice, “whether we serve the gods beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites … or the Lord.” Joshua chose to serve the Lord. Our gods today are indifference and secularism. Whom will you serve? As a father and as a pastor, I choose to serve the Lord. Give me back my child!
