Who Says... We Should Follow Public Programming?
Part of the series Who says...
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-02-02.
Accreditation, while often necessary at the post-secondary level is not necessary at the secondary (high school) level.
Building on a foundation that God is, that He created the universe and that He ultimately is responsible for our children's being, should provide ample substance upon which to build our faith. This lengthy series will identify the secular thinking that has eroded that faith.
Bible Reference: Romans 6:16
Sometimes we get so convinced that something is true, we simply don't even think about questioning it. Adolf Hitler once stated that if you tell a big enough lie, loud enough and often enough it becomes the "de facto" truth. That certainly was the case in Nazi Germany, as we are well aware, but do we know it is also often the case in our own society and specifically within our home educating community?
When we first started on our home education journey, things were much different from what they are today. The biggest difference being that we were united in purpose and in deed. There were no separations along the "who are you registered with" lines and no one would even suggest following government programming. Programming we knew was secular, humanistic, unbiblical, unGodly and in lots of ways not only un-Christian, but at times anti-Christian in its message, was the very thing we were trying to escape. Over twenty-five years later, the public programming has most certainly not become less opposed to the Christian faith, yet today the majority of those choosing to teach their children at home bring the public programming home also. Why? What happened?
The reason is quite simple. Most parents have entrusted their God-given responsibility for the education of their children to professionals, hired by the government to deliver their program. Government is willing to pay to make sure that this mindset continues. Add to that the fact that greater amounts of money follow greater amounts of public programming, and you have the perfect formula to have home education providers, self-servingly, perpetuate the unquestioned assumption that government programming, with the accompanying accreditation, is necessary to advance to the post-secondary level.
If we are exposed to only one possibility regarding any issue, we adopt that one thing as truth, having nothing else to challenge that assumption. Since the majority of parents have been to some version of government education (remember that a "Christian" version of public education is still a public education), most know nothing other than what they have experienced. If it is the only thing we know, government programming becomes "normalized", "Christianized" and then made to "harmonize" with the Bible, when it is in fact a program that discredits its teachings. When the institutional church seeks permission to exist from government, it tacitly acknowledges and validates the government's claims to authority, including in education. We have been exposed to a lie often enough, and loud enough to unquestioningly believe that it is true.
Scripture tells us that we become the slave of whom we obey. We know that we become slaves unto righteousness when following Jesus, so what kind of slave do we become when following government? When we consider, once again, that the government is not representative of the truth, but God is, and that God creates us free, the point of government "programming" should become a little clearer. It is in keeping with the government's agenda, which is not to lead its citizens to God but to itself, as god.
Who says home educated students need to follow government programming? Actually, it is not government that insists on it, nor is it colleges that absolutely require it, but home education providers whose bottom line is improved by advancing it. In short, the government has an agenda that providers are willing to advance, as long as the government is willing to pay for it. Therefore parents are not generally being told that they have better options.