Skip to main content

Gorillas and Public Education

    Who knew a gorilla could cause this much outrage?  The Harambe situation has caused an alarming amount of debate and outrage.  It has been blogged about ad nauseam over the last few days, which is why I was reluctant to comment on it myself.  After all, what can I contribute to the discussion?  I am no expert, either at parenting or zoo-keeping (which are often quite similar, I might add).  I actually haven't even watched the video (intentionally), but it seems to me that there are essentially two debates being had.  The first is whether or not the parents were negligent.  I have no opinion.  As I said, I didn't see the video.  The second debate, and the one I'd like to address, is about the value of the lives of gorillas versus the lives of children.  The former has been an emotional, temporal debate.  The latter is philosophical and ideological.

    As I said, this debate is alarming.  Are we really debating the value of human life versus animal life (even endangered)?  When we're doing that, we've already lost.  Then again, we debate the morality of murdering unborn children, so I guess it makes sense.  How have we gotten this far?  As with our culture of violence and disrespect, this issue stems from our abandonment of God's Word.  More than that, we have abandoned religion altogether.  Religion, you see, is the only thing that gives us a reason to differentiate between man and beast (not all religions do this, of course).  Religion does this by attributing the existence of man to a special creative act of God.  Christianity (along with Judaism) specifically teaches that God made man in His own image.  If you abandon religion, especially Christianity and other religions within that tradition, you lose these types of societal moors. Naturalism simply offers no moral reason for why we should value human life more than animal life. In fact, it can offer no moral reason for anything at all.

    This has all been discussed though.  I'm sure a simple Google search would find a dozen blogs telling you the same thing.  I would like to turn my focus to the one side of the debate that I have personally not seen discussed--public education.  This Naturalistic worldview that pervades our culture is no accident.  It has been an intentional degradation of Christianity (and religion in general). This has been done primarily through government education.  The rejection of the Bible by the public education system in America was a sign of the rejection not just of a book, but of the worldview that book sets forth.  Naturalism was (and is) subverting Theism.  The teaching of Evolution has played a particularly large role in this gradual worldview change.  It is the alternative.  If man was not created by God, he must have come from somewhere. Evolution gives us a seemingly-plausible explanation for our existence, but it leaves us without moral responsibility.  It leaves us without any qualitative difference between man and our evolutionary ancestors.  We are different because we have evolved more.  That is all.  We do not have a Creator.  We do not have eternal souls.  We are simply self-realized animals.  This type of teaching has been consistently administered to the minds of America's children for nearly a century.

    Now, not all people will be as extreme or, shall I say, consistent, in applying their worldview. Many Naturalists would support the decision to save the child at the expense of the gorilla's life.  However, they could offer no logical reason for such support.  This, we might say, is a result of common grace. More disconcerting, however, are those on the other side of the aisle, those Christians who are unaware of their Naturalism.  They claim to believe in God and the Bible, but see no issue with submitting their children to an education system that denies Him, replacing Him with blind biological processes.  You may baptize Evolution with various theories that allow for the special creation of man, but that does not negate the 6 or 7 hours a day that your children spend immersed in Naturalism. Evolution is just one part of a worldview that sees the Creator of the Universe as unnecessary to the pursuit of knowledge.

    Christians must educate their children in a way that acknowledges and submits to God's Lordship over His Creation.  Science, along with Math, History, and Language Studies, etc. must be understood through the eye of God's character and revelation.  Such an education would teach that nature is to be respected and used appropriately, while not being worshiped or unduly revered.  If we hope to restore to this country a respect for life and a sense of moral responsibility, we must begin with the education system.  Realistically, this means seeking alternatives to public (government-run) education. Education must be prioritized.  We must do whatever it takes to give our children an education, at home or abroad, that instills a worldview that acknowledges our Creator and our proper place in His Creation.  

   





 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...