Keystone
Academy
A Private Christian School
Specializing in Independent Study
"The fear
of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."
Making the Wrong Argument
Christians and other advocates of "traditional values," often make the mistake of focusing on practical or pragmatic arguments when supporting or opposing a particular issue. I became aware of this recently when a pro-life organization publicized results of a medical study showing that women (I think it was young women specifically) who have abortions are more likely to have certain physical problems later on.
The unstated, but implied argument was that abortions are bad because they might cause future medical problems (this is like the old story that people who fall asleep with a lighted cigarette die from smoking). This type of argument has nothing to do with the fundamental issue of abortion, i.e., that the indiscriminate killing unborn children is wrong.
As with many human actions, there is in fact an "unintended consequence" to this type of argument. If the pro-abortion crowd can correct this problem (doctors find a way to prevent future health problems), they have, at least to this degree, defeated the pro-life position. It also permits the opponents to avoid dealing with the real issue by focusing on countering such arguments.
This tactic is not unique to the pro-life movement; opponents of state sponsored welfare (or other utopian schemes) often use the negative effects of such programs (the creation of a permanent dependent class, high-crime rates, illegitimate births, etc.) to support their arguments. Again, such arguments do not deal with the fundamental questions of the proper role of civil government and the legitimacy of confiscating wealth from one group to give to another "less fortunate" part of the population. It is also susceptible to the same counter as the pro-life "health" argument; if the advocates of government social endeavors can discover how to "fix" the problems, their opponents have lost an argument. Most voters don't even demand an actual fix, just "good intentions" (Witness the increasingly obscene amounts spent on education "reform" with no meaningful progress).
More significant than the unintended consequences, such arguments represent a compromise on the part of those who use them and, at least for Christians, a betrayal of our duty to "sanctify the Lord God in our hearts" as the foundation of all our actions and arguments.
As Christian home-schoolers, we are all gratified with the positive academic and personal results we have achieved in our children. Consistently higher scores on standardized tests (along with other measurements) are an irrefutable argument for the efficacy of the home-school model. However, we can never rely on such evidence as the foundation of our decision to exercise our right as parents to personally direct our children's education. Why? Because of the unintended consequence.
What if such results should not continue or what if other education models could achieve similar results? We could no longer argue from this point as justification for our position (never mind that such as change is all but theoretically impossible). We would then have to find another pragmatic argument to justify home-schooling.
The only truly Christian and, therefore only "safe" argument must be based on God's word as the standard of truth. In the case of home-schooling, this would be the argument that God, as the creator of all life, has entrusted parents alone with the responsibility and authority to raise children. This empowers the parent, not the state or any other entity (including the church) to make decisions as to the content of and the context of their children's education. This argument is safe because it honors God and places our opponents in the position of arguing with Him.
There can be no doubt what the ultimate outcome of such a contest will be.
Keystone
Academy
P.O. Box 1888
Norwalk , CA
90651
562/862-7134
e-mail keysacad@aol.com website www.keysacad.com