It would appear that the debate on Education is at last beginning in the Free Church of Scotland. There are probably a variety of reasons for this, not least of which is the opening up of the national debate in new directions with the Government’s acknowledgment of the productive and wholesome nature of the faith schools in England.

The main reason for what follows is to try to clear away some of the main objections to Christian Schools which come from within the church itself and to do this by showing that Christian schools are not only vital for the effective nurture of the church’s children but also for the effective evangelisation of Scotland.

Challenge and Opportunity⤒🔗

This evangelistic emphasis, invariably neglected in most discussions on this subject, is essential to a genuine vision for Christian education. Far from attempting to isolate the Christian community, the provision of a distinctively Christian education is an attempt to reach out with a view to bringing the wider community to Christ. Interestingly, this evangelistic role of the school was always an important emphasis within the Scottish church and within the Free Church in particular. Speaking at the 1854 Free Church Assembly, Lord Panmure spoke of the aim of the Free Church schools as being 'to secure education, combined with religion, in a manner which will reward us hereafter by training up a vast number of poor and ignorant children in that nurture and admonition of the Lord which will make them good members of society instead of merely leaving them to remain as 'ammunition for the prison house, and perhaps for the gallows.'

In 1845, R S Candlish, a leading Free Churchman and enthusiastic Convener of the church's Education Committee, observed that 'the more we look around us … the more we must be impressed with this conviction, that if not for the sake of the Free Church itself, at least for the sake of religion and Christianity, it becomes the bounden duty of the church to establish, not on a sectarian basis, but on broad Christian principles, a system of adequate instruction for the whole youth of Scotland who will accept it at our hands.' Two years later, in the context of the urgency of Home Mission, he spoke of the need for the church to plant as many schools as possible in the waste places of the great cities of Scotland. The challenge was taken on and blessed to such an extraordinary extent that, merely eight years later, he could reflect that 'we have prepared to do what we could for educating the children, not only of our own adherent population, but of all who might be willing to send their children to our schools. And we have wonderfully succeeded.'

This demonstrates that while the Free Church schools had a deserved reputation for excellence, they were also outward looking and evangelistic and were essential to the urban and rural growth of the Free Church in the late 19th century.

Some of the advantages of this educational approach to the problem of evangelism, in comparison with many contemporary solutions, can be seen right away simply in the amount of quality time spent with the children — and, incidentally, with their parents. Our standard approach in trying to reach out is to launch a variety of programmes and activities which, as most denominations have discovered, have fairly limited success. Cafes, drop-in centres, bookshops, camps, conferences and reunions are all good in themselves, certainly achieve something and are, therefore, well worth doing — but surely they should be complementing the provision of a Christian education rather than substituting for it? Those involved in them are most aware of how their limitations in terms of holding our youth or, beyond that, evangelising and discipling the nation. It should be obvious that meaningful, didactic, interactive contact with children, whether from advantaged or disadvantaged backgrounds, for a six hour period, five days a week can have an influence far in excess of anything which can be achieved in a two hour weekly youth club or a one hour Sunday school.

The opportunities provided for evangelism and discipleship within Christian schools make it imperative that we recover this vision of open, attractive, well-run Christian schools. While these schools would continue to provide for children from both Christian and non-Christian homes — and would continue to encounter most of the problems faced by any school — the difference in approach both in terms of what is taught and how it is taught, as well as in other important areas such as conflict resolution, would differ so radically as to make a genuine difference in the lives of the children. A Christian approach would ensure that they are cared for and prayed for, as well as prayed with and worked with intensively so that, with God's blessing, they could rise above these disadvantages to become what they could be in Christ. These schools should be of such a character and standard that mothers in areas such as Easterhouse or Wester Hailes will feel that they have something to offer their children which no other educational establishment has. This additional 'something' is what is present when Christ is at the heart of a thing instead of on its periphery. We must have the faith to believe that a Christian school can make a difference to these children where other educational philosophies have failed. The provision of Christian schools has, historically, been hugely successful in this area in Scotland and elsewhere.

The Problem←⤒🔗

It might be worth emphasising that the problem with the present system doesn’t lie in the fact that the schools are state-funded or indeed in that they are state-run. There is nothing inherently objectionable to this in principle. The main problem is not to be confused either with the problems normally associated with the present system and which we hear of every day — such as poor standards or indiscipline. Some of these problems are complex and some more relevant than others, but the main problem, and the one underlying all the others, is never mentioned and it lies in the philosophy applied by the state to the construction and delivery of curriculum as well as to the development of ethos.

In Scotland, to an extent almost unequalled in Europe, the whole educational package has become overtly secular and the prevalent philosophies driving education are naturalistic, evolutionary and relativist. To the extent that religion is involved at all, it is pluralist. All this is of critical importance when we remember that education is not merely concerned with imparting and receiving facts but with the shaping and developing of the mind. Learning doesn't take place in a vacuum but in the context of a system of thought and discipline which permeates every fact or theory taught — if only in the way in which it is taught. The constant educational process of evaluating, criticising and discriminating means that the environment can never be neutral or "value free".

It is precisely here that the folly lies in thinking that a school It is precisely here that the folly lies in thinking that a school is probably fine if it has a 'God-slot' or Assembly of some kind. Laying aside for the moment the fact that this slot is often an amusing ritual, as well as the uncertainty sometimes over which God is in the slot or what he could possibly be like, and laying aside too the probability that the whole thing is often a grudging, token nod designed to appease a particular constituency, the stark fact remains that, if we have to look into that particular slot to find God in the school, it is a sure sign of a secular curriculum. And that is the core problem with the existing system of education: It isn’t Christian any more. It hasn’t been for a long time. The curriculum has long ceased to promote Christianity: God was written out of History, Science, English and Geography text books long ago. His presence has been effectively banished to the vague 'Religion and Morals Education' slot (RME) usually occupying one hour per week. This would be bad enough — but the situation is much worse. There is a further banishment within this hour further excluding God from the moral aspect — which is usually concerned with personal and social development — and, worse still, as well as being banished, the God of RME has been diminished to the dimensions of a host of other competing deities and religions.

Our Response — What has it Been?←⤒🔗

While this process has been going on, our protests have been muted. We have tried to console ourselves with the idea that our influence as a church, or at least as individual Christians, remains considerable in the Education system. For years we have encouraged ourselves with the thought of Head-teachers and individual teachers who resist. They do exist of course, and resist with varying degrees of success, but nothing can disguise the fact that we wildly exaggerate the good which individual Christian teachers are able to do within the system. We further delude ourselves, as Ministers, into thinking that our minimal access into some schools and our liberty to say something now and again, means that we have some kind of meaningful role as opposed to being bit players. By and large, we don't. We are bit players. In any case, a Minister's presence should not be required in a properly functioning school. We really need to open our eyes wide to the religious state of education in Scotland — as opposed to the state of religious education in Scotland — and the consequences of its secularisation. To help us to understand where and to what extent we have failed, we should have some idea in our minds of what a satisfactory Christian education should involve. Without this, we can never really assess when any given situation has become unacceptable. I will flesh this out below in terms of philosophy, curriculum, ethos and discipline but, for the moment, to put our aims in some kind of context, it might be useful to refer back to the late 19th century when church leaders were contemplating handing the schools over to state control.

Although some feared the possibility of secularisation, it is doubtful if any of them envisaged just how bad things would become. What is certain, however, is that none of them would have accepted the present arrangement for a moment. Candlish — who was reluctant to give the schools away — emphasised the necessity of the national system providing '…adequate security for the religious character of the education given.' (Note that Candlish is talking here about the religious character of the education as a whole — not 'religious education' itself). His greatest dread was 'schools without religion' and felt that the least the schools should look for, in any settlement, was that the curriculum be consistent with the system of truth revealed in the Bible. Those more enthusiastic about handing over control, in the hope that even more children could be reached by the schools, such as James Begg, sound incredibly short sighted, if not naïve, when expressing the conviction that the religious character of these schools was secure and could safely be left to the good sense of the Christian people of Scotland. It hardly needs adding that Begg was obviously unable to envisage a day when Edinburgh wouldn’t be brought to a standstill by the funeral of a Free churchman! The critical point again, however, is that Begg was able to talk about the religious character of the school and not the quality of religious education.

In the light of this kind of 'minimum requirement', the corporate failure of the Christian church in this whole area throughout the last century, especially in Scotland, is nothing short of shocking. We have barely whimpered while allowing the religious character of the schools to sink without trace and, what is worse, we have provided no alternative. As to the result, is it mere coincidence that the wholesale drift away from our own church, as well as from others, has accelerated in parallel with the secularisation of the schools? Should it really surprise us that legions of disaffected young people have left our churches and, even more tragically, forsaken our worldview, thoroughly convinced of the irrelevance of the Christian faith? Hasn’t the system of education to which they have been exposed nurtured that very idea? We are forever playing catch-up: the present situation in which we are trying to salvage the secularised minds of many of our own children, never mind those of the unchurched, is a situation largely of our own making and is exhausting and demoralising work. The problem would be less acute if we would seize the initiative rather than being reactive.

Sadly, we are so impoverished in terms of aims, vision and expectation in this whole area that every anecdote of some good being done — whether a witness carried out in the playground or classroom, or the promotion of a Christian teacher, or something similar — is greeted as a kind of vindication of the whole system and an evidence of its success. Crumbs under the table are welcome but crawling around the floor looking for them, and congratulating ourselves on our find, is frankly embarrassing and a little ridiculous when God has placed the full loaf on the table and is calling us to sit at the table and enjoy it.

Instead of producing thousands of children, in possession of an intelligent Christian worldview, equipped through a wide ranging curriculum, grounded in a Christian ethic, ready and able to articulate and share their faith with confidence, we have chosen instead to abdicate responsibility. As a result, we have haemorrhaged badly, left many of our own children confused and have failed to provide meaningful opportunities for other children whose lives could be redeemed, in the fullest sense of the term, by such a provision. Why?

Our Response — Why has it Been so Poor?←⤒🔗

There are two main reasons why we have allowed this situation to develop.

First, we have shifted the responsibility for the education of our children away from where the Bible has emphatically placed it — on the parents. Teachers act on behalf of parents and with their confidence and parents remain responsible to God for how and what their children are taught.

Second, we have tended to think that, in comparison with the home and the church, the school doesn’t matter all that much. This is a common but fundamental mistake. Leaving aside the question of how well the home and church function, it is worth considering the following. Our children are probably in church less than three hours in the week. In contrast, on five days a week, at an ever earlier age, they leave home early in the morning and don't return until the late afternoon. Due to modern work patterns, there is effectively little quality time between the family coming home — and eating — and the children’s bedtime. As a result, the majority of what our children learn does not come from their parents or the church but from the school — whether from peers or from staff. Therefore, the school certainly does matter and of the three main influences undergirding the educational/spiritual life of our children (home, church and school) it is arguable that the school has the most opportunity to shape the mind.

When we turn to the question of why we do so little to change the situation, most of the reasons seem to reduce to the need to maintain a Christian presence in the schools in order to function as salt and light in the locality. Admittedly, on first hearing, the argument seems plausible enough. After all, it is our calling to interact with the world and not flee from it. On closer inspection, however, the argument is defective for the following reasons.

First, the argument views the school as an institution to be evangelised rather than being an evangelising and equipping institution itself. This is a seriously defective view of the role of a school.

Second, according to Christ, in order to function effectively as salt, we must ensure that we first of all have salt in ourselves. It can hardly be consistent with this requirement to send our own children into the teeth of a hostile philosophy hoping that they will become missionaries. It is the role of education to provide them with the salt and to make them witnesses. A seedling requires nurture in a controlled environment to enable it to withstand a hostile environment later. In any case, it is worth emphasising that an open Christian school, as described above, is not a sterile environment but a controlled one. In other words, there will be plenty challenges to faith within it for both pupils and staff. The crucial difference lies in the mechanisms and spiritual resources present there within the controlled environment enabling the problems to be dealt with in a manner which will not stunt growth but encourage it.

Third, in this context, the salt and light argument seems to be argued on the understanding that Christian schools are somehow meant to function outside the community. It should be clear by now that these schools are not monastic communities envisaged for uninhabited Hebridean islands, but open, equipping institutions suitable for the diverse communities of our own land.

Would they be divisive? Yes and no. In the sense in which the presence of a church and the preaching of the Gospel is divisive in any community, they would — but in the sense of fostering confrontationalism or hatred they would not. The schools are to be open and inclusive and are meant to contribute to their own localities. They are not to 'oppose' other schools, but to stand in their own right as a positive witness for the healing power of the Gospel of Christ.

This understanding should disarm common arguments based on specific examples from the Bible. Was Israel not called to witness to the godless nations around her and evangelise them? Certainly, but not by sending their children to be educated through the Canaanite worldview — which is not the same as being educated about the Canaanite worldview, a concept which a Christian school should feel happy enough with. The fact is that Israel was warned against the danger of being slowly absorbed into the Canaanite culture and mindset. It is difficult to see how Abraham could avoid this if he chose to send Isaac to the Girgashite Primary. What about Moses and Daniel, taught in the wisdom of Egypt and Babylon respectively? Aside from the fact that they had been taught in their youth before their captivity, it is worth noting that the church to which they belonged was in bondage at the time and part of the liberation for which they strove and prayed for was the freedom to be able to teach and learn as God wished them too. The fact that God raised them from within the bowels of the oppressors' system and used the oppressors' own tools in doing so, should be no reason to perpetuate the oppressors' system. It should be noted, in any case, that a Christian education should be as wide ranging and, indeed wider ranging, than any secular one. Why should Jerusalem have to envy Athens?

Our Response — What Should it be?←⤒🔗

The Free Church can begin to respond to the present situation by taking Education more seriously by strengthening her Education Committee. This committee should set about piloting at least one school, either by the Free Church alone or in partnership with others. If for some reason there is no will to do this, the church should at the very least give spiritual encouragement and financial help to groups of people struggling to establish and nurture these schools.

What kind of schools should these schools be? In broad terms, they can be described in terms of foundational philosophy, curriculum, discipline and ethos.

On a philosophical level, the schools would teach through a curriculum directed by the Word of God and reflective of the Lordship of Christ. This would enable the children to discover and evaluate the world around them from a Christian perspective — in other words, from a true rather than a false perspective — and, by means of a broad curriculum, they would be encouraged to use and develop their gifts in a God-centred way.

The objective is to provide a high quality Christian education which would bring the best out of all the children and enable them to have confidence in the Christian faith and the ability to apply its principles to their lives. This philosophy should be reflected in the curriculum, discipline and ethos of the school as follows.

With respect to the curriculum, Christianity and Biblical truth must find a place across the whole curriculum instead of being confined to the act of worship or the subject of Religious and Moral Education. It must be recognised and reflected in history, languages, mathematics, geography, arts, music, science and physical education as well as in religion. As a result, while the curriculum is designed to be comprehensive, the children will be taught to think critically and to develop a Christian world-view. They will learn to view the world as created by God and will be encouraged to discover, use and develop their God given gifts, whether in arts or science, for a life of service to God and the world.

With regard to discipline, the training of the Christian school must be firm but gentle and it must encourage prayer by teachers and pupils — as well as familiarity with relevant Bible teaching on character building and behaviour — as a practical means to achieve peace and harmony. Pupil behaviour must reflect respect for God, teachers, other adults, fellow pupils and all other children.

The philosophy outlined above, worked out in the curriculum and discipline of the school, will ensure an ethos — or 'atmosphere' — in which God is honoured and given His rightful place in the life of the school.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

Is the Free Church at all able or willing to realise this vision? With regard to ability, all that is required is a meaningful, faithful and committed beginning. In terms of resources, excellent teachers and helpers abound within the Free Church, let alone the wider Christian community, but their talents and influence are hopelessly limited by restraints. As for finance, it always flows with genuine Christian work and vision. It never comes with inactivity and unbelief. It is interesting to note that churches involved in schooling, whether Charismatic or Reformed, never seem to have a difficulty with tithing. We do. And we have much to learn from both. In the 1840’s, the Free Church wrestled with whether she should wait for the general cooperation of all evangelical bodies before launching out and concluded that she did not have to wait if it meant losing valuable time or if the chances of an unbelieving or liberal scheme of education would increase with the result that Free Church children, and other children, would be left to a system that was indifferent to truth.

It is worth noting that the Free Church faced many of the same questions in connection with education in 1843 as it does now — and similar objections too. Many thought the 19^th century scheme 'too utopian' and it took some convincing to get the church round to establishing an initial target of 500 schools. The vision was certainly staggering — it included the provision of teacher training colleges as well as schools — but it was amply rewarded with the establishment, within one year, of 120 schools. This number was doubled in 1845 and, by 1847 there were 513. In 1854, there were 615 which held possibly in excess of 70,000 pupils — not to mention the establishing of Stow College, Jordanhill and Moray House.

However, the Free Church doesn’t necessarily have to go it alone. Candlish remained of the persuasion that a genuine concerted effort on the part of the churches would be a better way to provide for the religious education of the land in a way which would secure its distinctively Christian character. In 1850, he said '…I grant that there is need of more schools and more teachers in many districts of the land … but (that need) may be efficaciously met …by churches and associations of individuals all going forth to the destitute districts of the land. I do not say that the Free Church single handed could do this work but if (other churches) would go and do likewise … we could do vastly more than some men think in the way of overtaking the educational destitution of the land.'

Whether we are willing to begin this undertaking or not is another matter. That remains to be tested. Certainly, it is never too late to begin a rethink regarding education — but for every year it is delayed, the only sure thing is that another group of children miss out on one of the greatest privileges they could ever have.