The Necessity for Independent Education

“Like Hitler, Vladimir Lenin saw the value in monopolizing education and bringing it under the exclusive control of the State. The process for change had to begin with the children. The sooner they could be taken from their parents and broken from their links to the past, the sooner the reprogramming could take place.[1] In his Principles of Communism of 1847, Engels had advocated the ‘education of all children, as soon as they are old enough to dispense with maternal care, in national institutions and at the charge of the nation.’[2]All facets of society must conform to the new ideology:

We are bringing the women into the social economy, into legislation and government. . . . We are establishing communal kitchens . . . infant asylums . . . educational institutions of all kinds. In short, we are seriously carrying out the demand of our program for the transference of the economic and educational function of the separate household to society. . . . The children are brought up under more favourable conditions than at home.[3]

Getting foundations right is never easy. Why?

Because you have to persevere with a lot of planning and digging, before you seem to get anywhere. Not only that, you have to sift through a lot of other people’s ideas, before you can settle on what you really want to use.

The Bible speaks to us repeatedly about foundations. It says that “…no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” (I Cor.3:11).

But this has not been the focus of education in the modern era, even in the church. We’ve gotten side-tracked with a lot of priorities that have nothing to do with the Bible, and this has hurt us badly. It will continue to hurt us, until we come around to a more sound and scriptural pattern, and begin to act accordingly.

The first thing we have to establish in education is that it’s a parental responsibility. If it’s a parental responsibility, that means that governments should have nothing to do with it. No oversight, no registration, no funding.

Over 90% of the church today would reject this idea, largely because the notion of parental responsibility is something that’s largely foreign to us. We’ve hardly heard of it as an ideal, let alone seen it happen. Our life experience has been with another model all together, so that’s what we think must be normal, and therefore good enough.

When Saul knew that David wanted to fight Goliath, he dressed him up in his armour. But Saul’s armour was utterly unsuitable for David; in the fights that David had engaged in previously with a lion and a bear, he’d been quick and nimble-footed, and he’d won. David rejected Saul’s armour, and went out to confront Goliath with just a sling and 5 smooth stones.

We know what the outcome was. But if we do, do we apply the lesson in relation to discarding humanism’s beliefs in favour of God’s way in education?

When the State controls education, the process from start to finish becomes politicised. Australia has 7 Education Departments, all vying for a greater share of the taxpayer’s dollar, while they busily publicise all their apparent funding “shortages.” What does a Minister know? The responsibility for education passes out of the hands of parents, to a bureaucracy. Are they interested in what’s best for children, or their security of tenure, first?

Secondly, this means that public education becomes extraordinarily expensive. The big costs are land, buildings and teachers. (Our local public school, sits on land worth perhaps $15-20 million). A competent home schooling parent can home-educate a child for under $1,000 a year, but taxpayer funded education controlled by bureaucrats costs the taxpayer today in Australia, about $15,000 per child. You don’t need a degree in rocket science to figure out where the best value is.

But do you really think those public servant bureaucrats would want to see the proliferation of home schooling, a phenomena that doesn’t requires a bureaucracy? Heaven forbid!

Thirdly, it means that the quality of education falls. Is it any wonder that children 100 years ago, had an education in the fundamentals far better than today? Or that there are proportionally, far more illiterate people? It’s a logical outcome of State control.

The State doesn’t care about the quality of education; it does care about control. When the population has submitted to government regulated education, it’s ripe for political manipulation, which is just want ambitious politicians love to engage in. But children, educated independently of government, without submission to departmental regulations? Perish the thought!

  1. L. Mencken (1880-1956) put it well, 90 years ago:

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.     


Our yesterdays have become our todays. Nieve Christians began submitting to the government control of education 150 years ago in Australia, and we’ve continually accepted the process, with hardly a qualm. But all of this has to stop, and the sooner the better.

In favour of what?

Independent education under God, conducted and controlled by the family. Charles Finney (1792-1875) was right:

I would rather pay any price at all within my means, or even to satisfy myself with one meal a day, to enable me to educate my children at home sooner than give them over to the influence of public schools. Remember that your children will be educated, either by yourself or by someone else. Either truth or error will possess their minds. They will have instruction, and if you do not secure to them right instruction, they will have that which is false.




[1] Gary Demar, “Liberal War on Women is a Tactic to Control our Lives and Make us Wards of the State,” “The Godfather” website, 14/4/2012.

[2] Quoted in Francis Nigel Lee, Communist Eschatology: A Christian Philosophical Analysis of the Post-Capitalistic Views of Marx, Engels and Lenin,” Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, (1974), 351.

[3] Quoted in Lee, p.350.