A good friend once asked me why I thought Christian schools are useless. I wrote back a manifesto. Since it was fairly comprehensive, and since I’m short of time at the moment, I thought I’d post it:

I don’t think they’re useless, I think there are some very good and real benefits to them, especially from a pastoral perspective. I’m not denying that they might help Christians grow in knowledge and faith, deliver them from (some) temptations, provide a safe environment, provide a supporting community, and encourage Christian friends, among (no doubt) many other benefits. And all this at what is clearly a vital time for development.

The other side of the pastoral issue is this:
1. That is the job of parents and the Church. Of course there are cases where parents or the church don’t fulfil their role, in those cases Christian schools are great! But in general all of the above should be and can be found in healthy families and/or good churches.
2. It reflects a wrong view of the most ‘vital’ time. The time when most of your friends will fall away is not during school, though some do, but in the transition from school to uni and throughout uni. Secular unis, tafes, even workplaces provide not just intellectual challenges to faith but, and more importantly, lifestyle challenges. The question I have is ‘Does growing up in a sheltered environment make the transition easier, or more difficult?’
I don’t have a definitive answer, but here are my thoughts:
a) The difference is greater coming from a Christian school. Instead of the transition being a slight shift up a scale, it is a jolt onto a new scale altogether.
b) Coming from an already alcohol, drug, and sex environment prepares you for uni culture. I was already used to saying no, having courage of my convictions and standing up to peer-pressure. The difference of uni was one of magnitude, but not of kind. It was more of the same. (of course these same things happen at Christian schools, but I get the feeling that it is less common and less extreme). I just try to imagine someone who has never really been to an all-out party before trying to say no to a 20-year old guy holding a goon sack, yelling at you and telling you to open up.
c) After school, one needs to be independent in seeking Christian fellowship. There is no daily devotion at uni, no home-room tutor, no chapel. Stronger Christians, regardless of what type of school they came from, will have no problem seeking out the Christian group and/or a new church. But those who have relied on the institutionalised stuff and never became proactive (simply because they never needed to) might well slip off the radar if they don’t actively seek out other Christians.

So those, off the top of my head, are my pastoral concerns. But my biggest criticism is missional.

My heart is, and always has been, for mission. (So I think I tend to overlook the pastoral aspects sometimes.) This has been, I think, largely due to going to such a pagan school and seeing people I love dearly debauch their way to hell.

From a missional point of view, I think Christian schools (and sporting teams!!!) have a lot to answer for.
I recognise that these are not going to apply to every student in a Christian school, but in general:
1. They take missionaries out of the mission field. There were only 2 other Christians in my grade. The grade below me has 2 in total. That’s 5 Christians trying to reach over 200 lost people. I get emotional about this: every day of school was a conscious effort to try to start conversations, to lift your friends out of their unthinking daze, fend off attacks on your faith, answer objections, and, somehow, hope desperately to present the gospel faithfully. Please hear me: We could use more workers!
Imagine spreading your school alone (not to mention St. Philips, 7th Day Adventist ect) over the other Central Coast schools – there’s another 3 to 5 missionaries per school PER GRADE!

2. They disarm the missionaries. For sure, Christian schools probably provide the *tools* for missionaries in that they grow them in head knowledge. But they remove the urgency for active, desperate evangelism:

  • A greater proportion of their friends are already saved.
  • Those unsaved are less obviously so.
  • The institution assumes responsibility, if not in fact than at least in perception.

Why try hard to share your faith? Most of your friends are Christians, and the ones that aren’t already hear it every week and they’re sick of it. (I’m not making this up, I’ve heard it from someone at your school)
Going to a secular school, surrounded by people who actively and openly reject the gospel, are proud of their sins, and are on their way to hell – it deepens your conviction of need daily! When all 10 of your best friends are unsaved: you can’t help but care. The missionary in a secular school is a deeply convicted one. From what I’ve seen, the missionary in a Christian school is an uncommon one.
This is born out by the CCEC nitechurch mission team: D—, R—, L—- and myself all went to secular schools (A— being the sole exception. He has been out of school a while though.)

3. On a related note, how many people in your grade openly challenge the truth of the Bible, the existence of God, the justice of God, their own sinfulness? And if they do, who answers them? The students or the teachers?
At CCGS, almost any remotely spiritually-related conversation brings intellectual and/or emotional objections to Christianity, and they are just as likely to come from the teachers. And by sheer need, any Christian who cares about the truth of their faith has to find answers: at first to satisfy themselves, and second to satisfy their friends.
You learn to identify the root of an objection, you learn how to express the truth (Biblical, historical ect) in a sensitive, understandable way, you learn to turn questions back on the questioner to reveal their assumptions, you learn to trust the Spirit to give you answers, and you learn to say “I don’t know”.
And you learn this through sheer need, through sheer repetition and trial-and-error.

When Craig D ran Life to the Full in Term 3 (or 4) last year, there weren’t many non-Christians but there were a lot of Nitechurch members (many of whom came from GPCC). He saw it as an opportunity to ask THEM questions, make THEM think. He, at least, saw this as a need (Dad helped run it, Craig explained to him what he was doing and the reasons for it.)

4. They allow the unsaved to hide. You know yourself that many of your colleagues do not have a real or personal faith. But which? And even those you can identify won’t accept it. They know all the ‘head answers’. The greatest protection against the gospel is thinking oneself already saved.
In a secular school, the true Christians are (generally) obvious, and (generally) all others are self-confessed pagans.

I fully recognise the missional advantages of having good schools with Christian teaching – Sam P, my youth leader, became a Christian because his NC mum sent him to GPCC. And, pastorally, I’m sure that some Christians in Christian schools would not still be Christians if they had gone to non-Christian schools. The implications of this are immense. But, and we will never know for sure, how many more might have been saved had the missionaries been in the mission field?

I’m pretty well out of ideas. Now the disclaimer: of course there will be exceptions to every single thing I’ve said. I’ve no doubt that Christian schools have produced passionate, equipped, convicted missionaries who test and challenge their ‘cultural Christian friends’, who are excellent apologists, and who are very well prepared to transition to the next stage of life. You might be one example. But generalisations work, and, at least from my perspective, I think these generalisations are valid. Many are very concerning.

I’m sure I’ve missed some things.

I guess to sum up my position, there are a lot of good things about Christian schools. For some people, they might mean the difference between falling away and staying strong. I certainly don’t think they are useless.
But ideally, in my view, their role would be replaced by the church and parents (as, IMO, it should be) and the harvest would receive many more workers.

——-

I’m sure lots of people will have strong views on this. I’d love to hear them. Leave a (gentle) comment below.

« »