Gordon Clark: Education for Evil. (The Reformed Presbyterian Advocate)

1968. Education for Evil. The Reformed Presbyterian Advocate. February. pgs. 9, 12.

Not long ago the Supreme Court's decision on prayer and Bible reading in the public schools stirred up considerable comment. Various counteracting measures have been proposed, including an ammendment to the Constitution. In this furor is struck me that many people were exercised who for years had done little or nothing to propagate Christianity. They showed alarm when the forms of religion were attacked, though the seemed to have little concern with its reality.

Some parts of the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be regarded as unfortunate. Indeed one part, I believe, is very good. Christians, it seems to me, should be happy that the Court has prohibited the use of state-composed and state-imposed prayers. Not only were these the official prayers non-Christian and an offense to all who believe that prayer may be offered to God only in the name of Jesus Christ: but there is the further danger that if officials could legally dictate the wording of prayers to be used in the schools we should soon see "Hail Mary" required in Boston, Chicago and some other places. Therefore the Court's decision protects us against Romanism on the one hand and against a state-imposed unitarianism on the other.

American Public Education Is Religiously Anti-Christian

The effects of this decision have been much worse than the decision itself. Wherever school authorities are antagonistic to Christianity (and many educators are very antagonistic) they have rushed not only to apply but to extend the Court's decision in an effort to harass Christians and to eliminate all reference to Christianity. Not only are pupils prevented from receiving Gideon Bibles, but some officials went to the extent of prohibiting Christmas trees, as if placing a Christmas tree in a school building were equivalent to establishing religion. This is just silly.

What is not silly, indeed what is most serious, is the rule laid down by some boards of education that teachers must patrol the lunch rooms and see that no pupil asks blessing over his lunch.

Then too, and more in keeping with another decision of the Court, state colleges have denied their recreational facilities to Christian students. For example, Purdue University does not permit the IVF to meet in university rooms. So far as I know Purdue does not deny its rooms to humanistic, secularistic, or atheistic student groups. The case is similar in the University of Washington at Seattle. In the summer of 1962 I addressed linguistic students of the Wycliffe Translators who were studying there. But we could not meet on the campus. It was necessary to use a house across the street. While in Seattle I was told also that the Constitution of the State of Washington does not guarantee freedom of religion. It guarantees freedom from religion.

These facts are sufficient to show that there is widespread organized effort by educational and governmental units to harass and to eliminate Christianity from American life.

This anti-Christian activity by tax-supported schools is the result of principle adopted and forwarded by influential professors of education.

Just a while back I wrote a monograph on John Dewey in which the educational policies of his colleague, Willian Heard Kilpatrick, were outlined. Kilpatrick was a professor of education at the Teachers College of Columbia University. In a career of thirty years he is said to have trained 35,000 teachers. His principle are clearly stated in his Philosophy of Education (p. 354), where he argues against religious liberty. He calls it "undemocratic" to allow parents to teach doctrine of their own religion to their children. Apparently Kilpatrick wants the government to invade the home and enforce secular education. John Dewey of course is not any more favorable to Christianity than Kilpatrick.

American Public Education Is Politically Totalitarian or Statist

The reference to Kilpatrick already demonstrates this fact. What could be more totalitarian than prohibiting religious liberty in the home! It is especially to be noted that this imposition of religious or rather anti-religious controls on the parents is proposed in the name of democracy. In the earlier American tradition democracy meant that everybody could vote, everybody is equal before the law, and everybody has inalienable rights protected against the encroachment of the State. But now those who wish to confuse our language and destroy our civilization use the term democracy to mean a denial of inalienable rights and the promotion of an all-powerful State.

For example, Protestants and Other Americans United presumably includes some professing Christians. Their resistance to Roman Catholic raids on public funds is to be applauded and supported. But in addition to the Protestantism implied in their title, they add something not implied, namely a defense of public schools. They explicitly attack private schools. In the January, 1964 issue of Church and State, page 9, col. 1, the magazine deplores the destruction of the public school system in Holland because of the parents' preference for religious schools. In the February, 1964 issue, page 7, they deplore religious freedom in Holland where parents can send their children to religious schools. Apparently these Protestants and Other Americans want secularism.

Consider a second instance of professing Christian who have voice to secular ideals. Mr. Rushdoony in the book previously mentioned (p. 328) reports that the famed evangelist, Billy Graham, in Peace with God (p viii) asserts that "man is a social animal." This unthinking denial of the doctrine of creation serves only to further the claims of the public educators and the extension of bureaucratic collectivism.

Third, in public discussion I took issue with a professor of education in a Christian college who, while he inveighed against the paganism of Platonic philosophy, had swallowed John Dewey whole and was energetically advocating progressive education.

The first thing necessary, therefore, is that professing Christians should learn the principles of Christianity.

The second thing we should do is to practice our liberties before they are completely atrophied.

Now I am well aware that many Christian are concerned and are practicing their principles to the best of their ability. However, I would like to say that one way to practice our liberties is to write books defending the Christian position. Recently I sent a letter to twenty Christian professors, urging them to write and send me competent books and monographs applying Christian principles to any subject of academic interest. An evangelical publisher is most anxious to secure such manuscripts. 

Finally, by way of practicing our liberties, let us do all we can to support Christian schools - grace schools, high schools, and colleges. It is not the prohibition of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools that is so dangerous. It is the constant inculcation of secular humanism. What is needed, therefore, is a system of schools to teach Christian principles - Christian principles in literature, history, politics, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. God's revelation covers all the problems of life. Let us apply these divine principles to every phase of our earthly existence.

Reprinted from the Christian Teacher, by permission of the publisher.

1. Psychologic Foundations of Education, pp. 260, 261; Appleton & Co.., 1898.

2. The Trend in American Education, p. 215; American Book Co., 1922.

3. Modern Educational Theories, pp. 13, 257, Macmillan, 1927, cf. Fundamentals of Education, p. 7. Macmillan, 1922.

4. Democracy as a Way of Life, p. VIII, Macmillan, 1943.