If you are a mom like me, homeschooling is not new to your familyâs rhythm. My oldest is a senior, and I have been his primary teacher since he was born. Right now, my prayers naturally turn toward asking for wisdom for this new season and what lies ahead for him and our relationship. I also naturally pray through the changes our family has been going through this last year and the changes still to come. I pray over the new events and trials for others in my life. I pray for the ânew trees.â
In the forest of my life, sometimes I lose sight of whatâs going on around me because it all looks the same. Most people have heard of nose blindness to the smells weâve become accustomed to, but could there be a blindness to the consistent rhythms of our lives? My cousin once told me of a lady she knew who would literally stand in the bread aisle and pray over which loaf of bread to buy. That has never been my style, but could there be a chance that I am missing out on paying attention to and praying for the things that arenât new, the things I find ordinary?
PLEASE JOIN US AND OTHER HOMESCHOOLERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS WE:
Give thanks for the freedom we have to homeschool our children,
Pray for homeschooling families in your own nation and around the world,
Pray for upcoming elections and the impact they may have on homeschooling,
Pray for your stateâs homeschool organization and its leaders,
Pray for your elected officials to recognize that the education of children is the responsibility of the parents, not that of the nation,
Pray for your own familyâyour homeschooling journey and the Lordâs guidance as you take that journey, your relationships with one another, your own children and their futures, as well as seeking ways your family can minister to others,
Rejoice in Godâs mercy and His faithfulness in all things.
If youâre like me, itâs good to have these reminders to help us see what we have become accustomed to seeing. If you are reading this, Iâm praying for you, too. Wherever you are in your homeschooling journey, I pray that you will see the tiny miracles of grace happening in yourself and in the lives around you, that you wonât take a single school day (which is every day) for granted, and that you will invest each moment for the sake of the kingdom and for the smile of your Father.
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Grassroots Advocacy forClassical ConversationsÂŽ and she teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship IQ on U.S. founding documents. She and her husband homeschool their seven children on their small acreage, where they are enjoying their new adventures in homesteading.
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.â Proverbs 9:10 KJV
The question of how science relates to faith is one that seems to baffle many people, but this need not be so. This is a foundational issue, because the approach that a person has to this question will also influence how they think of faith in a wide variety of situations. Most people take one of three main approaches to the relationship of science and faith.
Approach 1: Science and Faith Cover Different Topics
One approach that is popular among theologians is to separate science and faith with a great wall preventing any entanglements between the two. This view was popularized by Steven Jay Gould, who used the acronym NOMA, which stands for ânon-overlapping magisteria,â to describe it. In this view, science and faith cannot conflict, because they cover two different subjects, which do not overlap at any point. Science covers the objective, evidence-based principles and facts, and faith covers value-oriented ideas and ultimate meanings. This is also often called the fact/value split.
This view is endorsed by a wide variety of organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The stated goal of this approach is to clearly demarcate the lines between faith and science so that neither one crosses into the other. It also takes into account the differences in methodology, and assumed differences in content. For instance, science, in large part, uses the inductive method for determining truth, while faith is about trust and hope. Philosophers have long pointed out that science is unable to deal with questions of value and morality on its own, so NOMA simply implements the converse as wellâif science cannot reach morality, then neither will faith be allowed to reach facts.
Of course, in reality, this split really does not work. Christianity does make claims that relate to the natural world. God has revealed Himself in history, and this has affected nature and history. Therefore, evidence, facts, science, and faith all come together. In addition, scientists are always trying to expand the scope of what science coversâand they should do this.
Therefore, at least in theory, NOMA blunts both science and faith. However, in practice, most people who claim NOMA actually mean âscience deals with whatever it wants to, faith deals with whatever science hasnât gotten to yetâ. For instance, the concept of âfree willâ would seem to be a question of faith, and yet the National Academy of Sciences, which openly subscribes to NOMA, has published supposedly scientific papers that deal with the question of free will.
The NOMA position even finds its way into many church denominations. While most do not have official positions supporting NOMA, one usually finds very few voices within the church willing to present any explicitly Christian view of science, or any science topic, except for Christâs resurrection. Instead, the furthest they are willing to go is to express disapproval when scientists attempt to derive ultimate meaning from their theories and observations.
Approach 2: Science and Faith in Conflict
Another approach to science and faith is the âconflictâ or âwarfareâ idea. In this view, science and faith are essentially contradictory ways of viewing the world. A scientific view of the world necessarily puts a person in conflict with religious modes of thinking, and a person of faith necessarily takes a negative view of science and scientific methodology. In this approach, any overlap between positions of science and faith are taken to be purely coincidental.
This approach takes science and faith to be two full, mutually incompatible worldviews. That is, any given question can be answered in a scientific framework, just as it can be answered in a religious framework. Therefore, science and faith âcompeteâ for the answers to each of lifeâs questions. Note how different this is than NOMA. Under NOMA, science and faith are both given limits to the scope of inquiry. In the âconflictâ idea, science and faith are not limited in scope, but form two mutually incompatible ways of addressing the same question.
The interesting thing about the âconflictâ idea is that it is usually only held to by atheists and agnosticsâit is almost never held to by Christians. It is usually held to by people who have expanded science into a religious position itself. Christians always have room for science, but atheistic materialists (people who think that the physical world is all there is) must expand science to fill their own religious needs. Unfortunately, popular news coverage nearly always assumes the âconflictâ approach, and does not realize that Christians donât find a necessary conflict between the two.
If this approach is so one-sided and non-sensical, why does it keep coming up? The fact is, in nearly every aspect of life, there are tensions between ideas. There are tensions between ideas in various disciplines, or even within a single discipline. None of these tensions means that there is a necessary conflict between two positionsâthis is simply the natural result of having incomplete knowledge. As long as our knowledge is partial and imperfect, there will always be tensions among the various ideas we hold onto.
This makes it easy for detractors of Christianity to paint faith positions as being anti-science. One needs only to find an issue, no matter how marginal (or tenuous), which may be in conflict with some personâs faith position, and then proclaim, âSeeâfaith and science are irreconcilable!â In addition, in fact, most of these are based more on interpretation of the evidence than anything else.
Approach 3: Faith Seeking Understanding
The best approach I have found for integrating science and faith is the âfaith seeking understandingâ approach. In this model, faith is the total worldview, and science operates as one of many approaches for finding truth within that worldview. As Christians, we find truth in many places. We turn to history to find the truths of the past. We turn to science to find the truths of nature. We turn to philosophy to find the nature of reason. First and foremost, we turn to the Bible to find the truths that govern the other truths. In such an approach, science is certainly one of the means that we use to find truth.
However, science plays a subservient roleâit is a discipline whose results are to be judged and weighed by people of faith, it is not the judge over faith.
It is interesting that the coherence of science itself relies on this model. Science itself relies on, but does not provide, a way to test for truth. While science demands that theories correspond with the preponderance of physical data, there are usually many theories, which have the same or similar correspondence. This comes as a surprise to manyâmost people assume that there is always only one theory, which is valid for a given set of data. The fact is, in many cases, the test for scientific truth is an aesthetic one. Scientists opt for theories, which are simple, elegant, and conciseâin other words, beautiful theories. The only valid justification for this is that we expect this because of the nature of God that faith reveals.
This also means that, as Christians, when we participate in science, we should bring the expectations of Christianity with us. For instance, in my own research, I use as a starting assumption the idea that the genome is a designed system. Using that understanding, I have a better appreciation for what is happening within the genome. Since I believe that it is designed, I can reasonably compare it to other designed systems and make inferences and predictions based on those comparisons.
Teaching Our Children about Science
So how does this help us teach our children about science? We must teach our children, in every subject, to think about how various ideas make sense (or do not) within the context of Christianity. When we find ideas that do not make sense, we should ask ourselvesâis this because of a lack of knowledge or a wrong interpretation of the evidence? If our goal is to bring every thought to the obedience of Christ, this must include science.
This does not mean that we should ignore subjects, which we have trouble integrating with our faith. Though future posts will cover this issue in more detail, we simply should attempt to understand such subjects thoroughly, teach ourselves to scrutinize the subjects well, and hold each idea to account under Christ.
You can see this âfaith seeking understandingâ approach reflected in the curriculum at Classical Conversations. Phil Johnsonâs book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, used in the Challenge B curriculum, is one of the best introductory books not just on creation and evolution, but on the whole notion of academic study in any discipline from a theistic viewpoint. Likewise, the Apologia science curriculum used throughout the Challenge program also points in the same direction.
Homeschool Days at the Capitol, Legislative Days, Capitol Days, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. Seize this excellent opportunity to teach your children the importance of the legislative process. Help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.
The chart below lists October Homeschool Days at the Capitol. Check your stateâs dates here if itâs not listed below.
“Christian”âwhat does it mean? The use of the word “Christian” in modern vernacular is quite perplexing to me. It functions as both an adjective and a noun, but at its inception, it was solely used to describe or rename people. Christianity.com published this piece that speaks to the term’s origin, “Scholars say ‘Christian’ comes from the Greek word christianos, meaning ‘little Christ.'” Stories say the term was used as a jeer, as their enemies would poke fun at them by calling them diminutive versions of their Savior, as in, “Look at those little Christs.”
The adjective is first used in Acts 11:26
âAnd when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year, they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch, the disciples were first called Christians.”
The term is used two more times in Scripture:
“And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.'” Acts 26:28
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” 1 Peter 4:16
Defining “Christian”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Christian as:
adjective: Christian
relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. “the Christian Church”
noun: Christian; plural noun: Christians
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity. “a born again Christian”
At some point, the term went from describing and renaming just people to other things and ideas.
Why did this happen?
How can inanimate and abstract nouns be “Christian?”
Is this conversation even worth anyone’s time?
How and why we use the word “Christian” matters
How and why we use the word “Christian” matters because our usage has the potential to be ambiguous, misleading, counterproductive, and perhaps tyrannical and abusive. That is assuredly raising eyebrows. If we don’t view everything through the lens of this one adjective, surely I must be a secularist, and my argument will serve to disparage the gospel! Or will it?
I often hear talk about a thing being called “Christian.” You could call anything Christian, whether it pertains to justice, punishment, civil government, individual sovereignty, parental rights, foreign policy, benevolence, responsibility, or even gravity, trigonometry, music, or art. I am not sure what this means when you describe a thing this way. It could mean the idea was communicated by someone who claims to be a Christian. It also could mean that the assigner of this attribute believes the object to be true.
Additionally, “Christian” could mean that the speaker believes the topic should rest within the church’s jurisdiction. This is what I mean when I say the term has the potential to be ambiguous. I am left to wonder, what about this thing is “Christian”; its origin, its jurisdiction, or its nature? If I am unclear about what aspect is being described, there is plenty of room to be misled or to mislead.
If the modifier “Christian” simply means that a thing is true (Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6), any true idea would be a Christian idea. Consequently, any time a truth is spoken, it would be “Christian,” whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor. Conversely, any untruth would be an anti-Christian idea, whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor.
Since this word is ambiguous, and it is unclear if we are modifying content or context, we frequently miss out on truths from unexpected places and accept lies from places in which we have let our guard downâall because of this “Christian” label.
My last point is that using the name of Christ in the word Christian has the potential to be tyrannical or abusive. Why do I say this? Well, for those who recognize Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, this type of adjective is authoritative. It implicates and obligates us if the nature of the idea does flow from Christ and reflects his nature, expectations, and authority. If you choose to label something as “Christian,” you are using the name of Christ to prop up your argument. If you have the grounds to do so, proceed with extreme caution. If you do not have the grounds to do so, could you not be found guilty of using the Lord’s name in vain? Exodus 20:7
Why would anyone take this risk?
We do it all the time!
We are all born into contexts that rub off on us. I think the Holman Christian Standard Bible version says it best when it warns us in Romans 12, “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.” For some of us, the “age” we were born into was full of religious-sounding power-grabbing language, and it is incumbent upon us not to be pressed into that mold. Furthermore, we must all confess that our culture has not embraced the beauty of flexing our rational faculties. Many of us are not equipped to defend and argue how we should be, so we subconsciously default to authoritative trump cards.
Last, and most dangerous, are those who would purposely leverage the authority of Christ where they shouldn’t because of the pervasive fallen nature that plagues all of humanity. Abigail Adams, in her typical direct manner, said, “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” While she may have spoken specifically of males, I think we could agree that this proclivity also affects women.
This is what Augustine (The City of God) so aptly named the lust for dominance, and we all have itâ all politicians, pastors, podcasters, Sunday school teachers, lawyers, doctors, plumbers and teachers! So when we speak of that which is Christian or hear someone else leverage that term, it is our obligation to say, “But is it? And why is it?”
There is an alternative
Philippians 4:8 gives us some practical objective adjectives to use instead.
âFinally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.â
Choose to use objective merit-based adjectives and defend them well. In the classical tradition, we argue for what is true, good, and beautiful, and we can be confident that when we find these things, we will also find Christ! But beware of those who will skip the work of reason to persuade you in other ways.
Let us beg God for discernment in what we hear and what we say.
âDiscernment is not the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right.” Charles Spurgeon
âBe sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.â1 Peter 5:8
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nation’s founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
Reprinted with permission. Read original article here.
As Americans look towards the Heavens to see the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024, I wanted to share with you an excerpt from my book, American Phoenix, about a conversation between John Quincy Adams and the Czar of Russia over the report of two comets in the sky.
As I was writing this intro on April 5, the earthquake in New York took place. I was literally searching scripture for these terms: signs, such as signs in the heavens and earthquakes when the news broke about the New York earthquake.
Here are a couple of scriptures that I found.
âThere will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.â Luke 21:11 (NIV)
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.â Luke 25:21 (NIV)
Humans have often attributed meaning to eclipses, comets, and other celestial wonders. In addition to the solar eclipse visible in America on April 8, the devil comet will also make an appearance.
Space.com recently reported, âAn unusual âhorned’ comet is now visible in the night sky and may even make a rare appearance during the total solar eclipse on April 8, 2024. This particular comet, often called the devil comet, visits the inner solar system every 71 years.â
Hence, April 8 may include two heavenly wonders. Similarly, two signs in the sky were the topics of this excerpt from my book American Phoenixbelow.
When John Quincy Adams was America’s top diplomat to Russia in December 1811, he had a discussion with the Czar of Russia about the two signs in the sky, which were thought to be two comets. John Quincy and Emperor Alexander had grown accustomed to taking walks along the canals of St. Petersburg at the same time of day so they could meet and discuss politics and world events away from the pretension and formality of the Winter Palace.
Enjoy this excerpt from my favorite book that I have written, American Phoenix, which is now available on audible.
Comets
Comets have a bad reputation. They are known for letting their hair down and growing a brilliant train as they head for earth.
Over the years humans have had trouble making heads or tails of these celestial lights. Some welcome these eccentric stars as signs of hope. To the masses, however, these masses of gas and dust are omens of impending disaster. Many would prefer that a comet keep its distance and stay as close to the sun as possible. The reason? Fear. People have feared excessive tragedy following in the wake of these long-haired stars.
With so much woe over one comet, what would happen if two comets suddenly appeared in the sky? That was the question on Russian Emperor Alexanderâs mind as he took a walk in St. Petersburg, Russia, on December 9, 1811. When he saw his American friend, John Quincy Adams, the czar knew he would receive a thoughtful reply. Adams was the top diplomat representing America in Russia. By this time he had done something no one thought he could do: win the friendship of Russian Emperor Alexander.
âMonsieur Adams,â the emperor called enthusiastically in a good-humored tone. âI have the honor to pay my respect.â
John responded cordially. As usual the pair discussed the weather, which could not help leading to the mysterious lights in the sky.
âWe have two comets at once,â Alexander observed of the twin prediction.
Adams instantly knew what he meant. The comet of 1811 was becoming more and more unmistakable and brilliant. With its tail âwarming themâ for some months, the latest reports predicted that two comets, not merely one, would streak past St. Petersburg before the yearâs end. John doubted the newspaperâs prediction of double trouble.
âOh, that is certain,â Alexander said playfully.
He offered another cosmic puzzle for Adams to solve. âBut, furthermore, I hear that one of the fixed stars namely, Sirius, has sunk one degree in the firmament,â Alexander continued wryly.
Unlike his American friend, the emperorâs information came not from a newspaper but a person.
In a sarcastic tone, he revealed his source: âBut for this I will give you my authority, âsays the ambassador from France.ââ
âThis was extraordinary news indeed,â John responded with equal sarcasm over French Count Lauristonâs planetary predictions.
âCâest un bouleversement gĂŠnĂŠral du ciel,â Alexander replied in French of the âgeneral upheaval of the sky.â
âBut as it is generally understood that one comet portends great disasters,â John observed, âit is to be hoped that two must signify some great happiness to the world.â
âOr at least that their mischief will operate mutually against each other and by reciprocal counteraction destroy the evil efficacy of both,â Alexander suggested.
âI congratulate His Majesty of his happy solution of the portentous knot.â
âIl y a moyen dâexpliquer toutes ces choses lĂ ,â he said with a laugh, that is, there are ways to explain all these things.
The czar added that the best way to respond to cosmic harbingers of calamity was to let the heavens take their own course without meddling in their management.
Indeed. The czar may have recently brought the Turkish Empire to a truce, freeing thousands of Russian soldiers to fight France, but even with all his power, he could not control a comet nor what happened the following year in 1812. Two wars took place when Napoleon invaded Russia and America went to war with Britain. Both forever changed both John Quincy Adams and Emperor Alexander.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Womenâs Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
Kutuzov inflicted several defeats on the Turks and on May 28, 1812, concluded a Russo-Turkish peace settlement favorable to Russia (Treaty of Bucharest).
Adapted from Resilience on Parade: Short Stories of Suffragists and Women’s Battle for the Vote.
February 12, 2024, was Abraham Lincolnâs 215th birthday. Although Iâve not written a book featuring Lincoln in the leading role, I have touched on his story through the stories of others, including the excerpt below.
In 2020, I released a book on womenâs right to vote for the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. In Resilience on Parade, I shared the stories of several suffragists, such as Abigail Adams in 1776 and Susan B. Anthony in the 1800s. Below is a portion of the chapter on Sojourner Truth. Although the book covers her emancipation from slavery, this excerpt starts with her famous suffrage speech and ends with her meeting with Abraham Lincoln. Enjoy!
The fifty-four-year-old black woman, who often wore a turban woven with brightly colored threads, entered the convention in Akron, Ohio, that spring day in May 1851. Isabella Van Wagener no longer existed.
When she left her former masterâs house of bondage, she left everything behind. Years later, she went to the Lord and asked Him to give her a new name after her conversion to Christianity in 1848. The Lord gave her Sojourner, because she was to travel up and down the land to show the people the sin of slavery and to be a sign unto them. Later, she wanted a last name, because everyone had two names, and God gave her Truth because she was to proclaim truth to the people.
As the attendees of the womenâs rights conference in Akron on May 29, 1851, would soon discover, Sojourner Truth may have entered that conference known as an abolitionist, but she left it known by another name, tooâsuffragist.
âMay I say a few words? I want to say a few words about this matter,â she began, saying that she was an example of womenâs rights.
âI have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that?â Indeed, as her autobiography declared, sheâd endured the toil of slavery and had the lashes to prove it.
âI have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.
âAs for intellect, all I can say is, if women have a pint and man a quart – why canât she have her little pint full?â Her pint had recently been full. This woman who could not read had become a published author the previous year. How was that possible?
Sheâd shared with abolitionist Oliver Gilbert her story of perseverance and how sheâd transformed from a slave into a free person, and he had written it down and published it. Called Narrative of Sojourner Truth by Sojourner Truth, her story shed light on the cruelties of slavery and launched her into the role of an activist. It was time to stand up for African women.
âYou need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much, for we canât take more than our pintâll hold. The poor men seem to be all in confusion, and donât know what to do,â she continued.
âWhy children, if you have womanâs rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they wonât be so much trouble,â she said in her own version of remember the ladies.
âI canât read, but I can hear. I have heard the Bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again,â Sojourner proclaimed, turning her talk into a mini sermon of sorts.
âThe lady has spoken about Jesus, how he never spurned woman from him, and she was right. When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha came to him with faith and love and besought him to raise their brother. And Jesus weptâand Lazarus came forth. And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and woman who bore him.â
Then she ended with a zinger, recognizing the dual reform movements facing the nation: abolition and womenâs rights. She represented both.
âMan, where is your part? But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, and he is surely between-a hawk and a buzzard.â
The most memorable speech of that convention, her remarks as presented here were published a few weeks after her speech by Marius Robinson in the AntiâSlavery Bugle of New Lisbon, Ohio, on June 21, 1851. The eventâs organizer, Frances Dana Gage, published another version in 1863 in the New York Independent. Hailed by suffragists, it was branded as Arânât I a Woman? The accuracy of Gageâs version is doubtful because it was published twelve years after she first delivered it. Regardless, the speech brought Sojourner notoriety.
Around this time, Sojourner traveled to Massachusetts, where she met Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book Uncle Tomâs Cabin was the Common Sense of the Civil War. Harriet wrote about their meeting in the Atlanta Monthly.
Sojourner believed that if God could help her do such big things as speaking at the womenâs conference or meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, then he would help her meet the man she most wanted to meet in the world. Heavenâs Great Emancipator would help her meet the emancipator of her people.
In October 1864, Truthâs ultimate sojourn led her to the great white house where he lived. As she stared at the pillars flanking the presidentâs house, her mind may have flashed back to the island of the willow trees, her kneeling pillars of prayer under the stars above. She had never seen such a grand house before, whose columns reached to the sky as if to proclaim something special, such as justice or freedom. Then she walked into the house as freely as anyone else.
A dozen or so guests waited in the presidentâs reception area. Sojourner noticed that two of the women were also black. A gentleman escorted the guests one by one to the president, who was seated in an adjacent room. One observation made her smile.
He showed as much kindness and consideration to the colored persons as to the whites, in her opinion. It was hard to hold back a tear or two. If there was any difference, he showed more pleasantries to the emancipated. Then her moment came. The gentlemen escorted her to the presidentâs desk.
âThis is Sojourner Truth, who has come all the way from Michigan to see you,â the host said, introducing her to the president.
Abraham Lincoln stood, extending his hand to her. She responded by taking his hand and shaking it. Then he bowed.
âI am pleased to see you,â he said.
As many people did before meeting a president, she had rehearsed a thousand times what she planned to say.
âMr. President, when you first took your seat I feared you would be torn to pieces, for I likened you unto Daniel, who was thrown into the lionsâ den. And if the lions did not tear you into pieces, I knew that it would be God that had saved you; and I said if He spared me I would see you before the four years expired, and He has done so, and now I am here to see you for myself.â
Tapping his wit, Lincoln congratulated her on being spared.
âI appreciate you, for you are the best president who has ever taken the seat.â
Lincoln paused, perhaps crossing his long arms as if thinking.
âI expect you have reference to my having emancipated the slaves in my proclamation,â he said, naming many of his predecessors, especially Washington. âThey were all just as good, and would have done just as I have done if the time had come,â he said, pausing again.
âIf the people over the river,â he said, pointing across the Potomac, âhad behaved themselves, I could not have done which gave me the opportunity to do these things.â
âI thank God that you were the instrument selected by Him and the people to do it,â Sojourner replied, acknowledging that she hadnât heard of him before he became president. He upped the compliment, noting that heâd heard of her many times before.
Lincoln then turned toward his desk, sat down, and picked up a large elegant book. He told her it had been given to him by the colored people of Baltimore.
Sojourner was speechless as she stared at the Bible. She glanced at the president. He nodded, as if giving her permission to open it and look through it.
âThis is beautiful indeed; the colored people have given this to the head of the government, and that government once sanctioned laws that would not permit its people to learn enough to enable them to read this book. And for what? Let them answer who can.â
Then Sojourner pulled a small book from her skirt pocket and handed it to the president.
He picked up a pen from his desk and wrote, âFor Aunty Sojourner Truth, Oct. 29, 1864. A. Lincoln.â
Lincoln stood and took her hand with his large bony hand, the same one that had signed the Emancipation Proclamation. He told her he would be pleased to have her call upon him again.
Sojourner smiled. As she exited through the door and passed through the pillars of the presidentâs house, she wanted to shout to God and thank him for Abraham Lincoln, but she didnât have to shout to be heard by the Almighty anymore. God knew her heart.
âI felt that I was in the presence of a friend, and I now thank God from the bottom of my heart that I always have advocated his cause, and have done it openly and boldly. I shall feel still more in duty bound to do so in time to come. May God assist me.â
Now more than ever, she would advocate for her people, her now free people. She longed to return home, to make Michigan a place where the emancipated could come and pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Perhaps one day she could vote. As she began her journey home, she believed that the Greatest Emancipator would help her.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
It has become taboo today to mention anything relating to Christianity in the same sentence with anything regarding law or public policy. If you mention anything that even remotely sounds like Christian theology in a public policy context, you are immediately met with cries of âSeparation of church and state!â, âWe are a secular democracy!â, or âYou are trying to establish a theocracy!â
In such a climate, it is good to reflect on the proper use of Christian theology in law, governance, and public policy.
The Myth of Secular Public Policy
First of all, I should point out that, whether we want it to be or not, theology (whether good theology or bad theology) actually is at the core of all public policy, especially in the United States. The Declaration of Independence states this: âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . â
Now, let us ask ourselves, is this truth really self-evident?
Throughout the entire course of human history, people have wanted to divide people into classes. Whether it is through the caste system in India, through the nobility of Europe, or through simple racial preference, what has been self-evident to humans is that âweâ are better than âthey.â So how could the writers of the Declaration of Independence claim that it was a self-evident truth?
The answer is that they had been raised under Christian doctrine.
Christianity: The Source of American Rights
âThere is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesusâ (Galatians 3:28). âFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godâ (Romans 3:23). âSuppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, âHereâs a good seat for you,â but say to the poor man, âYou stand thereâ or âSit on the floor by my feet,â have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?â (James 2:2-4).
And there are many more. So, we can see that at the core of our country, at the Declaration of Independence, we have distinctively Christian doctrine. So, if someone says that using Christian doctrine violates the rights of other people who are not Christian, they are simply incorrectâit is specifically Christian doctrine that has created and enabled those rights to begin with.
The State and the Church: Working Together, But Not as One
However, it is very easy to get the wrong idea.
The goal of using Christian doctrine is not to make the state an arm of the church. Jesusâ commands were to a people who were not in control of the government, and therefore, care must be taken to properly apply Christian doctrine to the affairs of the state. The churchâs function is for believers, while the stateâs function is for all of the people in the community, no matter how large or small. The stateâs actions are, by nature, coercive. The community of God is, by nature, voluntary.
If we tried to use the stateâs power to force people to believe in Christianity, we would be misusing the power of the state and misunderstanding what Christianity is.
However, in order to properly govern, the state must presuppose knowledge about nature, reality, and humanity. If the state misunderstands human nature, its laws will be ineffective or even counterproductive. If the state misunderstands the source of evil and corruption, it will also fail to curb it and may wind up perpetuating it instead. Christianityâthrough the Bible, through church teaching, and through Christian reflection over thousands of yearsâhas quite a bit to say about the nature of reality and especially human nature. Christianity best serves law and governance by providing better perspectives on the nature of reality and then reflecting on how government can be most effective in the light of that reality.
Applying Christian Doctrine: A Case Study and A Warning
Let me present a case study from Reinhold Niebuhrâs The Irony of American History. In this book, he shows how the doctrine of sin has affected different governments. Niebuhr presents two incorrect doctrines of sin which have led many governments astray. Now, as with most theology, being an atheist does not prevent a person from having a theology. A âdoctrine of sinâ simply means âan explanation for what is wrong with the world and how it got that way.â
Communists, like everyone else, operated with a doctrine of sinâthey believed that property was the cause of sin. Therefore, they believed that by removing property from society they would remove sin. Communism failed because it operated on a false doctrine.
Modern Western democracies also have an equally erroneous concept of sinâthat ignorance is the cause of sin in the world. Therefore, if we can simply educate the unwashed masses, then our problems will be solved.
Modern libertarians often have their own errant doctrine of sin: that the government is the root of sin in the world, and if we get rid of government, we will have removed sin.
So, what is the Christian doctrine of sin?
The Christian doctrine of sin is that of âoriginal sin.â That is, sin comes with being humanâwe were born with it, and it cannot be removed. There is no âsolutionâ to sin other than Christ, but the negative impact of an individualâs sin can be mitigated within a larger population guided by Christ. John Adams said, âWe have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religionâŚOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â Though Adams was a Universalist, he recognized the truth of original sin and the role that Christianity played in maintaining the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.
This method of applying doctrine to public policy issues is not something that can be done quickly, lightly, or half-heartedly. It requires a commitment to deep thought and reflection. It requires looking deeply into the issues that affect us, not just their surface features. We have to look not just at the laws themselves but at their purposes and understandings of how reality works and then analyze whether those hold up under the truth of Christianity.
I will leave you with this illustration from G. K. Chestertonâs Heretics:
âSuppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, âLet us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself goodâ’ At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.â
It is that time of year again. Grills are lit, parades are attended, and picnics and fireworks have brought families and communities together. July 4th elicits my mixed sentiments. Inevitably, we are drawn into the topic of comparison. Side by side, we attend to the world leading up to 1776 and the world in which we now reside. How are they the same? How are they different?
In years prior, I had feelings of reluctance to celebrate the historic overthrow of tyranny when it seemed our own generationâs tides of tyranny were on the rise. My frustrations were aimed metaphorically far, far away at vague, distant targets of politicians, invasive policies, and oppressive enforcement agencies. Tyranny, freedom, independence; as I turn these ideas over and over in my mind, ideas and words take on different flavors. We all inherited the paradigm we live in, and sometimes, we do not realize the layers and connections to the foundation we stand on and live in. So, join me in this thought exercise.
Directly or Indirectly Opposed to Tyranny?
If the War for Independence truly was what it claimed to be, the war was in opposition to tyranny, but not directly. Tyranny is more directly the inverse of freedom. The word âfreedomâ is a math word. It is most similar to the idea of zero. The only way to define zero is to say what it is not. You can have zero money, zero time, and zero belongings, but without a unit of measurement, zero is an extremely abstract concept. Freedom is this same idea of zero. It is the articulation of zero chains, zero oppression, zero infringements, zero force, and zero fraud. Freedom is a big beautiful nothing!
What is Independence?
So then, what is independence? And how is it related? To understand and appreciate independence, we must also attend to its inverse as well. If independence is what we love, the inverse is the threat to that object of our love. Some have even postulated that we have an obligation to hate the thing that is a threat to what we love. And what is this imminent threat? Dependency.
The founding generation were students of historical patterns. They realized that these lines run parallel. To be free, one could not be dependent. Thus, they reluctantly resolved to pursue, teach, and propagate independence as their door to freedom.
The scary reality is that the path they walked has room for two-way traffic. If independence is the path toward freedom, dependency is the path back toward tyranny and totalitarianism. So, what does state dependency look like? In its simplest form, it is the publicâs tolerance of the use of collective, regulated resources to supply individual needs. Our generationâs oversight is that the threat of dependency is not fresh in our minds. We have grown ignorant, distracted, apathetic, and negligent in keeping our guard up against the threat of dependency. Ideas of entitlement, âschool choice,â âpublic-private partnership,â subsidies, and government grants are all modern manifestations of our collective, tacit-yet-obvious approval of state dependency.
The Cost of Independence
Being opposed to dependency does not carry the same exciting, unifying battle cry that âopposing the tyrantsâ offers. Why is that? It is easy to oppose some ugly dragon in a castle far, far away. It is much more difficult to come to terms with the tiny, toxic terrors living in our own hearts and communities. This breed of dragons pokes its little head out on Election Day when we vote for the most benevolent Caesars promising to open the coffers and fund the voter or the voterâs pet project with the collectiveâs treasury. With each locus in which we tolerate this level of state âpartnership,â we are actually surrendering more and more real estate from the domain of the free to the domain of the captured. Sure, the cost of independence is expensive, but what is the value of freedom? And what should we be willing to pay to expand and preserve it for generations to come?
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nationâs founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
“Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you! Let the nations be glad and sing for you, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth. Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you!” Psalm 67:3-5 (ESV)
“One generation shall commend your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts.” Psalm 145:4 (ESV)
Although the foundational message of scripture is redemption through the work of Christ, GlobalRedemption is the historical conduit that ties together the Bible’s narrative from creation to consummation. Moreover, take a thorough reading of the Old Testament and two themes will stand out:
Global redemption has always been a part of God’s restorative plan.
Time and time again, God’s people failed to commend the Lord’s instruction to the next generation.
For Christian parents, these two principles are foundational imperatives for discipling children. We aim to create worshipers who worship by spreading the worship of God to the globe. As John Piper points out, the essential drive of missions is worship.
“Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesnât. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity.
But worship abides forever. Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions. In missions, we simply aim to bring the nations into the white-hot enjoyment of God’s glory. The goal of missions is the gladness of the peoples in the greatness of God.“1
Given this, it is our task as parents to commend this instruction to the next generation. After 42 years of pastoring a delightfully mission-minded church, Iâm aware of how Satan tempts us to stifle missions interest in our children (we have four grown kids). With apologies to C.S. Lewis and huge admiration for his Screwtape Letters, I offer the following to illustrate some of the Adversary’s strategies for hindering our parental great commission.
Dear Nephew,
I hear you have access to some well-intentioned but delusional parents. Not only have they bought into the enemyâs lie, they want to rear their children to join his cause. I believe the term they use is âmissions-minded.’ Might I suggest you plant the following ideas in the heads of these parents? Fortunately for our side, these wonât seem out of step with most of their peers, even the churched ones.
1. Donât let your child catch wind of the fact that religion of all stripes is booming around the globe. Let him assume that the secularization he sees around him in the U.S. is the norm globally. No one is listening or responding to the gospel, so why go? Why waste his life?
2. Donât expose her to a church that thinks missions is normative for all growing disciples. Burn a book like Parkinsonâs analysis of 2 Peter 1:3-8 in The Peter Principlethat makes missions-minded love for all peoples in all the world the very pinnacle of discipleship. Donât let her get close enough to adults who find joy in living sacrificially for the gospel, it will do strange things to her mind and heart. Guide them to a church that has decided to do local missions instead of global missions. Dichotomous thinking: Once adopted, itâs a helpful mindset for our cause.
3. Donât let him realize that the Bible is a book about missions; it is written by people on mission to a people supposed to be on mission. Its central theme is Godâs mission to reclaim His kingdom. Let him settle for the Bible as a book designed to keep him happy and comfort him when things are down. Extol the Hallmark card value of the Bible. Keep the Great Commission as an isolated text to be brought out annually at a missions conference or offering. Train him to feel good about that annual demonstration of “commitment to Godâs agenda.”
4. Donât let her hear about Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, a ludicrous college-level course too many of the enemyâs fans have taken. Its ideas are dangerous to our cause. You want the words Missions and Missionary to stay in the rather mindless realm of “God, bless the missionaries” prayers. Word has it there are even kid versions of this course.
5. Donât let him meet kids his own age who come from a different culture or land. The enemy has planted a chip in him that will, unfortunately, make him aware of how like he is to this ‘other.’ As long as the ‘other’ is ‘other,’ we have a chance to make ‘other’ mean ‘not as valuable as I am.’ This is, perhaps, our greatest advantage.
6. Model insularity. You are the most significant influence in his life. Donât ever let him see you spend yourself for the ‘other.’ Donât let him see you honor someone your church has sent into the world with what they call ‘good news.’ Be nice, but donât get so close to your neighbors that you find yourself caring about them. It’s okay to invite them to a church service but donât go further. Your child may get the impression that ‘good news’ is something every churched person experiences and actually shares.
7. Expose her to the right kind of missionary. One who obviously couldnât get a job in the real world. One who knows his place as a bottom feeder in the minds of your peers at church, who deserves the leftovers but thatâs all. Even if you catch wind of the anthropological, linguistic, and apologetic skills his work requires, donât let your child hear it. Itâs important that your child maintain a low view of the enemyâs workforce. Whatever you do, donât allow the wrong kind of missionary into your home. That kind of honor sends all the wrong messages to your child.
8. Find a circle of friends for him who are mildly religious, but their religion has ‘do not offend’ as its top priority. Fortunately for us, the ‘good news’ is offensive toâleast until the enemy works his magic (which Iâll never understand). Find ‘nice’ kids for him to hang out with. Not too wild but not too religious. You know, ‘balanced.’ If your church hires a youth pastor who wants to turn your son into a voice for the enemy, start a gossip campaign and get him fired. The average stay of a youth pastor is 6 months, so it shouldnât be hard.
9. In general, we recommend avoiding international travel as a family. While we have done all we can to squelch it, religion is booming around the globe. But there have been sightings of enemy fans in unexpected places we thought we had purged: Paris, Dubai, Nairobi, and Cancun. Itâs an uphill struggle, but weâre on it. Meanwhile, stay home where the plausibility structure for the other side is weak. Your child will conclude no one anywhere in the world is interested in spiritual things if all he sees around him is spiritual apathy.
10. Coddle her. Donât expose her to ideas, let alone experiences, that might make her have to trust in something or someone greater than herself. Thank badness for the ‘be safe at all cost’ phenomenon circulating today! You have many partners on your side. The enemyâs call is a risky one. Healthy risk-taking is addictive. She may find such behavior adds energy to life. So, avoid risky situations. Even ropes courses, seemingly innocuous, can start something we find hard to reverse. Remember, her self-image and safety are the most important things in life. Donât let her try that in which she might fail and, as the enemy puts it, learn from her mistakes. What an outdated notion!
Good luck and let me hear from you.
Tom Kenney is Pastor Emeritus of Peninsula Community Chapel, Yorktown, VA. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1975 with a BA in Business Administration. While there, he was nurtured by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and joined their staff upon graduation, serving the Vanderbilt University campus from 1975-1978. Having benefited from the works of men like J.I. Packer and John Stott, Tom earned a Masters of Divinity at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. In 1982, the Tabernacle Church of Norfolk called him to pastor the church planting effort. Tom stepped down as Lead Pastor of Peninsula Community Chapel in May 2020, after 38 years in that position and now serves at the Global Ministry Pastor. Tom enjoys Fridays off with his wife Mabel, reading The Economist and historical fiction, visiting the Chapel’s global partners around the world and working out at the YMCA. Tom and Mabel have four grown children.
What is one thing public education and home education have in common? The obvious answer would beâŚeducation. However, as we see in Vladimir Leninâs ominous promise to, âGive me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world,â perhaps transformation is the true common denominator, as transformation is always the goal of education. Therefore, at the heart of the question of whom we trust to educate our children lies the bigger question of whom we trust to transform our world.
Education in America is Eroding
Four decades ago, Former President Ronald Reagan illuminated the outcome of trusting the declining public school systems in his 1983 report titled A Nation at Risk:
âOur Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a peopleâŚ
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselvesâŚ.
Our concern, however, goes well beyond matters such as industry and commerce [i.e., STEM & College and Career Ready]. It also includes the intellectual, moral, and spiritual strengths of our people which knit together the very fabric of our society.â
Are We Embracing Socialism?
Marion Smith, Executive Director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, states, âWhen one in four Americans want to eliminate capitalism and embrace socialism, we know that we have failed to educate about the historical and moral failings of these ideologies.â This startling statistic is widely evident in the government-controlled school systemsâ promotion of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Social Emotional Learning (SEL), Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and LGBTQ++ coercion, where children are deceitfully maneuvered from parental teaching to State indoctrination.
At the heart of the question of whom we trust to educate our children lies the bigger question of whom we trust to transform our world.
Undeniably, a parent is charged to âTrain up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.â(Proverbs 22:6 NKJV) However, in an act of calculated division, totalitarians such as Hitler, Lenin, and Mao have used this Proverb in their attempts to eradicate the family and shape the minds of the upcoming generation with the intent to, in those infamous words of Lenin, â…transform the whole world.â This exceedingly conspicuous tactic is front and center throughout America today. It has been clearly spelled out in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #4of the United Nations Agenda 2030, with which the United States has cooperated:
âOur vision is to transform lives through education, recognizing the important role of education as a main driver of development and in achieving the other proposed SDGs. We commit with a sense of urgency to a single, renewed education agenda that is holistic, ambitious, and aspirational, leaving no one behind. This new vision is fully captured by the proposed SDG 4 ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ and its corresponding targets. It is transformative and universal, attends to the âunfinished businessâ of the EFA [Education For All] agenda and the education-related MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], and addresses global and national education challenges. It is inspired by a humanistic vision of education and development based on human rights and dignity; social justice; inclusion; protection; cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity; and shared responsibility and accountability.â1
Is the intent of this agenda not clearly statedââto transform livesâ through global state control of education and the Marxist indoctrination of children?
The Family is The Solution
This agenda is in stark contrast to American parents’ unique success in cultivating a firm foundation of freedom in our nation, even before the development of our Constitution. Historically, American families have worked, worshiped, and educated while being undergirded with the self-evident truth that sacrifice over self-service and self-governance over government restraint cultivates freedom, yet our modern families continue to succumb to the subtle and consistent conditioning toward the UNâs divisive preference to bring all schools under government control.
Now, more than any time in our Nation’s history, is the time for parents to boldly and courageously assert our inherent responsibility to direct the upbringing and education of our children and vehemently reject the UN reportâs claim that âthe State remains the duty bearer of education as a public good.â2
Now is the time for families to awaken from their self-imposed financial slumber, revive atrophied personal civic responsibilities, recalibrate family priorities, and recapture their God-given right to educate, by exiting the institutions of indoctrinationâthe government-controlled K-12 schooling systems.
Now is the time for families to cultivate and practice ownership and discipline with the honorable motive of self-governance and freedom.
âThe family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.â
President Ronald Reagan
Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, states, âIf a nation takes on the character of its people, then our classrooms are ultimately about the formation of citizens and souls.ââ Family is the best classroomânot government, entitlements, or vouchers.
Family necessitates devotion to one another, to our work, and to our inheritance.
Family promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, and is the most trustworthy institution in civilization.
Family teaches that work is worship, and you must pay your own wayâfreedomâs prerequisites.
Ronald Reagan once said, âThe family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.â
Through devotion, sacrifice, and commitment, the family establishes, inculcates, and maintains freedom. Families, therefore, are incomparable educators and the trustworthy remnant to guarantee that enduring transformation occurs in the world.
Check out these other blogs on family and education.
Regina Piazza is a 13-year home educator with Classical ConversationsÂŽ and has held multiple roles including Tutor, Director, and Support Representative. She is a former Air Force veteran and two-time business owner who ran for Florida State Senate for the first time in 2022. She is currently working to preserve education and religious freedom as the Florida State Advocate for Classical Conversations.
Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. (2016). Accessed 5/9/2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
Zancajo, AdriĂĄn & Fontdevila, Clara & Verger, Antoni & Bonal, Xavier. (2021). Regulating Public-Private Partnerships, governing non-state schools: An equity perspective. 10.13140/RG.2.2.16374.93760. Accessed 5/9/2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356915329_Regulating_Public-Private_Partnerships_governing_non-state_schools_An_equity_perspective
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
