I am certain that attitudes have changed in Europe since I
spent considerable time there in the 1990's. At that time homeschooling was
novel and while it was becoming popular in the United States, such expressions
of individualism and counter-culture were not popular in Europe – even among
Christians.
I know the movement has grown considerably in places like the
United Kingdom but I believe there is still some hesitation among the
Evangelicals of the Continent. Germany and some of the Scandinavian countries
have made it all but impossible and Christians have been targeted as a result.
Some of the most egregious cases received press in American Evangelical
circles.
And now France it would seem is prepared to travel down a
similar road albeit for very different reasons. While all the nations of Europe
are concerned about sub-cultures and in particular Islamic sub-cultures, it is
France that seems to be feeling a sense of crisis. Macron's announced agenda
will undoubtedly receive a boost by the recent beheading of a teacher at the
hands of a radicalised Chechen immigrant.
Evangelical Focus, the Lausanne affiliated Christian news
website has offered comment on Macron's agenda but I must say I was only mildly
surprised to find the subject of homeschooling completely ignored. It's not
that popular and I get the sense European Evangelicals are in a struggle over
the propriety of homeschooling. Evangelicals shaped by Lausanne's dominionism
will be reticent to 'surrender' or abandon a very large and critical social
sphere to the pagans. According to their thinking it is the task of Christians
to transform, redeem, and even conquer society and public education plays a
critical role in this. There are those that believe Christian children ought to
be in the schooling system in order to be 'salt and light' and to work toward
that sphere's 'redemption'. There are still many Americans who feel this way
but growing numbers have realised that handing your children over to leaders
that for eight hours a day will be instilling them with values completely
contrary to everything you believe to be right and moral, is a project doomed
to fail. In some instances Baptistic individual-focused theology also plays a
role in how the rearing of children is viewed. The focus on the single-moment
decision, the conversion experience as well as an unbiblical concept of Eternal
Security allows for a lot of latitude in both pre- and post-conversion life.
The notion that we're called to holiness and for the Christian's life (and that
of his family life) to be one of sanctification is largely foreign to them or
is often downplayed or even subsumed by other theological considerations.
Between the institution itself and the peer group that
dominate daily life, few children emerge sound in the faith and none emerge
unscathed. Factor in the difficulties associated with growing up, with adolescence,
and with the struggles of immaturity and sense of self – many Christians have
finally and thankfully realised that to send Christian children to public
school is not only a case of handing over sheep to wolves but it is not
commensurate with raising children (as per the Biblical imperative) in the fear
and admonition of the Lord. It is in the end an abdication of Christian
parental responsibility.
But the debate persists and European culture is certainly
less individualistic. This has its problems as does the rabid and pretentious
'rugged individualism' at work in American culture. Both attitudes affect the
Church for good and ill. The Covid-19 episode has put some of the different attitudes
on display and we can see both the best and worst of both cultural
proclivities.
Sadly, Macron's new mandatory schooling agenda (which
includes compulsory schooling at age 3!) will be embraced by many and many more
will simply acquiesce to it. Some Continental Christians are rightly put off by
American Evangelical culture and will for that reason seek to justify their
participation in this egregious example of state social engineering.
At risk of over-generalisation, before Lausanne many
Bible-oriented Christians in Europe had a sense of balance. We're neither
integrated into society nor are we political activists or rebels. We're
pilgrims. But Dominion Theology has fomented a crisis which leads to the 'pilgrim'
option (the actual Biblical position) being eliminated and even rendered
heterodox. And so Christians are forced to either work for reform from within
the system or begin to set up a counter-cultural political movement – homeschooling
being a tactical or strategic retreat depending on one's overall perspective –
that's meant (in the end) to prepare for the coming cultural takeover.
On the one hand many of the commentators will use this
episode to expose the concept of French laicité – the notion that the state and
church are completely separate. They will view this as an intrusion. Others
will point out that laicité is a myth that statism is the de facto religion of
France and that this proposed agenda is an imposition of it.
Indeed Macron's move does smack of a type of sacralism. It is
the absolutising of Enlightenment ideology, a religion that embraces positivism
and rejects the metaphysical. It has developed its own epistemology, it has its
own living canon, messianic movements, spirituality, and eschatology – and
certainly its own ethic of integration toward the end of creating a monolithic
society. This is why a woman can be topless in public and that's fine but if
she wears a burqa, she'll be issued a citation.
And like previous sacralisms, it seeks to impose its will on
a society that is in dissent. In the Middle Ages groups like the Cathars
presented a threat to the sacral order – the monolithic social construct
organised around Roman Catholicism. They were in the end, eradicated. Macron's
move (while in a completely different context) is in keeping with that
tradition. While he's not launching a bloody crusade, his moves are
nevertheless hostile toward France's religious subcultures and meant to
eventually eliminate them – by breaking them and forcing them to assimilate so
that their Islam (or Christianity) is no longer in conflict with the overarching
paradigm of Enlightenment French Republicanism.
It's troubling because while we must utterly reject Macron's
agenda, the posture of both radical Islam and Dominionist political
Christianity must also be rejected. Once again it's a case of all sectors being
wrong and there is a desperate need for voices of Biblical reason and wisdom on
the French scene. I hope they arise but should they do so they will be met with
considerable hostility within French Evangelical circles – certainly from the
Lausanne Movement.
And what is the answer? That's not so easy, but I can say
this – a culture which demands my three year old is not one that I can accept.
On the other hand Macron's announcement demonstrates the
utter breakdown of social pluralism, especially the notion of pluralism being
able to function without a fairly tight social consensus – something of a
slightly blurry monolith. France is witnessing fragmentation and Macron (somewhat
understandably) is reacting. An absolute pluralism will cause society to break
apart and collapse. The same phenomenon is at work in American culture and
likewise (albeit for different reasons) is becoming quite dangerous and is
nearing the point of being an existential threat to the system as a whole.
This reality is certainly echoed by many conservative
commentators, especially those in more ardent Dominionist circles. Growing
numbers are realising that the Evangelical attempt to embrace pluralism with a Christian preference,
won't stand and thus there are growing calls to push for a more overt and aggressive
sacral agenda with a goal toward eliminating pluralism. This Neo-Constantinian
Christian Sacralist view is in complete contrast to Classical Liberalism and as
such is antithetical to the views of the American Founders and the critical
legal documents associated with their 18th century rebellion from
Britain. This needs to be understood but it isn't because these sacral views
would be considered reactionary, anti-revolutionary and anti-patriotic – and
rightly so.
This is of no concern to Christians who orient their thinking
and ethics around the New Testament but such a blatant counter-patriotism narrative
has little hope of gaining traction in larger Evangelical circles which are
completely caught up by patriotism and nationalism. The New Testament does not
govern their thinking when it comes to these issues. And as such many advocates
of the anti-Liberal position (a Protestant version of de Maistre's Throne and Altar ideology) mask their
intentions and narrative in the language and symbolism of the 1776 movement –
which they actually in principle oppose.
As a result the present milieu is terribly confusing and
quite dishonest. Many of the flag-waving patriot theologians are in reality
opposed to the values and ideology that led to 1776, the Constitution and in
particular the Bill of Rights but in some cases they themselves don't realise
it or instead pull at the heartstrings of their followers even while they
prepare a bait-and-switch to be utilised at some future time.
They would eliminate pluralism and install a monolithic
sacral order and yet even history has shown us what such a move leads to. In
every case it leads to resistance and revolution and the longer the oppressive
order was maintained, the more explosive is the reaction to it. Christians who
would be faithful to the New Testament and its ethics cannot be involved in any
aspect of this. It is a dangerous and destructive path and the field is
permeated with lies, deception and endless ethical compromise.
We can never absolutise social pluralism and yet it is the
New Testament ideal in This Age. It will not exist in the Age to Come. We are
not theological pluralists who treat all religions as equally valid in their
metaphysical claims. But as pilgrim-exiles meant to bear witness and glorify
God through worship, cross-bearing martyrdom, and the spread of the Gospel, social
pluralism is the best we can hope for in this age – a point echoed repeatedly
by the apostolic epistles. We do not judge those who are 'outside' nor do we
entangle ourselves in the affairs of this life. We are soldiers in a war that
transcends the circles of the Earth and we do not war against the angelic
entities which govern this age. Instead we infiltrate their realm and proclaim
the heavenly Kingdom. The weapons we bear are spiritual. In terms of the
physical they can persecute and crucify us but we are not here to challenge
their earthly thrones and authority as the Kingdom we serve is not of this
world. Their defeat has already been proclaimed and their fall is certain but
it's not our task as men made lower than the angels to bring railing accusation
against them and seek to usurp their God-granted authority. This is a hard
thing for many to understand especially given the post-Enlightenment
Confessional and Evangelical milieu which has suppressed and all but eradicated
these doctrines and this cosmology.
Pluralism is at best a temporary measure for this age and its
collapse demonstrates the forces of social and cultural entropy, the inevitable
breakdown, deterioration and collapse of all societies. It must be so and yet
as they reach a point of crisis those who would hold on to power can often turn
quite vicious. One thinks of confrontations between soldiers and demonstrating
crowds, secret police and doors being kicked in during the dead of night. The
West is not on a trajectory toward freedom. On the contrary we are on the cusp
of a new age of social control and great pressure to conform. Surveillance and
thought-crime are norms in the new and coming order and as Christians we would
do well to think ahead. But sadly the answer for many Christians is to simply
appropriate these tools. And many are additionally deceived into thinking
Sacral Christianity is synonymous with freedom. The totalitarianism of the
Roman Catholic Middle Ages tells a very different story.
In light of the present crisis and deterioration it is on one
level understandable that leaders like Macron seek to act and correct the
system. To do nothing would be to abdicate the responsibilities of his office. In
his ideological framework it makes sense and hardly seems malicious and yet we as
Christians cannot get behind them or embrace the ideology that undergirds his
actions.
It is known that he's primarily targeting the Islamic
community and yet as is often the case Christians are caught up in the net. The
'corrections' are sometimes (even often) harmful to us. Serious Christians are
in for a hard time in France. Many will be tempted to compromise as the only
viable consequence is emigration.
To reiterate and conclude, the education of children is a
critical issue. Christian parents have a mandate but it is one often watered
down by Evangelical decisionism and individualism. Historical narrative and
other erroneous theological commitments often come into play and muddy the
waters.
Household or even covenantal-Kingdom thinking posits an antithesis
to the world and demands that our children be raised in the Lord. Public
schooling is a violation of this imperative, this trust. And yet many
Kingdom-oriented people in seeking to build a sacral order are unclear in their
thinking and in many cases if given the reins of power they too would seek to
suppress pluralism and dissent. And so it must be understood that much of their
rhetoric concerning 'rights', 'freedoms', and the like is disingenuous.
Clear Biblical thinking is needed because these crises are
only going to multiply. The French dilemma will soon be facing other nations
and it needs to be considered in a larger discussion of the Christian place in
society, the authority of Scripture with regard to parental roles, children,
money, and even issues like technology. Needless to say outlets such as the
Lausanne Movement can only be described as compromised blind guides. Biblically
minded Christians need to look elsewhere.