When You Rise Up
Saturday 
in the early afternoon 
Mystie
Ok, R.C. Sproul’s homeschooling book, When You Rise Up: A Covenantal Approach to Homeschooling
Sorry, Brandy. I thought it was terrible. This is one of those that makes me not want to homeschool (or make my own bread, or get chickens, and certainly never sew my own dresses), just so it’s clear I am not “one of those people” who think this lifestyle is the One Way of godliness.
His one argument is that Deut. 6 commands parents — and only parents — to teach their children from the time they rise up until the time they lay down (thus excluding sending them to school). Therefore, if God has given you children, he has also called — and commanded — you to homeschool. He hasn’t given you the responsibility of educating your children, it isn’t only that He will hold you accountable for how your children are educated, but He requires that you be the sole educator of your children.
Every counter example or position against his own argument was a complete straw man. He never seriously engaged with any arguments against his own, and his conviction that God requires homeschooling meant that every answer came down to, “We must believe God rather than man.” It was his trump card, and he pulled it out every time — who needs compelling and balanced persuasion when God Has Spoken?
I didn’t actually disagree so much with many of his statements, as much as the way he presents them and argues for them. On many of his positions — such as education is not and cannot be neutral — I don’t disagree, but I did not find the way he argued for them to be compelling at all. And many of the things he said along the way bothered me immensely. For example, he said one much not know more than the one being taught in order to teach. There are better ways to alleviate perceived inadequacies, but he goes so far as to deny inadequacy is relevant. Inadequacy in loving God, loving your children, or disciplining your children are problems every parent must work against. Academic inadequacy? Sproul Jr. simply shrugs his shoulders. Doesn’t really matter, so long as you teach them to be faithful.
Moreover, on a style note, he claims only 3G’s are necessary in education, but then he gives 1 G — God — and three things relating to God that are necessary — Who is God? What has God done? and What does God require? Three ‘W’s’ — yes. Three ‘G’s’ — no. The ‘Q’s’ — sure, ok. But he insists throughout on referring to his “3G’s” approach. Things like that bug me immensely. It’s sloppy, and his whole style throughout is conversational, which I always tend to view as sloppy. Conversation allows for tangents to not be tied in, for segues to be unclear, for arguments to be personal rather than logical. A published book should have tighter rhetoric if your goal is to persuade someone who isn’t already your friend, willing to put up with your idiosyncrasies.
This book will encourage and strengthen those who already agree with Sproul Jr.’s vision of the family, but I can’t see it actually evangelizing non-homeschoolers (which he admits is his goal — even using the word ‘evangelize’).
Please do not apologize, Mystie! I have been thinking about this book, actually, and also the fact that I haven’t read it since I’ve “matured” in my views on homeschooling and education in general. I think my affections for it deal more with my history with it than the actual content. I was ripe for something due to my just leaving a dispensational seminary to have a baby. The fact that Sproul took Deuteronomy 6 and said it mattered in a really pertinent way to my life now was completely revolutionary at the time.
I remember that there were, even then, parts of the book that bothered me. For instance: the eight-year-old who couldn’t read but was really sweet? I saw the logical inconsistency. Her illiteracy does matter, for she cannot read her Bible and she cannot educate her own children.
One thing I appreciated about the book was the idea that we do not merely teach our children, but we teach them to teach their children. So we pass on a way of life, not just an education in the strict sense of the word. I liked that. Again, it was a brand new thought to me at the time.
However, you are right, of course. The book pales in comparison with other works on your list!
In all, I would say that my appreciation for this book is a lot like an appreciation for an odd uncle that taught me to tie my shoes. I’ve grown up, so tying my shoes doesn’t seem to be such a big deal any more. In fact, it is totally normal. But, when I was five and he taught me, he was my hero. And even though he isn’t my hero now, I’ll always have that little warm spot in my heart.
It’s sort of like that. ;)
That is, not just schooling, in the strict sense of the word. Education, really, *is* the transfer of a way of life, though moderns have truncated and hollowed out the word. ;)
Yes, many of his ideas were good, I think; it was mostly his reasoning that I didn’t think was sound. I think a lot of the family-centric wing of Christendom/homeschooling (like Bluedorns or Vision Forum) is a good stepping stone for people working their way toward integrating their faith with all of life. It has its place, and I don’t want to malign it too badly for the sake of people who might be stepping into a more full-orbed Christianity through that movement.
Uh-huh, it was a nine-year-old who couldn’t read, but was basically doing a huge chunk of mothering duties for younger siblings in an 8-child family. Bad example and testimony on several levels. And the whole “Jesus was homeschooled” is just plain silly. Who says? How do you know? And what does that prove, anyway? I have also heard that the synagogues served as schools, too.
And I think he rightly identifies many people’s root hesitation with homeschooling and even with having large families as being a hesitation about being capable of handling the responsibility. But then he doesn’t do anything with that. His insistence that God commands homeschooling keeps him from actually answering the real concerns. It all comes back to “God says, so don’t argue.”
Is it just me, or did he need a dose of Mental Multivitamin? I love that she approaches our lack of capability with encouragement to become capable. I know that it is the knowledge of my own weaknesses that drives me to keep learning, and not just for my sake, but for the sake of the children I must teach.
Yes, I’m not sure I’d assert that Jesus was homeschooled, either. It is an argument from silence. I, like you mentioned, have also read that the synagogues were where young boys were sent for schooling. When we read these schooling/paideia passages, it always refers to fathers, and yet we deem it acceptable for them to delegate the bulk of it to us (the mothers). How is it any different to, for instance, hire a Latin tutor, or join a co-op?
We have never been interested in being part of a school, and there are a number of reasons for that. And I think that homeschooling has huge benefits. But I cannot go so far as to say that school is forbidden. Each family has to make their own decision. What is imperative in my mind is that Christian children receive a Christian education.
My understanding is that Sproul has since decided that we really should be discussing getting a Christian education before we fight about what type of education (details like style, location, who the teachers are, and so on). Of course, I could be wrong on that, and I can’t remember where I read it to check my sources…
Yes…Sproul and the Bluedorns were my gateway drugs. :)