Culture

Two Reasons Why Christians Should Support Abolishing the Department of Education

Post Icon
Editor's Note

This article is a part of our series, The Way of Christ in Education.

Blustery, tempestuous, firestorm. These words describe the debate swirling around the future of the Department of Education (DOE). Would only a rebellious, torch-bearing radical advocate for abolishing this department? Can a Christian, who aspires to good citizenship, advocate for this seemingly drastic action? Christians should support the elimination of the DOE based on the biblical principle of submission to governing authority.

The federal government of the United States includes 15 cabinet-level departments. The influence of these departments is clear from their very names: The Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, and Department of Education. Each department deals with important issues but are they all constitutional, necessary, and beneficial? J. Gresham Machen’s 100-year-old writings help Christians pursue proper citizenship related to education policy. Machen’s work provides two reasons to rid ourselves of the Department of Education:

The greater the DOE’s influence, as an involuntary association, the less space remains for innovative and religiously oriented educational options to develop and flourish. Respecting our neighbors’ voluntary arrangements in educating their children accords with our nation’s governing principles.

1. Good Citizens Respect Federalism

Before 1979, the United States did not have a cabinet-level department solely focused on education. Individual states determined education policy per the principle of federalism (the idea that power is divided between the federal and state governments). This principle is enshrined throughout the United States Constitution. It is most clearly outlined in the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Today, states still have considerable power to establish education policy. However, DOE wields significant influence through, among other means, grant funding, the Office of Federal Student Aid, and Title IX policy interpretation and implementation.

DOE has the power to implement divisive and oppressive policies. Under the Biden administration, DOE’s Office for Civil Rights pushed Title IX Regulations that prohibited sex discrimination based on “gender identity.”  Multiple state attorneys general sued to prevent this manifestation of gender ideology from being forced on the people of their states.

Concerns over federalism in education are not new. In the 1920s, New Testament scholar and founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, J. Gresham Machen, spoke out against establishing a federal department of education.

In 1926, Machen testified before Congress on a proposed department of education. Machen said, “I do not believe that the personal, free, individual character of education can be preserved when you have a Federal department laying down standards of education which become more or less mandatory to the whole country.”[1] Machen believed that a standardized approach to education ignored the uniqueness of individual students and local community needs and preferences.

In testimony and various writings, Machen emphasized that a department of education disrespects the division of power between federal and state governments. Placing too much power in the hands of the federal government leads to forcing oppressive policies on states. He wrote, “So it is to be observed that State measures [in education] . . . are very much more likely to be checked, if they are oppressive and against the spirit of our institutions, than are Federal measures.”[2] Citizens have more influence on education policy at the state level because their votes have more impactand their voices speak louder in a smaller polity.

Machen also believed that the educational needs and preferences of individuals and communities can be addressed more effectively at the local and state levels.

2. Good Citizens Respect Their Neighbors

Federalism respects different perspectives, opinions, and religions. The Constitution’s division of powers acknowledges that, in such a geographically diverse country, states will assume various characteristics based on different belief systems and cultures.

The use of force to implement divisive educational policies, such as the Biden administration’s Title IX interpretation, disrespects the right of states to set education policy according to the wishes of their residents. Policy differences between states should be respected. Indeed, competition between educational options—between public schools of different states, between public schools and private schools, between homeschool and private schools, etc.—provides a healthier educational environment overall.

Machen recognized the importance of tolerating diverse educational options arising from voluntary association: “one of the fundamental principles of liberty, which is involved in the present issue [of education], is the principle of the right of voluntary association, the right of persons to associate themselves voluntarily for the propagation of their own views.”[3] The greater the DOE’s influence, as an involuntary association, the less space remains for innovative and religiously oriented educational options to develop and flourish. Respecting our neighbors’ voluntary arrangements in educating their children accords with our nation’s governing principles.

Conclusion

In Romans 13:1 Paul writes, “Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God” (CSB).  What does this mean for how American Christians approach education policy?

As citizens of a constitutional republic, our duty is to vote for candidates who support policies in accord with the Constitution. We submit to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and must call our elected representatives to do the same. Policies and institutions contrary to this governing authority must be addressed. Eliminating DOE respects the Constitution’s emphasis on federalism. It also lessens the likelihood of oppressive, “one-size-fits-all,” policies trampling the rights of states and their citizens.

Never miss an episode, article, or study.

Sign up for the CFC newsletter now!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

[1] J. Gresham Machen, “Proposed Department of Education,” in Education, Christianity, and the State, ed. John W. Robbins (The Trinity Foundation, 1987, 103.
[2] J. Gresham Machen, “Shall We Have a Federal Department of Education,” in Education, Christianity, and the State, ed. John W. Robbins (The Trinity Foundation, 1987), 92-93.
[3] Machen, “Shall We Have a Federal Department of Education,” 84.

Photo retrieved from Unsplash

adblock image

MDiv Ethics

The Christian Ethics track provides specialized academic training that prepares men and women to impact the culture for Christ through prophetic moral witness and service in a variety of settings.

 

  • Culture
  • education
Jonathan Lawler

Jonathan Lawler

Jonathan Lawler is passionate about how Christianity relates to political liberty. Jonathan is the Archivist and Digital Collections Manager at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary from where he graduated with an MA in Ethics, Theology, and Culture. He also earned an MA from New York University, MMin from Northwest University, and BA from SUNY New Paltz. He is married to Jessica and they have three children.

More to Explore

Never miss an episode, article, or study.

Sign up for the Christ and Culture newsletter now!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.