I was raised in the United Methodist Church, and I’m very thankful that my introduction to Christ took place within a traditional conservative mainline context. Unlike many progressive evangelicals, I don’t feel compelled to criticize the UMC for aspects of the culture I may have disagreed with growing up. However, I often see this tendency among those from non-conservative evangelical backgrounds. Many who were raised in conservative evangelical contexts, upon reaching adulthood, seem to focus much of their energy on criticizing the culture from which they came, sometimes even making it a central part of their career.
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a brief comment on a surprising article in Christianity Today by Stefani McDade, which advocated for public school involvement by negatively presenting Christian education. The argument was poorly constructed because using Christian education as a negative example is entirely unnecessary when making a case for why Christians should consider public schooling. It comes across as having an axe to grind, with the author hiding behind the phrase "in my experience."
In response, McDade wondered if I had read the piece and/or if I was stupid.
Yes, I read the piece and no I’m not stupid. As I responded later, I not only know what op-eds are, I’ve also had multiple op-eds published in mainstream national newspapers.
Stefani McDade’s article, “Public School Can Be a Training Ground for Faith”, presents a weak case against Christian education by promoting public schooling as a means to strengthen children's faith. This argument falls short when examined in light of a broader understanding of Christian education and its historical roots, as articulated in articles by James K.A. Smith and Robert Bortins.
First, McDade argues that exposing children to diverse worldviews in public schools will prepare them to wrestle with faith challenges. Yet, Smith in “The Case for Christian Education” counters this by highlighting the Reformed tradition’s understanding that all education is rooted in a worldview—either secular or religious. Smith emphasizes that Christian education is designed to immerse students in a comprehensive Christian worldview from a young age. In this sense, sending children to a public school does not merely expose them to diversity but immerses them in a worldview often at odds with their faith without the Christian integrative anti-thesis. Daniel and his friends were ready to wrestle with faith challenges after they were firmly rooted and grounded with Godly hearts and minds. Historically, Reformed communities like the Christian Reformed Church saw education as an extension of discipleship, forming not only the mind but the spirit through a curriculum deeply rooted in Christian principles. This aligns with Proverbs 22:6: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” McDade’s failure to address the comprehensive worldview formation, in the classroom, in public schools undermines her argument.
Bortins, in his rebuttal article “The Case for Christian Education: A Rebuttal,” reinforces this by emphasizing that the primary role of education is faith formation fr the future. He critiques McDade’s idea that public schools can be a place of “strength training” for children’s faith, pointing out that premature exposure to worldly ideologies without the proper foundational Christian worldview often leads to confusion rather than strengthening. Bortins draws attention to 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Bad company corrupts good character,” and he reminds us that young children are particularly susceptible to negative influences from adults during their formative years. This is where Christian education shines—by creating an environment that nurtures faith development by adults without compromising the academic rigor or exposure to the complexities of the world by teachers. Yes, there is “bad company” and any school but parents need to think carefully about the the adults who are shaping their childrens’ minds from 8AM to 3PM everyday, for nine months out of the year.
Historically, Christian denominations like Anglican, Lutheran, and Presbyterian traditions have long supported the integration of faith and learning. For example, Lutheran education, stemming from the teachings of Martin Luther, always emphasized that schools should not merely prepare children for civic life but also root them in their Christian identity. The Christian education systems within these traditions established a long history of developing not only academic excellence but also fostering spiritual maturity in students to navigate a pluralistic world. McDade’s argument dismisses this rich legacy of Christian education’s success in developing well-rounded, faith-filled individuals who are prepared to engage the world critically and compassionately.
Smith’s framework further critiques McDade by pointing out that Christian education is not about sheltering children from the world but equipping them to see the world through a Christian lens. He argues that Christian schools are like moral incubators, not moral bubbles, helping students understand the world’s brokenness while anchoring them in a biblical framework from adults. This “radical” approach to education stems from the belief that all aspects of creation belong to God, and thus every subject—from biology to history—is taught in light of God’s truth. Christian education, then, offers a more holistic and intentional approach to preparing children for a life of faithful discipleship than McDade’s simplistic notion of exposure to public schools. The adults matter!
Bortins extends this critique by noting that Christian education provides a cohesive environment in which church, school, and family are aligned in nurturing a child’s faith. McDade’s argument that parents should guide their children through public school while they are still at home overlooks the power of an immersive Christian community in shaping a child’s spiritual and moral formation throughout the week (by adults in the classroom). He correctly cites Deuteronomy 6:6-7, which emphasizes the daily, ongoing role of education in nurturing faith. By contrast, public schools are often disconnected from the faith commitments of Christian families, leaving children to navigate faith challenges without the benefit of a consistent Christian framework by adults in the classroom.
McDade’s case against Christian education is not only weak but also represents a broader, unfair trend of anti-conservative evangelicals downplaying the importance of faith-centered educational institutions. I’ve also heard the same weak arguments against Christian colleges. Both Smith and Bortins demonstrate that Christian education, led by Godly adults, provides the biblical, moral, and intellectual framework necessary for children to grow in their faith while being fully prepared to engage the world. The long-standing tradition of Anglican, Lutheran, and Presbyterian Christian education supports the claim that integrating faith with education is not merely a historical artifact but an essential part of raising children who will be faithful witnesses to Christ in every area of life.
Here a series of truly surprising statements:
”Another major consideration is that I would rather most of my child’s first close encounters of the worldly kind happen while she’s still under my roof, not after she leaves home.”
What leads McDade to believe that “encounters of the worldly kind” do not occur in families who enrol their children in Christian schools? Christian school parents are not Amish. The only way to entirely prevent children from having such “encounters with the world” would be to live in a compound exclusively with Christians, never allowing children to watch television, cartoons, or films, shielding their eyes from advertisements in public spaces, avoiding public outings altogether, and preventing them from joining any community organisations that include non-Christian children—such as travel sports, ballet, or the Girl Guides. This "consideration" has nothing to do with Christian education. It is more aligned with fundamentalist, isolationist "Christ against culture" communities (and such communities do indeed exist).
After explaining her personal experience of being bullied for her faith in a public school, McDade then recommends public schooling as:
strength training: Your children need to build muscles of faith, and public school can provide weight to lift while you’re around to spot them. Let them wrestle with worldly counternarratives to God’s truth while they’re still under your care.
It is one thing to care for children, but what of the expertise of those influencing them? What if children are exposed to worldly counternarratives to God's truth, which they may not even recognise or understand, thus being shaped by it without realising and therefore unable to ask their parents about it? Christian schools offer a robust framework that equips students to understand and navigate the world through a biblical lens, intentionally preparing them for the complexities of life in a more grounded way. Smith would argue that Christian schools are not about shielding students from the world, but rather about equipping them with a Christian perspective to engage with it meaningfully. Rather than isolating students, Christian schools integrate faith into every aspect of learning—from science to history—making it a vital part of discipleship.
McDade should not view Christian education as a form of "sheltering." Christian education is not about withdrawal from the world, but about preparing students to see the world in all its brokenness while remaining rooted in the truth of redemptive history, from creation to consummation.
Lastly, here’s what I found absolutely unbelievable from McDade:
But my worries are more about her physical safety (especially when school shootings happen an hour away) than her exposure to people and ideas that might cause her to wrestle with her faith, values, or sense of self—even at a young age.
In 2024, responsible parents care about the adults influencing their children's understanding of faith, values, and sense of self (such as gender identity). Why wouldn’t a parent be concerned about the values their children are exposed to in twelve years of education by the adults in their life? Her daughter will spend her life grappling with these issues, and intentionally placing her in such situations at a young age—like first grade—seems, as some would argue, somewhat irresponsible.
Once again, this is where McDade’s argument falls short: the author presents public schools as a superior choice by positioning Christian education as a negative, substandard alternative.
If McDade had wished to make a case for public schools, a more effective approach would have been to do so based on their own merits, rather than disparaging Christian education in the process.
Will Christianity Today publish an opinion piece by a mother explaining why she prefers Christian education, using public schools as a negative counter-example, in response to McDade’s claims about the flaws in Christian schooling? Unlikely.