Christians who believe that only Caesar can educate

My latest article for Presidential Prayer team was a report on the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of Arizona's scholarship tax credit provision.  I have made it a personal policy never to respond the reader comments, which often amaze and perplex me.   SInce I am going to remain consistent to that commitment, and because I realize that Dove Mountaineers may sometimes be assaulted with similar thinking in their conversations, let me respond here to some of the readers' comments on this article.

1.   Lars J, Suzie, and CK, have confused tax credits with voucher programs, and worry about government control which would damage the mission of Christian schools.   I have had this concern as well, in the past, but the wise legislators (including several well-known Christian men) who crafted the Arizona tax credit law intentionally distanced the government's involvement so as to avoid such compromises.  In its fourteen year history, there is no evidence to support the notion that students receiving these scholarhsip from private agencies have compromised the mission or effectiveness of any Christian school.  The Supreme Court decision assures us that the program will continue to be administered in much the same way it has been in the past.  People who are worried about this should come to Arizona, visit our Christian schools, and point out where we have been controlled by the state.

2.  Liz Jones sees the increasing secularization of our society, but opposes anything (Christians withdrawing into "holy huddles," any form of voucher or tax credit, Christians in politics, etc.) but "personal evangelism" as a response.   The problem with this position is the assumption that evangelism alone will stop "secularization," if someone isn't teaching the next generation how to "think" about psychology, sociology, economics, government, and the lessons of history from a Christian worldview.  The public schools make truth claims in these areas.  Oprah and the nightly news all have positions on these topics.  Education cannot redeem, but the redeemed must be educated.

3.  Kathy worries about poor and emotionally disadvantaged children in public schools who are likely to remain "outside" the benefits of school choice.  I have never understood this argument.  In the first place, who can accurately safeguard the future of every living child?   Kathy explains that as a public school teacher, she teaches manners and making wise choices.  While I don't doubt that she may be the brightest hope in many of these children's lives, is it a "given" that no one would do this without government control?  Eventually the "wise choice" argument breaks down when these same children become victims of peer pressure in middle school, and "social survival" (often in the form of gangs) seems a "wiser" choice than obeying the law.  She cannot give them eternal reasons for doing the right thing, and eventually children figure that out.  But Kathy opposes vouchers and school choice for everyone, reasoning that no parent should be able to act on his or her own child's behalf, as long as irresponsible adults are bringing children into the world who may be neglected.  I don't get it.

Over and over it comes down to:  who has the greater claim on lives:  Caesar or God?