On Primary and Secondary Rights

A cursory glance at the news seems to indicate that support for traditional liberal rights is on the wane. For example, half of our young people support banning hateful or offensive speech. Yet while support for traditional rights diminishes there seems to be growing support for emerging rights, like transgender bathroom rights. I want to consider the connection between traditional liberal rights and newer, emerging rights.

Traditional liberal rights, or primary rights, are things like the right to speech, private property, a jury trial, habeas corpus—rights long deemed essential to the flourishing of individuals in a free society.

In contrast, emerging rights, or secondary rights, are relatively new. Emerging rights are broad in their scope and a bit nebulous in their nature, but they include rights like the right to employment, abortion, health care, and the right to education.

Whereas traditional liberal rights tend to be negative in nature—e.g. a person cannot be indefinitely held without trial, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech—emerging rights tend to be positive in nature—a right to health care and education imply a right to state-funded schools and insurance.

It is not my purpose to argue for or against secondary rights, some may be prudent and some may not, but rather to argue that some secondary rights are predicated on the continuance of primary rights and that paradoxically these secondary rights undermine primary rights. This occurs because every right has a corresponding obligation. When new rights are “created” the obligations they include often impair primary rights.

Take for example the connection between the right to private property and the right to employment. The right to private property secures the fruits of a one’s labor. For example, today in the United States a man that plants apple trees can reasonably believe that he will be able to harvest the apples those trees produce without private or government interference. An owner, knowing that his property is secure, is in turn able to hire workers to tend his orchard or harvest his apples. Because the owner’s right to his property is protected he can employ others, which in turn allows his employees to provide for themselves.

But the right to employment undercuts the right to property. For example, if you have a right to employment I may be obligated to employ you or pay punitive taxes so that the government may employ you. As a result my right to use my property as I see best is hindered.

To give just one more example, consider transgender bathroom rights. If a transgendered individual has a right to use the bathroom of zir choice then business owners have an obligation to let zir. An owner may object and say this violates his conscience and the government should not compel him to do something he thinks is immoral. A transgender individual on the other hand could argue that ze has a right to choose zir identity and express it as ze sees fit.

The hypothetical property owner and transgender individual each claim a right and the rights they claim are in conflict. Which right should prevail? The right that is primary and fundamental to the existence of the other ought to prevail. The right of conscience is primary and the right of expression naturally follows from it—to wit, if I cannot be compelled to do or say something I think is wrong it seems to follow that I should be at liberty to say and do something I think is right. In this case the right of conscience should prevail because without it the right to self-expression that transgender individuals value will likewise cease to exist.

If we want our fundamental rights to continue we have to demonstrate how some emerging rights undermine those rights. The right, if I may put it crudely, to be free from offensive speech sounds good until it is demonstrated that this will limit the ideas we can express and hear, which will in turn limit the thoughts we are able to think. We can’t have everything on our terms. If primary rights are to continue we will have to reject some secondary rights. 

How Virtue Signaling Destroys Public Discourse

How did we get to the point where journalists lose their jobs for opinions expressed on social media, a pastor can be terminated from his job at the fire department for writing a book that affirms Biblical morality, and disagreements over political ideology routinely split families and destroy friendships? 

We live in a world of post-industrial plentitude that frees us from the dilemmas of scarcity and the sins that paucity often drive us to. As a result we live in a society that makes it easy for us to be kind—for example, if I don’t have to worry about starving because of famine I will be less tempted to rob and pillage my neighbors. Add to this the modern phenomenon of cheap, reliable birth control and many former pressing questions of morality are now moot. As a host of moral actions wane in importance, the importance of opinions waxes and this development significantly affects public discourse.

While it is a sure boon that we have been largely freed from external threats of violence, increased safety reduces opportunities for clear expressions of courage. Yet there remains in the human heart a need to be courageous. Since we cannot face down mace-wielding barbarians, we face down ideas. Segregation, sexism, racism, same-sex marriage, colonialism, xenophobia, etc.—there is always a battle to be fought and these battles attract a number of our young who have no other outlet to express courage. But when we reduce courage to taking a side in a social or political controversy, it follows that opinions determine if a person is courageous; that is to say opinions, not actions, determine morality, determine whether one is a good or bad person.

When opinions determine morality they take on disproportionate importance. It is logical and natural to assign existential importance to issues where life, death, or fundamental rights are at stake—issues like war, slavery, and political liberty. But when opinions determine a person’s moral worth, run-of-the-mill issues like taxes, immigration, or college admissions become imbibed with existential importance. These issues are indeed important, but making them absolutely paramount hinders the type of measured and rational debate that non-tyrannical governments require.      

To wit, a number of my acquaintances have publically stated that they want all Trump supporters to unfollow them and have promised to block anyone they find out supports Trump. Why do this? Trump is a divisive, intolerant, prejudiced bigot. In response to this they have divided themselves from people with differing views, refused to tolerate even the expression of certain views, all because they have pre-judged those holding opposing beliefs to be bigots. This is not to say that criticism against President Trump is unwarranted; a lot of it is just, albeit a bit hysterical, it is only to demonstrate that if we oppose ideas the wrong way we can, without the slightest bit of recognition, become and embody the very things we seek to oppose.

As long as we continue to reduce morality to ideas we will overvalue opinion and oppose differing views the wrong way. To cut ties with a person over a disagreement of policy is to value an abstract idea over a living, concrete individual made in the image of God. If we rightly value opinions we will value people above principles; if we overvalue opinions and make them the ultimate test of morality, we will think that people who differ from us are not only wrong, but bad and we will devalue them as a result.

As Milton, Voltaire, Mill and others have recognized throughout the centuries, the remedy for a false idea is a true idea, not censorship. Effectively communicating true ideas requires us to listen to and understand others. But we won’t do this so long as we think that holding a certain belief is the only way we can show courage. Instead we will continue to overvalue ideas and see those that disagree with us as evil, which will prevents us from having the type of thoughtful, engaged, civic discourse that our society requires if it is to remain free.

Is Truth Dead?

Last week I visited the dentist for a routine checkup and cleaning. The waiting room had a television on with 80s music blaring over it, not exactly the best place for quiet and thoughtful meditation, so I decided to read a magazine.

A recent edition of Time caught my eye. In big white letters over a black background it asked: “Is Truth Dead”? I expected to find an interesting philosophical discussion on the nature of truth and our society’s perception of and interaction with it, instead I found that the cover article was simply an editorial against Trump dressed up in pretentious and high-minded language. The article bored me so I turned to something else and I have no further comment on it.

I next turned to a short article on the gender pay gap. The article assumed, without presenting any evidence for or against, that the pay gap is real and that it is a huge problem. The focus of this article was how female professional athletes make less than male athletes. There was no discussion of the workings  of the market—e.g. of the fact that more people watch men sports than women sports so men’s sports generate more money, which in turn allows male athletes to make more money. Nor was there any discussion on the consequences of guaranteeing equal pay for male and female athletes—we either have to take money from male athletes and give it to female athletes or change people’s desires so that they enjoy and watch male and female athletic s equally. All in all, the article was devoid of any real content. It seemed to argue, in essence, good people oppose the pay gap, we oppose the pay gap, therefore we are good people.

I next turned to an interview with an actress that is playing one of the Power Rangers in the new Power Rangers movie. I was struck by the fact that the very first words were not her name, but rather the ethnicity of this actress. In the interview this young lady said she was proud to be part of this movie not because it is a beautiful piece of art or because it winsomely and boldly declares some truth, but because the cast was diverse and her character questions her sexuality in the movie. Now let me be clear about one thing: diversity is good. All men and women are made in God’s image and Heaven will be filled with people of every tongue, tribe, and nation. I think it is great that the cast of the Power Rangers movie is ethnically diverse (however I wouldn’t consider the expression of sexuality as a matter of diversity, but rather as a matter of obeying or disobeying God). Nonetheless, what really struck me was the fact that she was judging the merit of a work of art based on its conforming to a certain ideology! She seemed to be implicitly saying that all good people think ethnic and sexual diversity is good, this movie has both, therefore it must be a good movie.

Finally I turned to an article on the Bible. Certainly, I thought, I will read something of substance, if not value, in a Biblical article. I couldn’t believe what I read. According to a pastor/theologian who has just done a study on Genesis and published a book on his findings, Adam and Eve were really good people! In eating of the apple Eve became the world’s first true individual, which is what God wanted her to do. Adam likewise was good because he chose relationship over duty when he too ate of the fruit. Finally, the author asserted that the Bible clearly (!) teaches that gender is fluid given that God made “male and female in His image.” Why has this clear truth been hidden for so long? According to the author, men created religion and turned the Bible into a tool of oppression. The underlying assumption behind all this is that our ideas of individuality and sexuality are good and right, the Bible agrees with them, so it must be a good book!

I closed the magazine and I thought to myself, yes truth is dead, at least in the pages of Time magazine. Democratic-capitalism or liberal-democracy or whatever you want to call our political-economic system has stultified public discourse and confined thought within the bounds of a narrow and rigid ideology. Think about it: in the space of a few pages this magazine judged sports, art, and religion all the basis of whether or not they advance a certain ideology! For the editors of Time, truth is not objective, but relative to the promulgation of our current understanding of “social justice.” You almost have laugh at the irony of a magazine asking if “truth is dead?” without the slightest recognition that it is burying it!

Lenin believed that truth was dead. He judged everything: family ethics, art, sports, the church, businesses, etc. based on whether or not they advanced the interests of the Bolshevik Party—everything that advanced the party was good and true; that which hindered its advance was bad and false. I am not saying our society is communist or anything like that, but the fact is there is a sizable and noisy contingent in our society that is constantly judging universities, laws, movies, etc. based on whether or not they hold the line on the orthodox political ideology. This reduces truth to a state of relativity and in fact kills it.

Jesus Christ is the embodiment of Truth so Truth will never die. But in terms of public discourse it is dead. That is why we need Classical Christian schools to teach and pass on our heritage of the truth to the next generation.

If you are interested in reading more about how the West has adapted a rigid ideology similar to that of the old Soviet Union, check out The Demon in Democracy by Ryszard Legutko.

If you are interested in how we can hold unto the truth in a post-truth society, check out The Benedict Option by Rod Dreher.    

Jesus the True Aeneas: The Connection Between Easter and Pagan Heroes

At my high school I teach an old poetic work called The Epic of Gilgamesh. This is actually the oldest recorded work of literature in the world. If you haven’t read it, it is worth reading and it is only like 80 pages long.

Anyways, this work tells the story of Gilgamesh, an ancient Sumerian hero that lived before Abraham. Gilgamesh is the ultimate tough guy—he takes what he wants and destroys anyone and anything that gets in his way. He is so strong he is even able to defy the gods and defeat monsters they send against him.

Gilgamesh is as strong and powerful as a man can be . . . and yet there is one thing he cannot defeat: death. The Sumerians had a clear understanding that no matter how great they or their heroes were, death was greater still.

In a similar way, the Greeks and the Romans had a vague notion that a true, ultimate hero would somehow be able to overcome death. Theseus and Odysseus, as well as Aeneas, all entered death (Hades) and returned. None conquered death; all of them did in fact die at a later time. But all of these heroes did temporarily master death, or at least held it at bay. The tales of Odysseus and Aeneas are the greatest stories of two of the greatest cultures in history and both show a universal human longing for a literally larger-than-life hero to conquer death.

This longing was in fact realized in the God-man Jesus Christ! Every Easter we celebrate Christ’s victory over death. In myth Odysseus and Aeneas went into death and returned to the land of the living; in reality Christ went into death, mastered it, and tore down its gates thereby making a way out of death for us all. Whereas Odysseus and Aeneas died even after entering and exiting death, Christ has once and for all defeated death. As master of death Christ will never die, and what is more, He allows us to share in His everlasting and eternal life.

On Easter Sunday Christ conquered that which the Sumerians feared and completed and actualized what the Greeks and Romans longed for. Jesus Christ is greater than Gilgamesh and an actual and true embodiment of what the Romans longed for in Aeneas. Christ accomplished more than our ancestors dreamed their heroes could accomplish and He did this in reality, not simply in the realm of myth.

It is Christ’s great victory, the victory we get to share over our seemingly invincible opponent death, that we celebrate every Easter. 

A Christian Understanding of Discipline and Punishment

My wife and I recently received an information packet from our doctor. Often there is good material in these about how to stop the spread of germs or how to foster healthy development. To my surprise this mailing contained a long article on how to best discipline and punish children.

The advice found in this article could be reduced to three main ideas:

      (1) Children should be disciplined, not punished. (Discipline being defined as either a correction or consequence with the goal of bringing a child to a place of learning from their mistake; punishment being defined as a penalty for an act even when the child is sorry and has already come to understand that what he or she did was wrong.)

        (2) Discipline should consist primarily of positive reinforcement and encouragement, not correction. 

      (3) Parents should never spank a child or engage in any other form of corporal punishment.

In Plato’s Apology Socrates remarked how craftsmen tend to know their crafts really well, but as a result of knowing one thing well they often come to assume they know everything well. I couldn’t help thinking that as I read through this advice from the clinic.

Don’t get me wrong, I am very grateful for modern medicine—without it I would have died years ago. But doctors specialize in the care of the body, not the soul and discipline and punishment are things that deal with the soul. To understand them we should look to those that understand the soul, not those that specialize in the body.

Who understands the soul? Only those who understand He that made our souls. There is a reason that medieval educators considered Theology the “Queen of the Sciences”—only in understanding God can we understand who we are and how we ought to live.

Given a Christian understanding of who God made people to be and how sin has corrupted mankind, it is clear the authors of that article made two primary errors: they assume that children (and people in general) are naturally and basically good and they assume that human beings are the highest value. Let me explain.

If children were basically good, then it would follow that simple correction and encouragement would be all they would need to bring out their natural goodness and equip them to live a good life. The problem with relying solely on positive reinforcement is that children are not good! Yes children are made in the image of God, but that image has been defiled and debased by sin. Even when a person comes to Christ he or she continues to be beset by temptation that flows out of his or her broken sinful condition. As one theologian put it, “In Christ sin no longer reigns, but it still remains.” Because people are not naturally good they need more than positive reinforcement to keep sin in check.

Think about it like this. Every good football coach will encourage his players. However, he will do more than encourage them if he wants them to be effective—he will correct them when they are wrong, he will force them to lift weights, run sprints, and practice plays, etc. He will do this because people are not naturally good at football; if they were, all he would need to do is to encourage their natural goodness to come out. No, to become good at football one needs to work hard and train. This will hurt one’s body, but it will help make one into an effective player. A team may not like their coach’s discipline, but without it they will be weak and will surely lose when they face another team.

In the same way we are called to discipline ourselves as Christians so that our faith will not be ineffectual. Paul wrote about “beating his body and making it his slave” so that he would not “run the race in vain.” Moreover, we are all called to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Working to the point of trembling requires a high level of effort and self-discipline!

As parents our goal should be to raise children that will be self-disciplined; if we are passive and neglect the discipline of our children they will not develop self-discipline. Children are not naturally good; they are naturally sinful. Because of their inherited sinful condition, without our discipline, without negative reinforcements used as external restraints on their sinful condition, our children will not develop the character and self-discipline necessary to fruitfully live out their faith. If they were naturally good we could simply encourage their natural goodness to come out and develop all on its own. But because they are born into sin we must teach them to restrain, in Christ, the sin within them that wants so desperately to master them. 

Enough about discipline. Some of you may be thinking, “ok, I see the value of discipline, even in the form of negative reinforcement. After all, I want to show my child that this or that action is wrong and I want him or her to feel sorry when he or she sins. But what about when a child learns their lesson and knows that what he or she did was wrong, is it still appropriate to punish him or her by administering some sort of penalty?”

While I would not say that a child should be punished in every circumstance, good parenting does require discernment after all, punishment is still appropriate in some cases. This is because children are not the ultimate value; punishment, on behalf of greater things, shows them this fact.

My pastor used to put it like this, “God loves you, but He also loves other things. If you won’t live in God’s Truth, He is not going to send the Truth to Hell so you can go to Heaven; if you reject His glory He will not divest Himself of it and prefer you to it. No, God loves you, but He loves other things more than you.”

In the same way it is appropriate for us to punish a child on behalf of things of great value, like the truth. But how can it be appropriate to punish a child when he or she is already sorry and there is seemingly nothing more he or she can learn? In short, something like the truth is of value and we defend its value and show our children its value when we punish them. If children were of the highest or the only value, it would make sense to refrain from punishing them in cases when no other person was hurt and when they felt sorry for their mistake of their own accord. But since children are not the only thing of value it is just to punish them simply to show the value of the thing they have insulted by their sin. In this way we show them that God values other things besides them.  

If this is too abstract or unconvincing, consider this: all sins are ultimately against God and God is of ultimate value. In punishing kids in cases where they are sorry and no one else is hurt we can affirm the value of God and the fact that their sin is ultimately directed against Him. This is in turn will better help our children to live in reality. Conversely, if we think that punishment is unjust in cases where no one is hurt and our child has nothing to learn because he or she already feels bad, then we are treating our child as if he or she is the highest value. This is idolatrous and foolish. Teaching our children that their wrong choices are ultimately about them is false and it will lead them into pride and confusion. Punishment shows our children that they are not the most important things and that sin is wrong even if it doesn’t hurt anyone; God is the being of ultimate worth and sin is wrong because it is against Him.   

The Question of the Day

In addition to my responsibilities as the Headmaster of my school every afternoon I teach a high school Omnibus class. I like to begin my class with a “question of the day.” What is this? In simple terms, the students are able to ask me basically any question on any topic. The only limits are: if it is inappropriate for a classroom I will change the question or refuse to answer it, if it is a personal question I will answer it quickly because I find talking about myself tiresome and boring, if it is a “google” or reference question I will have them look it up themselves, and if it is an incomplete question I will help them rephrase the question so as to give it more depth and meaning.

Why do this?

There are a number of benefits to doing something like this. First, it creates rapport with students. It is a nice, easy way to have a “soft start” to a class while still doing something of value.

Second, it shows students that questions in general, and their questions in particular, have answers. I would hate for my students to graduate without having had a chance to explore questions that matter to them. Moreover, so many young people walk away from the faith because they wrongly believe that there are no good answers to their questions. If school is not a place to discover truths that students are interested in knowing, then what is it for? 

Likewise, the question of the day affirms the fact that the purpose of inquiry is knowledge—we don’t ask questions just to sound clever or to impress, but because we want answers (and hopefully) because we want to change our lives on the basis of the truths we discover.

Finally, the question of the day is often a way to tie our class material in with the interests and concerns of my students. Let me clarify one thing before I go on: I am skeptical of everything with even a hint of “child-centered learning.” I believe that I, as a mature adult and as a caretaker of an ancient and venerable tradition, am in a far superior place to decide what is worth learning than my students. I believe that student-centered learning leads to shallow exploration and at best a fragmented understanding of facts and events. I believe that truth is worth pursuing and knowing for its own sake and not for any secondary benefit or “relevancy” it may have. That being said, when there is a connection between classroom material and things of interest to the students, that is to say, when something is indeed “relevant,” it is prudent of the teacher to explore that connection. After all, showing this connection will spark interest, which will make the material more memorable and hopefully encourage the students to continue to investigate it on their own. Let me provide an example of this worked out recently.

Last week our class was wrapping up Suetonius’s Twelve Caesars. One of the students began class by asking my opinion on “unschooling.” Instead of immediately giving my judgment, I asked the class what unschooling assumed about human nature. I helped them to reach the conclusion that it assumed that children are naturally good and will thereby want to learn, that there is nothing inherently essential to conserve and pass down to future generations and therefore children can direct their own education, and that education should be fun. We then looked at these three assumptions from a Biblical point of view. We declared that the Bible clearly states that children are not good, it teaches that some things are of infinite worth and absolutely must be passed down to children, and it assumes, given our sinful nature, that we require discipline to become mature men and women of God. All three of these assumptions run counter to and undermine the assumptions of unschooling. After this we tied the question to our reading. We considered how men like Caligula, Nero, and Domitian acted when they were left free to follow their own impulses.

I asked my students, if they would want to set up an educational system that puts a child’s desires and impulses at the very center. Knowing what the Bible teaches and learning the lessons of history they responded with a resounding NO! 

Not every question goes that well, but showing my students that their questions have answers and that we can often know those answers, while at the same time connecting our readings to the Bible and the world around us, is very rewarding and encourages me to continue with the question of the day. 

Christian Education - A Worthwhile Sacrifice

Christian education is a worthwhile sacrifice, but like any sacrifice it can be tempting to second-guess whether or not it is worth it. Christian education costs money and requires a lot of time, wouldn’t it be easier to send them to the government school? After all, they have sports and other extra-curricular activities and they are “free”!

Before I go on I want to make one thing clear: I would never say that sending kids to a state school is a sin. God gives you as parents the authority to determine the best means and ways to educate your children and I would never seek to put myself in the place of God. What I want to do is remind everyone that sending children to a Christian school is a good and wise investment and a worthwhile sacrifice.

I sincerely believe that the more we understand what education truly is, the more we will come to value Christian education. Education is not the mere imparting of technique but rather the forming of a complete and mature person that knows where, how, and why to use the knowledge he or she has acquired. Our government schools often do a good job at imparting technique. However, they lack any type of unified or coherent worldview, which makes it impossible for them to effectively train students in the moral use of knowledge.

Let me give you a couple of examples to explain what I mean. In terms of engineering and computer technology our society is growing by leaps and bounds. Our scientists, who are largely trained in secular institutions, are right now on the verge of massive breakthroughs in robot technology. This could turn out to be a boon for humanity, yet it is alarming that in the midst of this growth in technique our leaders are marked by a fundamental confusion regarding the nature of people. Many of our leaders believe that people are simply highly evolved biological machines. If people are flesh machines and robots are metal machines, it follows that there is no fundamental distinction between a robot and a human being. Once this is believed it logically follows that robots should be entitled to the same fundamental rights as human beings, which is exactly what one committee in the European Union is recommending (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/give-robots-personhood-status-eu-committee-argues). We may be able to build great robots in the future, but what good will it do us if we can’t even recognize the difference between a robot and a human being?

Like government schools Christian schools teach applied mathematics and science. However, we also teach students how knowledge should be used and why it should be sought after. Technological progress is not necessarily good. We can build airplanes to bring medicine and food to the needy or we can build them to drop bombs on the innocent. It is not enough to teach technique, we must instruct our students on how to use it. Without this they will grow up not recognizing the difference between a creature of man (a robot) and a creature of God (mankind), which will certainly lead to future problems.

Likewise, government schools teach students to read and write, just like we do. Learning to read is a part of education, but mere literacy is not enough. To be fully educated a student must learn what is worth reading and must learn how to judge what he or she is reading in light of God’s revealed truth.

In our government schools students are regularly forced to read things that contradict God’s standards and His word. For example, there are many teachers that indoctrinate students with works that normalize sexual perversion (http://abc11.com/education/school-book-backlash-in-efland-sparks-fiery-meeting/724976/). I for one do not want my young, innocent children to hear a fairytale about a brave king that defies his parents to marry another king. It is true that when we find out about these things we can correct what our students are learning, but how much of what goes on in school are we unaware of? And do we really want to force our children to decide between believing their parents and believing their teachers? Would it not be better to be in a school where parents and teachers cooperate and work together in raising and training up children in Godliness?

To give just one last example, state schools teach about how the human body functions, but they cannot and do not teach about how we are fallen creatures made in the image of God and what that fact means for life on earth. Let me explain. God made both men and women in His image—that means both men and women reflect the goodness and glory of God. From this it follows that men should seek to glorify God as men and the same goes for women; to seek to become otherwise than what God has made us clouds the image and glory of God. Similarly, as fallen creatures men and women have depraved sexual desires. As such we have developed institutions and systems to keep people from falling into temptation and sin. Our state schools, even though they can effectively teach how blood flows and how the liver works, cannot and do not teach these truths. Instead they say there is no fundamental difference between men and women, that each person can choose their gender (or choose to have no gender or choose to invent a gender), and that the systems, like bathrooms, that kept men and women apart and from temptation are unneeded or even repressive (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/whos-afraid-of-same-sex-bathrooms). As Christians we know and teach that God created us and placed us in a universe with physical laws (like gravity) as well as moral laws (like do not murder). Wisdom is found not in ignoring or seeking to change these laws, but rather in learning and obeying them. A person that knows how kidneys work but doesn’t know that mankind is made in God’s image does not have a full or real education.

At Christian Schools we seek to educate not just the brain and the body, but the mind and the soul. We seek not to just impart knowledge, but wisdom. We seek not to teach just technique, but the purpose of technology and the way in which it should be used. Our kids need this if they are to become full and mature adults.

I could say a lot more about the benefits of Christian schools, from the Godly examples demonstrated daily in our teachers’ words and actions to the academic rigor of our curricula and the high performance of our students, but this is too long already. 

If you are not certain you are making the right decision in sending your children to a Christian school, rest assured. Sending your children to a Christian school is a sacrifice, but it is a worthwhile one and one you will not regret.