Leading Our Children Towards a Sincere and Pure Devotion to Christ

Leading Our Children

Towards a Sincere and

Pure Devotion to Christ

by Craig Smith
I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to
one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his
cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a
sincere and pure devotion to Christ. — II Corinthians
11:2-3
Paul is here very soberly and softly laying down some
absolute basics of the Christian faith, things with which
we should each be thoroughly familiar. Are we? Let’s
check it out.
Paul evangelised these folks from the dominion of
darkness and led them to the light of Christ. They were
spiritually dead, and now they are alive in Christ. As
the new-born creatures they were, he presented them as
pure, chaste virgins to their (and our) husband, Jesus
Christ the Lord, to await the final consummation with
Him in heaven.
This is also, of course, our situation as believers: we
are Christ’s betrothed, and we are to be busy preparing
ourselves for that marvellous Day when He comes to
take us to Himself. Preparations include getting to
know as much as we can about Him and performing all
the tasks He has assigned to us to do until that
heavenly Day arrives. It includes remaining pure and
chaste, staying away from whatever might defile us in
body, soul, spirit, mind, emotions, affections, desires,
etc. That is, we are in training until He arrives so that
all our thoughts, all our words, all our actions might be
beyond reproach, might reflect only pure and
praiseworthy motivations, might bring blessing and
edification to those around us and might honour our
Lord by causing others to give glory to our Father in
heaven even though it is our good works they see.
Quite a challenge, isn’t it? But nothing when you
suddenly realise that this is also the way we are to be
raising our children, discipling them for Jesus, training
them to be soldiers of the Cross, totally sold out to one
Lord and to one Lord only, our sovereign Saviour
Jesus Christ. Does He want us to let these children, for
whom we have every hope and promise of believing
that Christ died for them as much as for us and that
they are indeed among the elect…would He be
impressed if we casually let them experiment with
lifestyles and substances and philosophies that He
declares in His word are abominations? He has
delivered these children to us as a stewardship,
that we might raise them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord, being in full-time service for
Him as His possessions from conception onwards. Yes,
they must do personal business with God and
individually repent at the foot of the Cross and
consciously, sincerely embrace Christ as their only
Lord and trust Him as their only Saviour. These things
we remind them of constantly as we also train them to
think God’s thoughts after Him and perform all that He
has commanded us in His Scriptures. The children
belong to God not only because He created them but
also because He claims them for Himself through His
substitutionary death on the Cross to redeem them
from futility, a promise conveyed to them through us
their parents as we live the Faith before them and
inculcate the Faith into them (Exodus 20:6, Acts 2:39,
Romans 4:13, I Corinthians 7:14).
How could we possibly take a hands-off approach to
our children’s development, letting them dabble in
things that are not only foreign to Biblical standards
but actively hostile to them? This is the approach the
media, the government, the schools and every single
non-Christian child-advocacy group in the country
pushes ad nauseum—that children are well-nigh
autonomous, and how dare we parents impose our
beliefs and standards on these independent little people
we only have for a short time? Well, we train them up
for Christ alone because they do not belong to the state,
to us parents or to themselves…they belong to God
alone, and He alone is worthy to receive their full
allegiance. What’s more, He demands it (Acts
17:30), and as far as it depends upon me, He
shall have it.
Brothers and sisters: what then does this say
about the vast numbers of believers’ children
who are being shipped off to the temples of
Moloch, the compulsory, secular state
schooling institutions where any serious
consideration of Christ’s claims to Lordship
and the Christian faith are excluded by law?
You know the serpent is going to use such
places to deceive them away from a sincere
and pure devotion to Christ. How can anyone
be immersed in such anti-Christian
environments and come out as a “pure virgin
to Christ”, whose thoughts, words and actions
have not been led astray time and time again?
Why do believing parents compromise their
children’s futures like this? The state schools
teach that homosexuality, sleeping around
and prostitution are all valid lifestyles, that
evolution is fact and that truth is relative.
These are abominations. The Nehemiah
worldview test shows that 83-percent of the
children from committed Christian families
who attend public schools adopt a secular
humanist or Marxist socialist worldview; that
is, they think like pagans, not Christians. At
the Southern Baptist Church’s 2002 annual
meeting in the USA, the Southern Baptist
Council on Family Life reported that 88-percent
of the children raised in evangelical homes
leave church at age 18. Barna Research (www.barna.
org) reports that only 9-percent of born-again teens
believe in moral absolutes, and more than half believe
that Jesus sinned while He was on earth.
Giving Christian children over to indoctrination by
pagans is not just unwise….it is foolish in the extreme
and precisely opposite of what we’re instructed to do…
and doing it to those least able to resist error: immature
Christian children….and being done by those who
should know and want far better: their own parents.

From Keystone Magazine

January 2007, Vol. XIII No.1

P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

To order a subscription to Keystone Magazine do one of the following:

send email to sales@hef.org.nz with visa number

post cheque or visa number to PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand

fax: 06 357-4389

phone: 06 357-4399

Trademe (fees added):  http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Listings.aspx?member=2366144

Sella (No added fees):  http://www.sella.co.nz/store/4ym9qg/home-education-foundation/display-100

Fishing Expedition

Fishing Expedition

by Craig Smith
Below is a story from the USA about their CYFsequivalent
making false charges, being shown that they are false
charges, then proceeding to file court orders to inspect
the children privately away from the parents (what is
known as a “fishing expedition”), and all the paperwork
being done illegally, that is, without the required
documentation.
This kind of stuff happens all the time over there. It
happens here too, by the way, and Barbara and I have
had the unpleasant experience on a number of
occassions to review such cases that happen right here
in Kiwiland.
CYFs has legal powers to enter homes and remove
children apart from, over and above court or police
findings. You must understand this. It is because of this
the lady in Timaru (the riding crop case) had her son
taken and, even though found not guilty in court, CYFs
continues to hold her son in another town at a boarding
school being paid for by your taxes and mine.
Fortunately the father in this case below had a few
clues and trumped the social worker trying to do them
in by simply having the social worker return the next
day giving them time to tidy up, remove the children to
another place and get legal advice. We too must
become aware of what’s what and have a plan to
thwart CYFs workers’ objectives when they appear to
be less than above board. If Section 59 is repealed or
amended according to the ridiculous suggestions of the
Select Committee, virtually all parents will be suspect,
for it will be illegal to correct your child using any kind
of force, no matter how reasonable or light….and how
many parents will quite happily stop correcting their
children, I ask, simply because the state says you
shouldn’t do it? And since our children our out of the
sight of the normal eyes and ears of the state’s
agents—state school teachers—our children and our
families will become the most mysterious and because
of that, the most suspected.
It is scary that the case was dropped on a technicality
rather than the facts. Note that in the case below, in the
land of the free, the lawyers for the family (and these
are Christian lawyers, home schoolers every one of
them) suggested the family take the children for a
pediatrician’s inspection and report to get the social
worker off their back. I’ve noticed they suggest this
fairly routinely in such cases over there. I would
personally take that as an insult, assuming as it does
that the social worker may be onto something and has a
right to know the children’s bottoms are not covered in
bruises and welts even though the original complaint
was of untidy bedrooms! Freedoms and personal and
family integrity is apparently given away rather freely.
Let us not allow that sort of thing here, please.
By the way, do be aware that the ERO, when they enter
your home for a review, are also on “fishing
expeditions”, looking, listening, smelling for anything
that might cause them to have “reasonable grounds for
believing” that a child “is suffering or is likely to suffer
ill treatment” or other such undefined “abuse”. They
are probably not going to be as aggressive about it as a
CYFs social worker, but ERO staff in head office have
told me that they would be obliged to pass on to the
appropriate state agent any concerns they may have as
a result of encountering something in your home.
That’s just the way state agents, state bureaucrats are.
They are getting worse because of the breakdown of
our society; that is, they suspect more people more
often because of the escalating violence of our
dysfunctional society. But since we almost assuredly
represent the least dysfunctional segment of society,
since our entire families are generally so eagerly
focussed on this big family enterprise of home
education, we have less reason to give way to their
invasive requests, exposing our homes and lifestyles to
their ideological judgementalism and exposing our
families to possible further interventions by other
agencies and exposing our children to the possible
trauma of inspections and interviews by aggressive,
unfriendly strangers hoping to find something wrong.
Sadly these are the times in which we live.

Social Worker ‘Fishing Expedition’

Case Dismissed

The Warner* family was faithfully homeschooling
their eight children in Lenawee County, Michigan.
Little did they know the trouble that was around the
corner—false allegations, threats, an attempted fishing
expedition, an improper court order—and a happy
ending with the case dismissed!
It all started when an anonymous tipster contacted
social services to report the Warners for allegedly
having housing that was inadequate, particularly the
family’s sleeping quarters. The social worker visited
the home unannounced, but the father wisely refused
entry and set a time the next day for her to come back.
The father then voluntarily let the social worker into
their home—but had the rest of the family gone. The
social worker found the family’s home to be very
clean, neat and adequate, especially the sleeping
quarters. The social worker also mentioned that she
was looking for neglect and abuse, but she did not find
anything that evidenced that. However, the social
worker was not satisfied because she had not
completed her protocol in interviewing the children
separately and alone. The Warners, shocked that the
investigation did not close immediately because it was
obviously false, contacted Home School Legal Defense
Association.
HSLDA’s Senior Counsel Chris Klicka immediately
drafted a letter on the family’s behalf, stating he
believed the anonymous tipster to be malicious, since
the allegation was so absurd. Klicka also instructed
the Warners to give a number of character reference
letters from people in the community who could vouch
for them being good parents. In addition, he instructed
the parents to take their children to their pediatrician to
prove that all eight of their children were in perfect
health.
Klicka’s letter explained to the social worker that an
interview was not necessary since the social worker
would receive doctor’s reports, as well as letters from
the community vouching for the family’s innocence.
He also indicated that since the social worker had
already determined the allegation to be false, he was
advising the family that they were under no legal
obligation to have their children interviewed. The
social worker has a track record of getting her way, but
the family remained steadfast, refusing an interview in
order to protect their children from a fishing
expedition.
Finally, a month later, the social worker contacted
them again, insisting on an interview or else. But the
family held firm, refusing this unnecessary trauma to
their children.
Then surprise! On the evening of November 6, the
Warners were served with a court order. Apparently
the social worker had a hearing with the prosecutor and
the court referee and asked for a court order—without
the other side being present.
The court order stated, “it appears to the court upon the
filing of a petition, together with further proofs as
required by the court, that there are reasonable grounds
for removal of the children… Because conditions or
surroundings of the children are such as to endanger
the health, safety or welfare of the children, and it is
contrary to the welfare of the children to remain in the
home because the Department of Human Services is
asking to talk to the Warner children per Department
policy. Parents have refused to let the Department talk
with the children… it is ordered the Department of
Human Services may talk to the children… without the
parents being present within 72 hours of service.”
However, the court order had no petition attached,
which is required by law. The social worker by petition
has to present actual evidence of wrongdoing—not just
verbal complaints about the family not cooperating
with the social worker’s unconstitutional demands.
Parents have the right in Michigan to refuse an
interview if there is no evidence of a crime or neglect.
Also, the court order did not have a case number as
required by law. Upon being secured to represent the
Warners, Michigan attorney Dave Kallman immediately
called the court referee to ask for a hearing to cancel
the court order. But he first inquired why the order did
not have petition or case number.
The court referee said, “that is just the way we do it
here.” But as Kallman pushed the impropriety of the
court order further, the court referee began to falter.
Then he finally said he would check on it and talk with
the judge.
The next day, Kallman checked with him and he said
the court order was withdrawn. Praise God! The
Warner family was elated.
*Not their real name.
Used with permission

From Keystone Magazine

January 2007, Vol.XIII No.1

P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

To order a subscription to Keystone Magazine do one of the following:

send email to sales@hef.org.nz with visa number

post cheque or visa number to PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand

fax: 06 357-4389

phone: 06 357-4399

Trademe (fees added):  http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Listings.aspx?member=2366144

Sella (No added fees):  http://www.sella.co.nz/store/4ym9qg/home-education-foundation/display-100

Having “The Discussion” with Our Children

Having “The Discussion” with Our Children

by Craig Smith
This presents a real problem. Our society is drenched
in sexual overtones Every form of media, entertainment,
advertising, fashion, music and much else in
daily social intercourse, such as the accepted sense of
humour one can use even in mixed company, is sexualised
to such an extent that there is simply no escape
from the subject. I was going to say that much of these
sexual overtones are perverted. But they are all perverted,
without exception, not just the homosexual
stuff. Why do I say that? Because sex outside of marriage
is perverted – that is, it is morally wrong, which
means it is perverted. Sex within marriage is a private
not a public affair. Consequently, as soon as it hits the
public arena, it too is perverted.
When we asked ourselves, “What exactly do our children
need to learn about the sexual facts of life before
they are married?”, we came up with the answer, “Very
little.” Yes, they will need to know the biology of reproduction,
but not just human conception, gestation
and birth. There is an incredible variation of reproductive
systems in the animal and plant worlds, the study
of which can again raise exclamations of wonder and
praise to our most wise and creative Father in heaven.
Sadly, however, when we think of telling our sons and
daughters about these things as they approach or are in
puberty, the cues as to how to proceed and what to say
that we have been getting from our secular society for
the last 40 years or so have been separated from a Biblical
understanding of sex as something holy and sacred.
And so it becomes a subject requiring a cold, unemotional
scientific approach on some occasions or the
casual, non-judgmental approach at other times. It has
become separated from marriage and from the intent to
conceive children and from the intent to co-operate
with God in filling and subduing the earth. Today it is
simply viewed as another activity that one may pursue
for both fun and profit, as long as one becomes aware
of and takes steps to reduce the risk factors. The NZ
government operates and funds at great expense a
number of organisations and websites specifically designed
to pour into our children’s minds graphic and
perverted sexual information that would cause adults to
gag. And they don’t even have to trouble us parents
with the fact that it is taking place.
(The fact that I actually wrote these comments about
“fun and profit” and “risk factors” shows how desensitised
we are to hearing such things. We pretty much
just accept it when we should all find such comments
to be totally offensive and outrageous. And certainly
we would never present such ideas to our children until
after their 21st or they get married, and we can discuss
such things as one adult to another.)
So when we come to think of fulfilling this particular
task in the education of our children, we tend to be reasonably
explicit, using correct scientific terms for parts
and processes. Or we may fall back on the old kiwi
farmer approach of taking the kids to the paddock to
watch the ram in among the ewes with the simple explanation,
“That’s sex.”
But this will hardly do. We are people made in the image
of God. That means we are not like sheep or cattle
or dogs whose reproductive lives are indiscriminate,
promiscuous and public. Neither do we want to be
overly descriptive. Why put graphic images of human
nakedness and sexual intercourse into the minds of our
children? And then tell them it is sinful to think such
thoughts. And then say that such actions are wrong and
not to be done until they are married. While my parents
were not so clear with their explanations and admonitions,
the books, magazines and films they let me see
were very clear, focussed and in colour visually…..
with the appropriately crisp commentary, trimmed of
any excessive adjectives or adverbs. Such things never
helped us when we were kids. They in fact acted as
stumbling blocks for us. These kinds of things made us
unhealthily curious, as youngsters, about what might
be seen under people’s clothing, especially as we
picked up on all the clues on TV shows and advertising
that something there was mysterious and alluring. And
of course our little friends all had their own store of
“forbidden knowledge”, images and experiences. Our
sinful natures already gave us enough trouble in this
area without parents and teachers and friends and porn
merchants putting extra illustrations and images before
us. So we do not trouble our children’s hearts and
minds with such things either.
Let me repeat: when we think of telling our children
about the “facts of life”, “the birds and the bees” or
whatever other euphemism you may use, the tendency
is to speak to the lowest human common denominator,
which includes all the unbelievers, rather than look for
a thoroughly Biblical approach; we tend to examine
things as if we had low goals or no goals at all. Example:
at a camp where we spoke on purity for four days,
the camp mum asked Barbara if she could help out.
Specifically she said she’d had lots of experience talking
to girls about sex….we were going to talk about
sex, weren’t we? As a matter of fact, no, we never did
have such plans. When you talk about sex, out come all
the facts surrounding biology, conception, contraception,
temptation, how far is too far, what happens if
you “get into trouble” and all the rest of it. So young
people, who are always told about their raging hormones
and how we older folks understand how difficult
they’re finding it at the moment trying to rein
themselves in….these young folks are left with these
images in their minds and told to go forth and NOT do
likewise. Instead of this we focussed on how the Lord
would have young people live. The New Testament
hammers this theme over and over once you start to
look for it. Take this from 1 Timothy 6:11-14: “But as
for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue
righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness,
gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the
eternal life to which you were called and about which
you made the good confession in the presence of many
witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who
gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his
testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,
to keep the commandment unstained and free
from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” Instead of looking at the area that is causing
the problem – human sexuality in developing youngsters
who we want to live as holy and pure disciples of
Christ in the midst of a crooked and perverse and sexsoaked
society – let us look instead at the uncharted
virgin territory of godliness and holiness and love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,
self-control; for as it says in Galatians 5:22-23,
this is the fruit of the Spirit, we obviously should be
aiming at this, and against these things there is no law!
Here we do not say, “Now, don’t do this,” but instead
we say, “Go for it 100%!!!” Instead of describing everything
that is just over the line we don’t want our
young people to cross, let us describe and lead the way
IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, away from the line
and toward this bundle of Christ-like characteristics.
The strategy in our family for dealing specifically with
sex was perhaps tinged with idealism, thinking to say
as little as possible and to train the children up to value
modesty. Consequently both Barbara and I stopped
swimming in public long ago, for it meant baring most
of our bodies in front of others. We never bath or
shower with our children, nor do we allow them to see
us dressing or undressing. We instructed them in what
constitutes modest dress for both males and females,
and why it is desirable:
1) Baring yourself is one of the precious gifts you will
save for your spouse once you are married. The Scriptures
teach us that our bodies are precious and wonderfully
made and to be treated holy for they are the temples
of the Holy Spirit. Since the Scriptures tell us that
the two become one, the young man and the young
woman, anticipating marriage, should be striving to
present their future spouse with a holy and pure body
as well as a holy and pure mind and heart. And I will
venture to say, all of us parents have, since our own
weddings, found out that the newness, freshness,
brightness, purity and expense of the rings, gowns,
flowers, suits and presents are as nothing in comparison
to the holy and pure hearts, minds and bodies we
found – or wish we could have found – in each other.
2) As our children surely will have noticed, it is the
unbelievers in our society who advertise their unbelief
by dressing immodestly, showing what little respect
they have for their future and even present spouses. We
mention how nakedness has been one of the sure signs
of rabid paganism all through history, and that the
other mono-theistic religions (Islam and Judaism) understand
this and always cover up well. It is only the
post-Christian West among the mono-theists who have
taken to public immodesty, clearly as a result of turning
away from God and His laws.
3) We explain to our daughters that males in particular
have a problem with seeing too much of a female’s
body exposed, leading to the lust of the eyes and in the
heart which the Lord specifically condemned. Here is
one way the girls can be of great assistance to all males
and their Christian brothers in particular: by dressing
modestly. We did a whole weekend talk on purity a
while back, and in the session Barbara took with just
the girls, it was very sobering to them as she explained
just a little of what exposed midriffs and cleavage and
curve-accentuating clothing does to their Christian
brother’s mind, heart and physiology. Many had never
considered this. It was scary as they considered this in
relation to all the unbelieving men they passed on the
street and what message their dress standards were
sending to some of these onlookers….it didn’t bear
thinking about. The idea is to train our daughters to
have a long-term vision on this, so that “She does [her
husband] good, and not harm, all the days of her
life” (Proverbs 31:12). Would her future husband want
her dressed in such a way that other men perved at her
walking down the street? No. Then she will dress even
now, at age 12, 13 or 16, with that future husband in
mind, doing him good even today!
We tried to explain to our children how the marriage
relationship is unique and special in many, many ways,
one of which is how a husband and wife need little privacy
between them as “the two become one”. This is
done by talks around the table, when the subject comes
up in our Bible reading, by the way we have switched
off the TV and fast forwarded videos and take all junk
mail straight to Barbara for her to screen before anyone
else sees it. We don’t watch any TV now, as it is just
too sensuous virtually any time of the day, whether it
be the ads or the show. We’ve walked out of two G
rated movies recently. We’ve also found that most videos
are not to be trusted.
And we’ve said to the boys that we don’t think they
need to know anything about the husband-wife sexual
relationship until just before they get married. You see,
all knowledge carries a degree of responsibility as to
how you handle that knowledge. In today’s society,
given the way it is running full speed toward immorality
of all kinds, such sexual knowledge is too heavy
and burdensome for their shoulders at present and has
proved to be a source of much stumbling for many.
Later on it will be part of the responsibility they will
need to assume upon marriage. We’ve said simply that
all sexual activity is to be within your marriage. It is
wrong, immoral and harmful outside of marriage. Just
like fire: it is great within the fireplace, but a total disaster
running through the rest of the house.
We don’t just leave it at that, of course. We help them
come to grips with the applications of I Timothy 5:1-2
where it says to treat younger women like sisters, in all
purity; or I Timothy 4:12, “Let no one despise your
youth, but set the believers an example in speech and
conduct, in love, in faith, in purity”; and other Scriptures.
Our rule of thumb is: “Attention to all, intention
toward none.” We help the boys understand that girls
are motivated by emotions, colours, textures, scents,
sounds and especially the sound of words that are kind,
complimentary and personal. So they must be careful not to toy with a girl’s emotions, either on purpose or
by accident, by using flattery or “buttering her up” to
get your way. They need to keep their own emotions in
check and realise that pairing off and dating is a very
unwise course of action. When the time comes to court
a maiden, a young man would ideally state his intentions
up front to her father first. (A great book dealing
with guy/girl relations at this level is Emotional Purity
by Heather Paulsen.) And in the meantime, young men
especially, keep your hands to yourself.
Of course they will want to know more; of course they
will be curious about all kinds of things. We explain to
them that all will be revealed when they get married,
that they will have total freedom at that time to ask,
explore, question, experiment to their heart’s content….
and that they will have a willing spouse….and that they
will have all the rest of their married lives….and that
then – within marriage – all they do will be totally
righteous, totally moral, totally healthy, totally joyous!
We explained how this was part of living by faith: that
taking our word for it now would pay great dividends
later. And let me tell you, being products ourselves of
the sensuous ‘60s with lots of friends who did not survive
it well or at all, we can speak with conviction
about these things; we know what we’re talking about
from front-line experience, not pie-in-the-sky theory.
There is a time and place for most things: the time and
place for investigating all the details of human sexual
intercourse is after marriage with your spouse in the
privacy of your own home.
Now this is all very fine, except that our children and
your children have friends whose parents or schoolmates
or teachers or whatever do not hold to this same
approach. Consequently they’ve picked up all kinds of
stuff from other sources. We’ve tried to warn our children
that they would hear stuff and be in conversations
they’d need to suddenly walk (or run) away from. This
is what we call “internal insulation”. We cannot isolate
our children from the world, but we can train them to
insulate themselves by learning to flee sexual talk and
developing a conviction about the necessity of doing
so. This is especially necessary because of the curse of
pornography so freely available on magazine racks and
on the internet. We parents must declare total war on
pornography, for it causes permanent brain damage by
the images it forever burns on the mind within two seconds
of time. And it can be as addicting as heroin.
Never compromise. Train your children to be uncompromising,
to trust your warning here if nowhere else
and to flee at the faintest hint of the stuff. Once trained,
by the grace of God, your children will be internally
insulated.
Then there is the “external insulation” where we ourselves
protect our children from the junk. When visiting
friends, they’d always ring if the friend offered to
screen a video for them. We would say no usually so it
was us, not our child, who was the spoil sport. (Today
we rarely let our younger ones visit away from home
on their own the way our older ones did when they
were young.) We discovered another principle of child
rearing in this regard: sleep-overs are no good. Youth
camps are worse. Young people in tents or a bedroom
at night, with no adults around, being all revved up
from a day of fun will often turn to topics of conversation
that are not normally brought up, just as their present
situation at the camp or sleep-over is not a normal
one. We now do not allow sleep-overs, no matter who
it is, even the most trusted friend’s children. Nor do we
allow overnight camps with youth groups of any kind
unless we are going to be in the same tent as our children.
The danger is not the sleep-over or the camp: the
danger is being unsupervised.
We discovered these principles after the damage had
been done. A couple of our children came to us in tears
months after events of this kind because the things of a
sexual nature their good, lovely, Christian friends had
told them had played so much havoc on their minds.
These friends were asked by our children to stop telling
them these things, but the friends had only just been
told themselves and were burning up inside with the
desire to tell someone else. Our children proved to be
easy and perfect targets: they had not heard such things
before; and lying in a tent late at night made it hard for
our children to flee. It is better not to put our children
into situations where such things can, and will, happen.
We are talking about unsupervised children of whom
the Bible says, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of
a child” (Proverbs 22:15). Two or more children together
unsupervised simply means concentrated foolishness,
not a good recipe.
The key is to have your children’s hearts: that they
would want to discuss these kinds of things with you
first and foremost. That they would trust your judgement,
whatever it was, in these areas, and if you said
they needed to know so much and no more, they would
accept that and try themselves to keep it that way.

From Keystone Magazine

September 2004 , Vol. X No. 5
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

To order a subscription to Keystone Magazine do one of the following:

send email to sales@hef.org.nz with visa number

post cheque or visa number to PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand

fax: 06 357-4389

phone: 06 357-4399

Trademe (fees added):  http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Listings.aspx?member=2366144

Sella (No added fees):  http://www.sella.co.nz/store/4ym9qg/home-education-foundation/display-100

Is It Sinful to Send Christian Children to State Schools?

Is It Sinful to Send Christian Children to State Schools?

by Craig Smith
Something is really going to hit the fan in the USA
soon. It promises to be so big, it will very likely splatter
all the way over to New Zealand, Australia and the
UK.
The Southern Baptist (SB) denomination in the USA
has 16.3 million members. A couple of SB gentlemen,
totally pro-home education, are also totally convinced
that for Christian parents simply to be consistent in
their profession of the Christian religion, they must
ensure their children receive a thoroughly Christian
education. They say this against a backdrop not too
different from the rest of the Western World: the public
schools are now so openly and totally anti-Christian in
official attitudes, pedagogical practise, educational philosophy
and hidden curriculum, that they are positively
dangerous and certainly no place for Christian children.
These two gentlemen have drafted a resolution
for the SB national convention 15-16 June 2004, calling
on all these 16.3 million members to pull their children
out of these godless public schools and either
home educate them or find a decent Christian school.
The resolution measure is sponsored by T.C. Pinckney,
a retired US Air Force Brigadier General whose three
adult children all educate their children at home, and
Bruce N. Shortt, a homeschooing dad and attorney who
holds advanced degrees from both Harvard and Stanford
Universities.
These men understand that a person’s worldview is
important and that it is developed as part of one’s education.
The resolution itself says, “Many Christian children
in government schools are converted to an anti-
Christian worldview rather than evangelizing their
schoolmates.” This at once answers a major objection
Christians raise as to why their children should be in
the state schools…..to evangelise. It would appear it is
the nonChristians who are evangelising the Christians.
What else would one expect? Throw a young and immature
Christian into a sea of secularism and he or she
is bound to wash up on the beach secularised. If you
throw a glove into the mud, you never expect to see the
mud become glovey. Instead you know the glove will
become muddy….every time.
Mr Shortt uses harsh words – more than justifiable
given that it is the very eternal lives of children at stake
here. He says Christian parents who do not see the
problem are in denial; that since government schools
are killing our children morally, spiritually and academically,
we need to ask how dead do we want our
children to be; that the fondly remembered little red
schoolhouse of “the good old days” has really become
the little white sepulchre, a seething cauldron of spiritual,
moral and academic pathologies; that it is nothing
less than “spiritual blindness” that causes Christian
parents to balk at the perceived “inconvenience” or
“financial challenge” of kicking the public-school
habit; that sending Christian children to these temples
of secular humanist philosophy is “the grossest kind of
sin.” Preach it, brother!
Shortt also predicts that if 10-15% of children are
pulled from government schools, the “US$500 billion
behemoth” which is the US public school system will
be de-legitimized and will collapse financially. He welcomes
both results! Here indeed is a man who understands
that the state has no Biblical authority for running
compulsory schools and is not afraid to spell out
how Christians should respond and to embrace the inevitable
fallout: many of his friends, and probably
some relations, would lose their teaching jobs and
could henceforward bad-mouth and cold-shoulder Mr
Shortt. To live consistently with the Scriptures has always
and will always exact a price: under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Indeed
all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will
be persecuted” (II Timothy 3:12).
Here following are listed the points made in the resolution.
These points simply spell out where the SBs are
coming from, that is, their worldview. Take careful
note, dear brothers and sisters:
1. The Bible commands that fathers (and by implication
all parents) are to bring up their children
in the training and admonition of the
Lord (Ephesians 6:4).
2. Having all authority in heaven and on earth,
Jesus has commanded us to make disciples of
our children and teach them to observe everything
He has commanded (Matthew 28:19-
20).
3. This means our children must learn to think
Biblically about all the spheres of human
thought, activity and life (Deuteronomy. 6:4-
9) so as to take every thought captive to obey
Christ (II Corinthians 10:5).
4. Our thinking is not to be conformed to this
world’s way of thinking but is to be renewed
and sanctified by the truth of God’s word
(Romans 12:2; John 17:17).
5. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). In Christ are hidden
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
(Colossians 2:3). Therefore, any instruction
that does not begin with the fear of the
Lord, teaching the centrality of Jesus Christ
for understanding all of life – such as that offered
in state schools – cannot properly be
said to impart wisdom or knowledge.
6. Since Jesus said, “He who is not with Me is
against Me, and he who does not gather with
Me scatters” (Luke 11:23), then it logically
follows that any state school system that
claims to be “neutral” with regard to Christ is
actually anti-Christian. Consequently, children
taught in state schools are receiving an
anti-Christian education.
7. Since the state schools are by their own confession
humanistic and secular in their instruction,
the education offered is officially Godless
and totally unacceptable to Christians.
8. State schools are adopting curricula and policies
teaching that the homosexual lifestyle is
acceptable. (NZ schools are obliged in addition
to recognise divorce for any reason, de
facto setups, serial partners and prostitution as
valid.)
9. Homosexual organizations are approved student
“clubs” in state schools.
10. Since children are like arrows in the hand of a
warrior (Psalm 127:3-5) to be aimed for the
greatest impact in the kingdom of God, it is
foolish for Christians to give their children to
be trained in schools run by the enemies of
God, just as it would be foolish for a warrior to
give his arrows to his enemy.
11. Training to be a faithful witness should be a
vital part of a Christian child’s education.
12. Since thousands of Christian parents send their
children to state schools where they receive a
Godless, anti-Christian education seven hours
a day, 180 days a year, being taught that God
is irrelevant to every area of life, many of
these children are converted to an anti-
Christian worldview rather than evangelizing
their schoolmates.
13. Research by the Nehemiah Institute has discovered
that acceptance of a secular humanist
worldview by Christian children attending
state schools has increased dramatically over
the last fifteen years.
14. The Southern Baptist Council on Family Life
reported in 2002 that 88% of the children
raised in evangelical homes leave church at the
age of 18, never to return.
15. Since the Bible teaches that the companion of
fools will be destroyed (Proverbs 13:20), and
that people are prone to be deceived into thinking
that evil company will not corrupt them (1
Corinthians 15:33), it is incumbent upon ministers
of the gospel to warn God’s people that
their children are being corrupted by spending
half of their waking hours instructed by teachers
who are required by law to inculcate a
Godless education.
16. Since many adult Christians teach in state
schools, they should not be discouraged from
labouring as missionaries to unbelieving colleagues
and students; rather, they should be
commended and encouraged to be salt and
light in a dark and decaying state school system.
With these points as givens or starting points in their
thinking, the Resolution authors then proceed with a big
therefore, because of all these things, we strongly urge
the SB Convention to:”
1. encourage all officers and members of the SB
Convention and the churches associated with it
to remove their children from the government
schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly
Christian education, for the glory of God, the good
of Christ’s Church and the strength of their own
commitment to Jesus, and
2. encourage all churches associated with the SB
Convention to work aggressively to counsel
parents regarding their obligation to provide
their children with a Christian education, and
3. encourage all churches associated with the SB
Convention to provide all of their children
with Christian alternatives to government
school education, either through home schooling
or thoroughly Christian private schools.
There are some fairly heavy implications emanating
from this document for all Christian home educators as
well as for all Christians. First, it would appear, from
the way the SBs have presented their understanding of
the Scriptures, that for Christian parents to send a child
to a state school is by definition disobedience to the
Lord. That means it is a sin. Second, if it is a sin, it appears
that our involvement in home education is a lot
more than a mere preference of some kind, but is in
fact a vital step of obedience to the Lord. Third, if our
home education is a matter of obedience to Christ, it
seems to immediately impart to our home education
enterprise a more holy or a more serious tone: we have
to do this right, for we really have no choice. That is,
the option some of us have in the backs of our minds,
that we can always send the children off to school if
this home education doesn’t work out….that this is not
an option. Fourth, if it is a sin then we now have an
obligation to warn our fellow believers, those who are
sending their children to state schools, of their disobedience.
Of course there are all kinds of downstream
implications of doing this: coming across as some kind
of self-appointed judge going around condemning everyone,
upsetting many very comfortable lifestyles,
alienating good friends and family, putting church
leadership in the position of either having to side with
you or side line you. None of this is at all attractive.
I must say, I have been thinking along the lines of this
resolution for a couple of years already. I see a need to
warn others that state schools are thoroughly unacceptable
places to send children from Christian families.
(Now, there may be the odd exception: I know a small
school near here where the principal is a Christian, all
the staff are Christians and they basically filter out a lot
of the garbage. However they are not free to deal with
anything from an overtly Christian perspective, for if
any unbelieving child should report it to an unbelieving
parent and that parent were to complain to the MoE,
that school staff could get into a world of trouble.) Yet
the impact of such a warning is such that it seems to
me we need to formulate a strategy in how to go about
it. Publicising this SB Resolution is a good start: for us
outside of the SB denomination, we can let the issue be
raised by these total “outsiders”. The international media
is already picking it up, and we can each help
spread the awareness of this move. That in itself will
spark off debates about the issue in many places or
simply raise awareness of the issue. I can see myself
re-working the SB Resolution into a form I could then
present to my own church denomination, either a discussion
document for the congregation or just for the elders.
In any case we see the truth of the simple saying,
“Ideas have consequences.” That’s why it is so important
that we understand our own world view and as
Christians seek to ensure that the world view we are
carrying in our minds is as thoroughly Biblical, by
God’s grace, as we can make it. For it is inescapable:
we do behave according to our world view….in fact,
our world view is exposed for everyone else to see in
our behaviour patterns, should anyone care to observe
them closely. And when it comes to obedience, that is
not an optional thing: we must follow His commands
wherever they lead us, even into inconvenience, economic
hardship and persecution. As James 1:25 says,
such a doer (as opposed to a mere hearer) of the Word
will be blessed in his doing.
(I have modified the SB Resolution a wee bit in this
article for readability. The Resolution in its original
form may be seen at: http://tinyurl.com/36h4v . This is
the Exodus Mandate website, people who have been
warning of the dangers of state schooling for years.
Another site which gives a lot of background and possible
avenues of action is at: http://tinyurl.com/3y94c .
Both are well worth a look.)

From Keystone Magazine

May 2004 , Vol. X No. 3
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

To order a subscription to Keystone Magazine do one of the following:

send email to sales@hef.org.nz with visa number

post cheque or visa number to PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand

fax: 06 357-4389

phone: 06 357-4399

Trademe (fees added):  http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Listings.aspx?member=2366144

Sella (No added fees):  http://www.sella.co.nz/store/4ym9qg/home-education-foundation/display-100

What Is Your Stand with the State?

What Is Your Stand with the State?

by Craig S. Smith
Gentlemen, the Lord is constantly and consistently calling
us to higher ground. It means we need to claw our
way “uphill” in a spiritual and behavioural and attitudinal
sense, fighting the world, the flesh and the devil to
make any progress along the road of sanctification. A
part of me dislikes the implications of passages such as
Philippians 3:13-14 where it says, “…forgetting what
lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I
press on….toward the upward call of God in Christ Jesus,”
for I see there a whole entire life of hard work,
pressing on, always moving to higher ground. And that
is not just struggling with my personal self, it includes
husbanding my wife properly and fathering my children
as I should. Here is a challenge that will try even the
most worthy of Christian men!
In addition, there are other areas of vast importance
with which we must struggle in order to shepherd our
families aright. Not only do we need to struggle to work
out what we must do, we must also comprehend the
issues so that we can then instruct our children in the
way they should go in regards to these areas.
One such area that seems to be almost a no-brainer is
how we as home educators deal with the Ministry of
Education (MoE) and the Education Review Office
(ERO). I know many of us see no problem: tell them
what we’re up to, show the ERO around, answer their
questions, hide nothing for we have nothing to hide.
The people with whom we deal within both the MoE
and ERO are generally not only very reasonable people
but also quite friendly, decent and nice to get to know.
In itself this is great! The problem is that these lovely
folks are the face, but not the heart, of these huge, powerful
state institutions of civil government. We may
read from their personableness and friendliness messages
that are not shared by the MoE or ERO official
policy positions in regard to us home educators or home
education in general. We must, therefore, be alert and
on guard lest our personal freedoms and those of generations
to follow be compromised by our relaxed attitude
and quick compliance to any request.

Ministry of Education

The first thing to note about schooling in New Zealand
is that it is compulsory. We are talking naked force here
in the face of mountains of evidence that compulsory,
taxpayer-funded and secular schooling is a very poor
baby sitting service, let alone educational institution.
The schools cannot guarantee either the physical safety
of their inmates nor their educational enhancement,
even though students are compelled by law to attend. It
is worth noting that in many other countries, their Education
Acts state that students must be “educated” or
receive “education”, whereas in NZ, students must
both be enrolled at and attend registered schools. That
is, in NZ schooling is compulsory while in other countries
education is compulsory. The two things are not
synonymous.
The next thing to note is that classroom instruction is a
rather mediocre method of teaching either academics
or social graces. But it is the only logistical solution to
the division of labour philosophy or the efficiency of
production philosophy which both levered the task of
educating one’s children out of the hands of NZ parents
via the first Education Act back in 1877. (One
could argue that the real mistake was in viewing the
educational task of one’s children as a task that was
totally transferable, one that could be just as efficiently
accomplished using a production-line, conveyor-belt
concept as it would be in leaving every parent to do the
job himself. But that is an issue for a future article!)
Classrooms are ideal environments for fostering groupthink
and peer-dependency wherein most aspects of
education are socialised. That is, one must learn maths
in a peer group, rather than on his own or from a tutor;
one can only learn social interaction in a group of peers
and not from interacting with parents and siblings; history
becomes a function of what the peer group decides
happened back then, ably guided by the politically-
correct agenda expressed in the state’s textbooks,
rather than what your parents and your church tell you
about it.
This socialised form of learning (as opposed to the
family-oriented form we enjoy as home educators) is
specifically designed to break the natural stranglehold
which the Lord God designed parents and households
to have over their children’s developing attitudes, values,
knowledge and understanding. Consequently
among state educationalists there is constant pressure
to lower the age of compulsory school attendance: at
present the age of six is what they feel they can get
away with. Convention has since ensured that most
five-year-olds attend anyway. And we do have MPs
clamouring for compulsory pre-school. Call me a sceptic,
but the vision of state educational bureaucrats being
more concerned about my child’s personal development
than they are about the pressure from teachers’
unions, special interest lobby groups and other social
engineers is not a vision that readily comes into my
mind when I contemplate our state school system!
There is something – no, actually there are a lot of
things – about a schooling situation which should give
us all cause for concern. There is a tendency, one I will
identify as coming from our sinful natures, to use the
school as a convenient dumping ground, a place to put
children when they just seem to be too much hassle.
But in our more rational moments, we must surely
wonder why we’d off-load our precious children onto
people far less interested in their welfare, far less compassionate
toward them, far less able to properly focus
on them, far less committed to their success than we
are. The typical teacher (in virtually every case) is totally
oblivious and even uncaring toward our children’s
family backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, standards, values,
customs, etc. Why would we ever dream of doing
such things to our children?
In the case of around 90% of parents it would appear
that they have been trained to trust the schools and
have never given any other alternative a moment’s
thought…..not to mention that the law compels parents
to send them away from home, that is, removes from
them meaningful choices; that is, intervenes into every
resident NZ family without exception and dictates to
parents what they will do with the bulk of their children’s
lives on a day-to-day basis; that is, pulls the rug
of parental responsibility toward their children clean
out from under them, upsetting and damaging families
to one degree or another, again without exception. The
biggest bully in the classroom may well be the one
standing at the blackboard. But there are bigger ones in
the MoE and Paliament standing solidly behind and
totally in favour of the compulsory attendance laws.
Let me quote from the MoE’s Home Schooling Desk
File of 1996:
“Some parents will see it as their right to homeschool
their children.1 It is important to understand, however,
that there is no unfettered right to homeschooling,
though all parents have the right to apply for a certificate
of exemption to enable them to educate their children
at home. Put another way, parents have a right to
educate their children at home, but the exercise of that
right is subject to the Secretary being satisfied that the
children ‘will be taught at least as regularly and well as
in a registered school’”.
It must be recognised that there are people in both the
MoE and ERO who would shut down home education
in a flash if they had the chance. More than one official
I have dealt with in the Ministry has told me that about
50% of the staff do not like home education and feel it
needs to be far more regulated and controlled. I sat
across the table from one MP who thumped the table as
she told me, “You home schoolers should be subject to
every single regulation in the Act because you are de
facto schools!” I not only declined to agree with her, I
said if any such nightmare should ever eventuate, the
government would have a massive amount of civil disobedience
on its hands.
So who’s in charge here? Whose are the children and
who will ultimately control their education? It seems
pretty clear what the state thinks about these issues.
Woe to me and my family on the day the state should
ever try to definitively settle the issue in their favour: I
will fight it with vehemence. May the Lord grant me
the courage to fight it until my last breath.

The Education Review Office

Now, there is another government department known
as the ERO: Education Review Office. They are separate
from the Ministry of Education so as to be more
“objective” when they review the performance of
schools and report back to the Ministry. Their reports
then go on-line and are available to anyone, anywhere!
(See www.ero.govt.nz under “Reports”). Schools fear
and almost loathe the ERO! There has certainly been
some animosity between these two in the past, though
not so much today it seems.
They also have a unit that deals with home educators.
It is presently run by a gentleman who is incredibly
positive toward home education. In fact, he tells people
that he would like to see his grandchildren home educated!
ERO visits are not regular: only about 12% of
Home Educators get visited in any one year. They are
almost all very positive experiences. Some home educators
say it is nice to have others affirm what they’re
doing and that it is especially comforting to have a
state official confirm, in a written report, their programme,
credibility and performance.
While we always want to be polite, respectful and lawabiding,
I get very worried about having too chummy a
friendship with ERO and MoE people. The bottom line
is, when ERO folks visit our homes, they represent the
state. So here is the state sitting in judgement on my
chosen lifestyle. They are evaluating the way I relate to
my own children. The whole concept is highly repugnant
to me. I do not need, nor do I want, confirmation
or affirmation or approval from a secular state upon
my Christian lifestyle.
Our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, my local MP Steve
Maharey, our “transsexual” MP Georgina Beyer, our
homosexual MP Tim Barnett who just got prostitution
in this country legalised so it is as valid as the corner
grocery: these high-profile MPs openly say Christianity
has no credibility or any place in public life. Consequently
they are moving to ban spanking by parents in
the home, saying out loud ridiculous things such as,
“Why is it only fundamentalist Christians feel they
have to beat their children into submission?” When
children are killed in this country by senseless beatings,
there is a renewed cry by these folks for a ban on
spanking. Yet who beats the children to death? Live-in
boyfriends! And the media refers to these scum-bags
as the dead child’s “step-father”! Neither the media nor
the politicians of this country are the least bit qualified
to judge a Christian or a Christian lifestyle, nor do they
have any Biblical mandate for authority in this area.
Especially when they do not lift a finger to defend the
17,000 most innocent of us all who are mercilessly
slaughtered every year in this country, year after year,
at the rate of one abortion every half an hour.
In the early days of Home Education here (before the
ERO), the Psychological Services officer came quite
regularly with new staff to do “practice” reviews on
our family as training for his staff. At the time we
thought it was great. He was a nice guy. So were most
of the other staff we met. We enjoyed the friendly relations
we had with officialdom. No more. The present
ERO gentleman, as I’ve said, is very positive, and we
actually like him a lot too. He’s come to our home for
a cuppa, but when he wanted to do a review2, I said
we’d never let it happen in our home on principle.
What is the principle? It is one that developed over the
years after meeting some of these state agents who do
not like home education. The fact is, they have the
power, they sit in places of influence, to make life
tough for us. When the current ERO gentleman retires,
just think what could happen to us if he is replaced by
some dragon?
Sadly I have found that these bureaucrats will overstep
their legal powers quite regularly in order to make their
job easier. It is not a vindictive thing: they just want
their days to be as straight-forward and as uncomplicated
as possible. We all desire the same thing. And
that can mean they’ll do something as minor as fail to
produce their ID when doing a review in the home, as
the law requires, or as major as telling home educators
that they must have a Social Studies and a Technology
component to their programme, which the law does not
require.
When these powerful state agents sit in our homes,
these people who can write reports that could bring
down on us the wrath of the Education authorities or
even worse, the unreasoning interventions of Child
Protection Agencies (CYFS in NZ), we do not know if
they will suddenly take umbrage at a plaque they see
hanging on the wall, a smell they encounter, what they
perceive to be a smirk on your face or an attitude in
your tone of voice, or a comment by one of the children
that “Daddy spanks really hard!” American home
educators have declared their horror and unbelief upon
learning of the standard practise here of letting ERO
people into our homes for a Review. They have further
told me that state agents in the USA are always assumed
to be on “fishing” expeditions, looking for evidence
of one thing or another as an excuse to send
along a colleague from another state agency. I no
longer see any reason why I should expose my family
to such dangers, as remote as they might be, when I
know for a fact that there are people, lots of people,
within these agencies who are totally opposed to Christianity
and to home education.
Matthew 10:16 says, “Behold, I send you out as sheep
in the midst of wolves; so be as wise as serpents and
innocent as doves.” It’s a harsh place out there and we
need to have our wits about us. One of my applications
of this is not to expose my family to unnecessary danger,
such as an ERO visit in our home. Or asking the
MoE for more money, which is just inviting them to
demand access to our personal accounts to find out
how we spend it. Or wanting the MoE to hire home
educators to assess exemptions or the ERO to hire
home educators to do reviews, thus creating harpies,
satyrs or Echidna-like hybrids who would be torn between
two masters.
Research the issues for yourselves, men, and be confident
of your stand.
Notes:
1. I don’t. I see it as my responsibility before God.
Woe to the state bureaucrat who tries to prevent me
from fulfilling my responsibility.
2. This fellow did review us just recently, in our
church’s lounge: we had a great time together and
we got a glowing report…and we were not caught in
that cleft stick of trying to be gracious hosts to a
visitor in our home while at the same time trying to
keep a state agent at arm’s length and the entire
proceedings on a professional, objective level.


From Keystone Magazine

May 2004 , Vol. X No. 3
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz

To order a subscription to Keystone Magazine do one of the following:

send email to sales@hef.org.nz with visa number

post cheque or visa number to PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand

fax: 06 357-4389

phone: 06 357-4399

Trademe (fees added):  http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Listings.aspx?member=2366144

Sella (No added fees):  http://www.sella.co.nz/store/4ym9qg/home-education-foundation/display-100