Book Review: When You Rise Up by R.C. Sproul, Jr.

I don’t know how in my reading of reformed Christian books I missed Sproul’s When You Rise Up [1] but I am now correcting that lapse.

Sproul and I come from similar ends of the theological spectrum so it is not surprising that there is a lot here that I agree with. [2] There are other ways, however, in which this book just rubbed me wrong. It took me some time to lay my finger on what was niggling me about the book, but after some reflection I think my critique can be summed up as: Sproul does not take a broad enough view; I find him too narrow in his use of Scripture and in his understanding of revelation.

Sproul starts with some big ideas about education, most of which I would agree with: The goal of education is the goal of life (p. 17); education is discipleship (p. 21); the spiritual cannot be divorced from the academic (p. 21); and regeneration includes also the renewal of the believer’s mind (p. 22). Sproul views the child as a whole person whose purpose, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever (p. 27), does not wait until adulthood. Like many homeschoolers, Sproul is critical of the factory model of education provided by the public schools (p. 39), and like most Christian homeschoolers he sees that education cannot be morally or religiously neutral (p. 37).

Sproul goes on to ask and answer some key questions about education: Who should do it? What should be taught? And how should it be done? For answers to each of these questions, he turns to the Bible. Now, as Christians, when we have big questions to answer — and the education of our children is certainly an important issue — it is reasonable to turn the Scriptures. As I developed my own philosophy of education, one of the first things I did was to see what the Bible had to say on education and related issues. But we also have to be careful how we use the Word of God. The Scriptures are our “only infallible rule for faith and life,” but they are not our only guide in life and they do not tell us everything we need to know about every topic. [3] I do think that we can discern principles from the Bible that will help us know the who, what, and how of education, but we have to be very careful in doing so. We need to look at all of Scripture, and we need to acknowledge that there is some level of interpretation involved and that while the Word of God itself is perfect, we who read and seek to understand it have many flaws that may cloud our understanding.

When Sproul turns to the Word of God to learn about education, he spends most of his time on one passage. In Deuteronomy 6:1-9 he finds answers to all three of his questions: who should educate (the parents; p. 47); what should be taught (p. 92); and how should education happen (through conversation; pp. 69-70). Now the Shema is certainly a relevant passage for us to consider, but it is not all the Bible has to say on education. Let us take each of Sproul’s questions in turn.

Who should educate? This is perhaps where I have the most agreement with Sproul. Like him, I am ardently pro-homeschooling. I agree that God has given parents the responsibility for their children, including but not limited to their education, and that they cannot waive that responsibility. I would not go quite as far as he does in saying that “every family ought to homeschool” (p. 38). I wish homeschooling were viewed as a more normative choice and perhaps even became the default option for Christian parents instead of a last resort, but I have known many for whom homeschooling, if not impossible, would at least have posed significant challenges. [4] I have known other families who I am sure would have been perfectly capable of homeschooling who outsourced their kids’ education to either private Christian schools or even (gasp!) the public schools. These families were involved and diligent and their kids turned out to be godly, responsible people. Despite Sproul’s argument that you cannot debrief your kids and undo what the public schools do over dinnertime (p. 74), some families clearly make these situations work. I find this concept of outsourcing helps here. Almost all of us outsource some part of our children’s education, even if it is just piano lessons and gymnastics classes. The more one outsources, the more risk there is, especially as those subjects touch on more philosophical and theological issues. History which has to do with the work of God and literature which tells us much about the nature of man are going to be more pivotal than that gymnastics class or even a math lesson. The key is to always remember that whether you outsource, a little or a lot, the ultimate responsibility always lies with you, the parent, to make sure that your child’s education is a God-centered one.

Sproul’s answer to the how of education is simple: through conversation. This he gets from Deuteronomy 6 (again) which tells us ” . . . you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them . . . ” (p. 69). He also notes that conversation is how Jesus taught his disciples (p. 72) and claims that this is how the Hebrews educated and how Jesus himself would have learned (pp. 71-72). For the latter claim, I would refer you to  William Barclay’s Train up a Child: Educational Ideas in the Ancient World [5]. As Barclay makes clear, formal education of children was not really a thing in Israelite society until after Jesus’ day. No doubt any education Jesus himself would have received would have been oral, but we must also take into account the cultural context. Books were not common commodities in the ancient world. We cannot say that the Jews of Jesus’ day chose oral education over written or some other method because they did not have those choices. Sproul looks to God as a model, noting that Jesus taught his disciples through conversation, but we could also say that when God chooses to communicate with us, His people today, He chooses the written Word. As reformed Protestants, we usually place a pretty high premium on the written word over oral tradition. Which is not to say that oral teaching is necessarily wrong or out of place but that we have to consider the historical context in which the Scriptures were written. We also have to consider what each passage is trying to tell us. Sproul’s go-to passage clearly instructs parents to teach their children about God and His works. That does not mean it tells us everything we need to know about education in all subject areas.

Which brings us to Sproul’s final question: What should we teach? For Sproul the primary answer is the Bible and specifically what he calls “the three G’s”: who God is, what He has done, and what He requires of us (p. 92). I find Sproul a little ambivalent on how to view other, non-Bible subjects. He seems to be trying to have it both ways without giving solid reasons why kids might need to know anything beyond the Scriptures. He has some wonderful things to say about the value of history (“History, rightly understood, is his story”; p. 95) and about why we learn math (“how you teach math rightly is by always remembering why you teach math”; p. 24), but in the end, for Sproul, if one can’t teach physics or geography or even some more basic subject, that does not matter as long as the child learns their Bible (p. 132). His argument would be better, and his view of education more full, if he used the categories our theology has given us of general and special revelation. The Scriptures are God’s special revelation. They contain what we need to know for faith and salvation and as such are essential to the believer. But they are not God’s only revelation. He also reveals Himself through His creation in what we call general revelation. It is this second book (as I have argued elsewhere) that we open to children when we educate them in all those other subject areas. These subjects, from science to history to language, may be less important than the Scriptures, but they are not less full of God. Sproul touches on the truth when he says of history that “[i]t’s all his” (p. 95). He would do better to expand upon this idea — all truth is God’s and, for the believer, He can and will use all of it to further that renewing of the mind for which we strive.

There is a lot more I could say about Sproul’s When You Rise Up. I am not enamored of his views of boys and girls and the education they need (even if one accepts that all females will only ever be “keepers at home,” do we really need to be able to sew our own dresses in this day and age??; p. 110). There are other snippets in which his own (though not unique to him) views peek through which really have nothing to do with education [he seems to be pro-gun, for instance (p. 116) and anti-environmental (p. 78)], but I am restraining myself from going into depth on all of these. I do have one big topic I am going to save for another post. And in all fairness I should add that there are also other points he makes that I like and agree with. But for today I will conclude with this summary: Sproul has some good insights and I do not doubt that his basic theology is solid. He places a high value on the Scriptures and on the things of God. The main problem I find with When You Rise Up is that it does not take a wide enough view. It does not consider the many, many fascinating and inspiring things God reveals to us of Himself through His general revelation and, even when it looks at God’s special revelation, it is too narrow and focuses in primarily on one passage to the neglect of the rest of the counsel of God.

---

Notes:

[1] Sproul, R.C., Jr. When You Rise Up: A Covenantal Approach to Homeschooling. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004.

[2] There is some recent controversy surrounding Sproul, Jr. I don’t want to dwell on that here. I don’t think a man’s character is irrelevant to his theories but my focus today is on the ideas themselves more than their source.

[3] One cannot, for instance, discern the way to eat or to lose weight based on biblical principles.

[4] In this category I would include many single parents, those struggling with chronic illness, and refugee families (many of whom we have had come through our church. Often both parents need to work, but even if the mothers don’t, they often don’t know English and are not even literate in their own native languages).

[5] Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959. My review here.