Hello, brothers and sisters. This is Pastor Matt Chuala of Mercy Seat Christian Church, located right here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mercy Seat Christian Church is a congregation which believes in helping the body of Christ be equipped to do the work of the ministry. Therefore, we air these sermons in hopes of doing exactly that. Today we will air the first part of a two-part sermon I preached entitled, Education, The State vs. Parents. The statists in our nation believe that the state has the right to educate children based on the slogan that every child deserves a great education. The truth is this is a bogus right made up out of thin air. In this sermon we trace the roots of public education in America and see just how bogus this state declared right is and what their intent was in granting the state domain and jurisdiction in the educating of children. Now here's the sermon. Matthew chapter 28 verse 19 Matthew 28, verse 19. It says, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations. This is a command given to us by God. And yet, in America today, most Christians, rather than going and discipling the nations, not even doing that, rather they're sending their children to be discipled by the nations by sending them off to the state schools. And this morning, I want to preach to you an exhortational sermon and encourage you in your homeschooling or your Christian schooling, because it can be a challenge at times. So I want to encourage you in it. And I want you to be reminded that sending them to the state is no option. I also want to apologize because I've been very busy, so I didn't have time to prepare as thoroughly as I would have liked to. But nevertheless, I beseech God to help me to set forth that which he's given me to share, and I hope he uses it for good. Another sermon that goes along with this one I'm going to preach this morning is one entitled, Why We Should Not Send Our Children to the State School, which I preached back in July of 1998. why we should not send our children to the state school. I gave 10 reasons in that sermon. The title of my sermon this morning is Education, the State vs. Parents. Education, the State vs. Parents. Why don't we stand up and have a word of prayer. Father, we give thanks and praise to you that we have time together this morning to learn about your ways and your thoughts. I ask and pray, O God, that you would use this time for good, this time of preaching, that it would be an exhortation that each one would take to heart, that they would be built up in doing right, be solidified in the presuppositions which they've adopted, that education is the domain, duty, and jurisdiction of parents and not the domain, duty, or jurisdiction of the state. I pray they're encouraged in that, even understand it better. Lord God, that we might see a godly generation raised up who will faithfully serve you and live to bring glory to your name. I ask that you help me to set forth that which you give me to share, and that you're glorified through it, and that we're all different because of it, forever different because of it. And I ask this in Jesus' name. Amen. You can be seated. I want to begin by telling you a story. of an event I went to one time there was a debate that took place out in Madison several years ago and the debate was between one of the deputy superintendents of the education department here in the state of Wisconsin and he was debating some guy who was the head of an organization called Separation of School and State. At the end of the debate, which was a great debate I thought, They allowed people to come up and ask questions. I came up and asked a question. The question I asked was directed towards the Deputy Superintendent of the Department of Education here in Wisconsin. My question was a simple one. It was a presuppositional one. It was simply, what gives the state the right to educate children? That's what I asked him. What gives the state the right to educate children? You could tell, He probably had never had this question placed before him in his life. The guy from the other organization, which wants the state out of education, got a big smile on his face, was glad to see such a question was asked. And the superintendent, deputy superintendent, sat there and just sat there and just sat there for about 30 seconds going, hmm. Hmm. I mean, the man, I mean, we're talking about the most basic presuppositional level and he doesn't even have a response to what gives the state the right to educate children. Finally, after about 30 seconds, he started to say something and then he stopped after about five seconds. And he said, no, strike that. And he sat there for another 15 seconds or so, mulling it over. And finally, he looked at me and he said, well, I guess what gives the state the right to educate children is that every child deserves a great education. And that's what he said. And of course, then the guy from the separation of school and state had a grand time dealing with that question because both parties get to respond to the question. But that was all the man had up his sleeve. It was his whole foundation for this state machinery, educating children the way it does. And you've probably seen that in their commercials. Every child deserves a great education. And that was the presuppositional basis upon which he thinks the state has the right to educate children. Now, Horace Mann could have articulated a far better answer for my question, even though the answer Horace Mann would give would be essentially the same. Horace Mann was born on May 4, 1796. He is known as the father of American education. In 1837, he was appointed the first state secretary of education in Massachusetts. He also established the first school to educate state school teachers in Lexington, Massachusetts that same year. Horace Mann said the following concerning the right of the state to educate. Here's what he said. I believe in the existence of a great, immortal, immutable principle of natural law or natural ethics, a principle antecedent to all human institutions and incapable of being abrogated by any ordinance of man, a principle of divine origin. clearly legible in the ways of providence, as those ways are clearly manifested in the order of nature and in the history of the race. And then he says this, which proves the absolute right to an education of every human being that comes into the world. He said the same thing. The right for the state to educate exists because every child deserves a great education. He goes on, he says, which proves the absolute right to an education of every human being that comes into the world and which, of course, proves the correlative duty of every government to see that the means of that education are provided for all. Horace Mann believes that the right for the state to educate is because every person, every child deserves a great education. And that is the mantra of the statist educationists today. They can't articulate it as nicely as Horace did, but it's the same mantra that's been preached by these people for nearly 200 years now. Horace went on to say, the will of God. He invoked God. Many of the early men at this time claimed to be Christian. Of course, God is totally out of the picture of the government schools now. But he invoked the name of God. He said, the will of God, as conspicuously manifest in the order of nature and in the relations which he has established among men, founds the right of every child that is born into the world to see a degree of education as will enable him and as far as possible will predispose him to perform all domestic, social, civil, and moral duties upon the same clear ground of natural law and equity as it founds a child's right upon his first coming into the world to distend his lungs with a portion of the common air, or to open his eyes to the common light, or to receive that shelter, protection, and nourishment which are necessary to the continuance of bodily existence. In other words, he founds this right just because a child has the right to breathe. The child has a right to open his eyes. So he has a right to education. You talk about making up a right out of thin air. Horace Mann made a right up out of thin air for the statist educationists. Mann's comments, Horace Mann's comments for the right of the state to educate is essentially every child deserves a great education. Is this not their motto to this day? They say what man said, only they cannot articulate it as well. Rather, they can only sloganeer. But the statement is the same. Every child deserves a great education. Now listen. Listen. Though man could articulate this right better than today's folk, it is nevertheless a declaration of a bogus right. Why? Because not only did they make it up out of thin air, but more importantly, because scripture makes it clear that education is not a right of the state to enforce and coerce upon its people. Rather, it is a duty of parents given to them by God. And that is an extremely important point, which I wrote down. Though man could articulate it better than today's folk, it is nevertheless a declaration of a bogus right. Why? Because not only did they make it up out of thin air, but more importantly, because scripture makes it clear that education is not a right of the state to enforce and coerce upon its people, rather it is a duty of parents given to them by God. Throughout scripture, education is the domain, duty, and jurisdiction of parents, never the state. Just read from Genesis to Revelation. When education is brought up, the teaching of children is brought up, from Genesis to Revelation, it's the domain, duty, and jurisdiction of parents. Never the state. Whether you read in God's law, or whether you read in the book of Proverbs, or whether you read in the book of Ephesians in the New Testament, or anywhere else in the Scriptures, when the educating of children is talked about and wholly read, it is always the domain, duty, and jurisdiction of parents. Never is it the domain, duty, or jurisdiction of the state. Therefore, as parents, we have a duty to homeschool or to send our kids to a Christian school, at the very least. Or, as in the past, have a community school where a group of parents come together. This is how it was done before the statists took over. A group of parents would come together and say, we're going to start a school. Those are legitimate things because they're under the domain, duty, and jurisdiction of the parents and not the state. We need to remember that those who run the state school system are statists. We need to remember that those who pushed for the state school system were statists. We need to remember that these statists, through the coercive arm of the state, wrested the right of education from parents to seize it for the state. There was a bloody battle that went on in America over this issue, a hard-fought battle. And by the way, it was in part had to do with some of the pushings regarding the Civil War itself. We need to remember that these statists, through the coercive arm of the state, wrested the right of education from parents and seized it for the state. We need to remember that so radical are they in their status beliefs, So determined are they in their statist beliefs, so arrogant and hateful and wrong are they in their statist beliefs, that in one Massachusetts town after the state won the right, quote unquote right, to educate, the children were taken from their parents and marched to school under force of arms because the parents opposed and the state demanded. There was a huge fight over this matter. And it was fought starting in Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, which is the filthiest city I've ever been in in my life. And I've been to many cities in the country. It started there in Massachusetts and spread all across America. And there was a bloody fight as it spread all across the land. It was opposed staunchly. But the status one, they had more money. They had the public purse. So, of course, they had more money. And they rolled over. They also had many rich men who put literally millions of dollars behind this status education plan in order to get it off the ground. The 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto states free education for all children in public schools. That's the Communist Manifesto. That's America's reality regarding education. And these status educators are committed to their status agenda. Scripture makes it clear that education is not a right of the state to enforce and coerce upon its people. Rather, it is a duty of parents given to them by God. We need to remember, we educate our children not by privilege given by the state, but by right given of God. You need to remember that. That's why I don't fill out that form. It's just a form. Yeah, it's a form from the state. And they have no business in the education of my child's learning. They have no business being involved in my child's education. We educate our children not by privilege given by the state, but by right given of God. R.J. Rushdoony, in his book, The Messianic Character of American Christianity, states on page 27, he says, to read man, the issue was ostensibly education or no education. Actually, the issue was between state-controlled education and community-controlled education, and this was the basic issue. Man's work was two-fold. First, to secularize education, and second, to make it the province of the state rather than the community and parents. And Rush Junius rightly summed things up in his comments. That was the goal then, brothers and sisters. to secularize education and to take the domain duty and jurisdiction of education out from the hands of parents and place it into the hands of the state. That was the goal then and it's still the goal today. That's why we see the teachers union do everything they can to hold on to the power that they have. Back then you had some God words thrown in by the status who helped establish this state school teaching system. Now God is long gone out of the picture as they always intended. In truth, they are God haters. They teach an atheist form of education or at best an agnostic form. And yet Christians send their children off to these people by the millions to be educated every year. And that's the greatest crime of all. State education is a God-hating form of education based upon an unbiblical presupposition because nowhere in scripture is the state granted the domain, duty, or jurisdiction for education. Now listen, another early pioneer of the state school system who advocated resting education from parents and from the church or private schools, who wanted to establish a God-hating form of education, atheistic, agnostic in its form, was James Carter. James Carter was born on September 7, 1795. He actually preceded man, not only in birth, but also in propagating this idea of state education. Man latched on to him, and then man became the leading advocate. Carter was a crushed and broken man after Horace Mann was named Secretary of State Education for Massachusetts rather than him. So crushing a blow was that to his ego, that Mann was chosen rather than him, that Carter did little for the cause after that happened. But I want to read to you something that James Carter said. Here's what he wrote. An institution for the education of teachers, as has been before intimated, would form a part and a very important part of the free school system. It would be, moreover, precisely that portion of the system which should be under the direction of the state, whether the others are or not. In other words, he's hoping, okay, if we can't get state schools, let's at least get a state school where the teachers for the schools have to be taught. He goes on and he says, because we should thus secure at once an uniform, intelligent, and independent tribunal for decisions on the qualifications of teachers, because we should thus relieve the clergy of an invidious task. They knew what they wanted to do. They wanted an atheist, God-hating, agnostic form of education placed upon America's youth and children. They wanted the clergy taken out of their position of power in regards to education. And they wanted little status replaced who were taught in their state schools and their institution to teach the teachers. Because we should thus relieve the clergy of an invidious task and ensure to the public competent teachers, if such can be found or prepared. An institution for this purpose would become by its influence on society, and particularly on the young, An engine to sway the public sentiment, the public morals, and the public religion. These are the people who established the state school system in this country. You're seeing what their mind was, what they were trying to accomplish, what their end goal was. And yet, millions of Christians send their children off to these dogs year after year to be discipled by them. when God says we're supposed to be discipling the pagans. An institution for this purpose would become, by its influence on society and particularly on the young, an engine to sway the public sentiment, the public morals and the public religion more powerful than any other in the possession of government. Do you hear that? More powerful than any in the possession of government. They knew what they were doing. You want to know why each generation goes along with what the established norms are? Because they're taught in the government schools. Duh! You know why homeschoolers are such a threat to the state and to the status? Because we engender independent thinking in our young people. And we give them thoughts contrary or other to the thoughts that the state wants ground into all young people's minds. Goes on and says, it should be emphatically the state's institution. He wanted the state to have control of education. These men who established the state school system established a God-hating form of education, atheist or at least agnostic in its form. Even though many of these early men professed to be Christians, this is what they established. And those who have no love for the Lord or Christianity rule it thoroughly now in our day. And yet Christians send their children to these people every year by the millions. Another of these early status education pioneers is found a little later in history in the West, namely California. His name was John Sweat. He was born on July 31st, 1830. He was the state school superintendent of California schools from 1862 to 68. The status easily seized control of the schools in California. The reason being out east you had many community and private schools already established. So there was a fight between the private schools and the statists who wanted the state to take over the education of America back out east. Out west there was no such fight because everyone was just moving there and the statists seized the day. They're always very aggressive people. They seized the day and they won California to be a statist school state right from the get-go. His life's motto, Sweat's life's motto was from Horace Mann. Remember Horace? And it was this, quote, be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. That was Sweat's. life goal, life motto, and he got it from Horace Mann. The thinking of Horace Mann lives in educators even to today, as it lived in Sweat's life back then. I want to read to you some of what John Sweat had to say regarding state education. He said this, it is the duty of a Republican government as an act of self-preservation to educate all classes of the people and that the property of the state should be taxed to pay for that education. That's what he believed. I want to read to you what Rush Dooney wrote in his book in regards to John Sweat's thinking, just a small portion of what Rush Dooney wrote because he does a great job here. He says thus, in regards to what Sweat is saying, he says thus, status education is essential to the self-preservation of the state only if the state is seen as the total society of man and the only area in which man can be truly man and truly alive. Inevitably, such a state cannot be a free state because it cannot permit man to transcend the state, his one and only true society. The function of religion accordingly becomes the duty of providing social cement. Now that is a great thought by Rush Dooney. The function of religion accordingly becomes the duty of providing social cement. Isn't that what 99% of the churches in America have provided for the Bush administration in regards to what's going on right now? since 9-1-1. They are the cement that makes him capable of pulling off what he wants to pull off. Isn't the whole administration trying to create a whole new religion in America, where everyone just gets along and puts down their differences? Hey, we all pray to the same God, whether we're a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, we're all praying to the same God. It's garbage, brothers and sisters. They're using religion to try to cement us together. And you have to become a compromising whore and not a true Christian in order to buy into what they're trying to do. I thought that was a great point on Rush Juney's behalf. He goes on, Rush Juney says this, the second axiom supported the first, quote, the property of the state should be taxed to educate the children of the state. That was Sweatt's second thing. The property of the state should be taxed to educate the children of the state. He says this, notice Sweatt's language very often repeated, quote, the property of the state, unquote, not the property in the state, and quote, the children of the state, unquote, not children residing in the territory of the state. Indeed, Sweatt plainly justified his language affirming, quote, children arrived at the age of maturity belong not to the parents, but to the state, to society, to the country, unquote. That's what John Sweatt said. Once your child reaches an age of maturity, which now is five, they send them off to the kindergarten, your child no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the state. These people were rank raw status of the worst kind. I'm reminded of the fact that Stonewall Jackson opposed this status mentality. He took the status to task during his day. This was an issue during the Civil War. The northern education system trying to force its education system down the throats of the southerners. It was one of the issues of the war. And I remember Stonewall Jackson reading his work. his writings, he said this, how offended he is that so many professors refer to the students as our students, when they should refer to them as the students. And so it is true. You can tell when a man's a statist immediately when he refers to children in America as our children, rather than the children. Your children are yours. They belong to you. They are a gift to you from God. And the state has no right, through its coercive arm, to seize that gift from you and take domain over your children. And it's a crime against God for you to take your children and hand them over to the state when he gave them to you. And it is your duty, your domain, your jurisdiction to educate them. So when you get tired, you get weary of homeschooling, you get tired of paying for your kid to go to a private school or Christian school, keep going. Don't give up. There are no other options. The state school is not an option in God's economy for the education of your children. Once you lay that down, you can buck up. and get with the program and you'll find strength from God to make sure you follow through on the education of your children. I want to read more of what Sweat had to say because it's so revealing of the mindset of these status educators. Listen to this. In 1864, in his biennial report, Sweatt affirmed and quoted judicial decisions of some eastern states to maintain the following propositions. I'm going to share with you five propositions he was making during his biennial report. Number one, The schoolmaster and the king. That's number one. He calls it the schoolmaster and the king. And he says this, in school, where the mind is first placed under care to be fitted for the grand purposes of life. What an arrogant statement. Oh really? You know your kid's mind isn't placed in care for the grand purposes of life till he shows up at that school building? Let me tell you, it happened the day that child left your wife's womb. That's when it happened. And that child has become your property, your care. Not the state's. He says, in school where the mind is first placed under care to be fitted for the grand purposes of life, listen to this, the child should be taught to consider his instructor in many respects superior to the parent in points of authority. And that is the mindset of these teachers. They tell young kids now in schools to rat their parents out. If your parents don't get along with the status agenda we're teaching you, you rat them out. And kids do rat their parents out, and parents end up in a mess. Second proposition. He titled it, every man's house is his castle. And he says this, this old maxim of English law is as applicable to the schoolmaster as to any other person who is in the lawful possession of a house. Oh, really? See, they think they own the children when they cross that threshold. That's their mindset. He goes on under this number two and says, having been legally put in possession, did you catch that? Having been legally put in possession, he can hold it for the purposes and the time agreed upon, and no parent, not even the governor of the state nor the president of the United States, has any right to enter it and disturb him in the lawful performance of his duties. They think they're gods unto themselves. And Christian parents, by the millions, send their kids off to these dogs year after year after year. And it's a crime in the sight of God. Number three, listen to this. He entitles number three this, the vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous. Did you catch that? The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous. He says this, he says, as it would be manifestly improper for the teacher to undertake to dictate to the parents in their own house, so it would be improper for the parents to dictate to him in his, the schoolhouse. Wow! He views teachers as being equal with parents in having claim or right over the child's life. He's talking about arrogant, pompous pigs. And yet Christians by the millions send their children off to these dogs year after year after year. And then we wonder why we have a society that has church steeples dotting the landscape, and yet we have baby murder, homosexuality parading down the streets, pornography everywhere. And young children who don't think like godly men should think, but rather think like the statists have trained them to think. You can't send someone to Egypt and they not end up being like an Egyptian. The fourth one is this. Not a child anyway. The fourth one is this. The statutory law as to disturbing schools. This is what he says under this. The statutory law as to disturbing schools. And he says this. There is no clause in it favoring parents. Consequently, if they disturb or disquiet the school, they are subject to the same penalty as others. These statists don't want parents to have any input in their children's education. They want you to get along with the program, and if you don't get along with the program, they'll make your life miserable. Number five, he titles it, parents have no remedy as against the teacher. He has a lot to say about parents, doesn't he? Number five, parents have no remedy as against the teacher. He says this, as a general thing, the only persons who have a legal right to give orders to the teacher are his employers. Namely, the committee in some states, and in others, the directors or trustees. If his conduct is approved of by his employers, the parents have no remedy as against him or them. That's how they think. That's how they are. Rustuni says this. Schools are thus not extensions of parental authority, but, quote, wards of the state, unquote. Extensions of state sovereignty. and so to be respected. Children accordingly become wards of the school and entry therein and parental rights are forfeited. That's what you do. That's why I always laugh when I hear parents whining about how they don't like what their kids are being taught at school and the teachers teach it anyway. It's like you forfeited your right as soon as you let them cross that threshold. You forfeited your right as a parent. That's how they view it, and that's how it is, in fact, because you had no right to give your child over to the state to begin with. It says here, on March 28, 1874, during Bolander's term of office, the California legislature made it a penal offense for parents to send their children to private schools without the consent of the local state school trustees. And he lists the law. Here's something else I highlighted. To separate the schools from the state would not only destroy the schools, quote unquote, it would be the destruction of the state, Sweatt said. Hold on, I have more. Here's another thing Sweatt said, quote, you will never make California union to the backbone until you have a school system so thorough that all the people shall be brought into the schools and thoroughly Americanized. Did you hear that? This was during the Civil War when he was talking. And it shows my point that this was one of the issues why the Civil War was fought, because the Southerners opposed the Northerners' system of education. And Sweatt said this, you will never make California Union, talking about Union rather than Confederate, you will never make California Union to the backbone until you have a school system so thorough that all the people shall be brought into the schools and thoroughly Americanized, unquote. That's the power schools have on people's lives. It's always amazing to me when I talk to parents about these types of things. They're sending their kids to the government schools and they say, well, look, I went to this government school and I turned out fine. How do you know? What do you have to compare with? In July 1864, Sweatt threatened recalcitrant school trustees who refused to use the state textbooks with loss of state funds. Here's a statist. Rustuni points out, the development here is very significant. If the schools are agencies of the state, they must inevitably serve the purposes of the state rather than God, man, the family, or any institution. He's got great insight. I encourage you to read his writings. He wrote this book in 1963, The Messianic Character of American Education. He says, if the schools are agencies of the state, they must inevitably serve the purposes of the state, rather than God, man, the family, or any institution. Just as in back in 1874, when the statist educationists said that parents couldn't send their children to private schools, things never change. There's been a great battle fought over the last 30 years so that homeschoolers can homeschool. A great battle fought. Many new Christian schools have been founded over the last 30 years and millions upon millions of people have moved to homeschooling. There was many legal battles fought to win those victories. A great book to read is called Mere Creatures of the State by a guy named Ball. He was one of the attorneys who fought these cases all the way up to the Supreme Court. to help get rid of this power that the statist educationists had on all Americans. I asked my mom, why didn't you educate me at home when I was a kid, mom? She said, we never heard it once in our life. Not once. That's how much things have changed. Non-state schooling is the reformation, the heart of the reformation in this country. And we need to realize that. But things haven't changed. Here I have an article dated August 21st, 2002, from the Washington Times entitled, California warns homeschoolers. See, they see they're losing hold of their power. They want it back. That's why I'm glad every time I've gone to Madison, when the statist educationists have tried to pass a law against homeschoolers here, to increase their power over us here, the place is packed. and the people are unhappy. The legislatures throw the law under the table, down the toilet, they get rid of it however as quickly as they can. That's how it needs to be. Here in California, here's a story reads, school officials in California are warning parents that they cannot educate their children at home unless they obtain professional teaching credentials. Without the proper credentials, parents no longer can file required paperwork that would authorize them to homeschool their children. States a memo issued by the State Department of Education. As a result, those children not attending public schools would be considered truant by local school districts. In California, homeschooling, a situation where non-credentialed parents teach their own children exclusively at home, whether using correspondence courses or other types of courses, is not an authorized exemption from mandatory public school attendance, State Deputy Superintendent Joanne Mendoza wrote in the July 16 memo to all school employees. So the fight is renewed out there in California. Why do we, as Christians, Every year, send our children to the status to be educated. Why does American Christendom, by and large, over 90% of those who name the name of Christ, send their kids to the government schools? Why? In light of what I've read to you today, what their worldview is, what their mindset is, how could anyone do it? How could you? How can you take the gift that God has given you, and give it to Caesar. Matthew 28, 19 says that we are to go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. We are to go and be discipling the nations, not sending our children to be discipled by the nations. We must remember that scripture makes it clear that education is not a right of the state to enforce and coerce upon its people. Rather, it is a duty of parents given to them by God. We need to remember we educate our children not by privilege given by the state, but by right given of God. I leave you with two quotes. One is from Dr. Timothy Dwight, who was the president of Yale University from 1795 to 1817. He said this, quote, To commit our children to the care of irreligious people is to commit lambs to the superintendency of wolves. Smart man. A man who opposed the state education. Martin Luther said this, and this is my second quote I leave you with. Dwight said to commit our children to the care of irreligious people is to commit lambs to the superintendency of wolves. Luther said this, quote, I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the holy scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. May God grant forgiveness to his people in this nation. May the Christian people of this nation turn from these filthy places and educate our children ourselves. Let's stand up and we'll close in a word of prayer. Father, we give thanks and praise unto you for the time that we had here together this morning to hear this word. Father, I just ask and pray that you use it for good in each one's heart and life, that they would be encouraged to continue forward with that which is right, and sealing the education of their children under their own domain, duty, and jurisdiction, and not to give it to the state. Father, I ask and pray that you give each one here the strength of body and the strength of mind to do right before you regarding this area. And I pray that the young people here and the children here would grow up one day and do right by this too. And I ask for these things in Jesus' holy name. Amen.