I'm in the middle of research for my senior history project. I don't know if I mentioned on here that the topic is: "how the public opinion of homeschooling in the United States has changed since the modern movement's inception in the 1960s." Well anyway, I am reading a fascinating book, very well-written, made by a man from outside the homeschool movement. He spent ten years researching - spending time with homeschool families, visiting support groups, traveling the country. And he noticed something very interesting, which is the theme of the book: homeschoolers have divided themselves into two mutually exclusive groups, the secular/"inclusives" and the Protestant Christian. Stevens, the author, calls these latter the "believers." All through, I've been trying to put my finger on something. I think I finally got it. Listen to the following quote:

"The stereotypes invoked on the Internet that night indicated how their users understood some of the differences between home schoolers. The believers bake cookies, keep spotless houses, and get approval for much of what they do. The inclusives are freer spirits and social renegades with one foot in the counterculture." (Mitchell L. Stevens, Kingdom of Children, 149)

What I understood when I read that, all at once, is something about myself. Growing up, I've felt a conflict in myself and a frustration that the conflict exists. It is what Nathan Poe (one of my friends at PHC) calls the "pietists vs. intellectuals" conflict. You can also call it conservatives vs. libertarians, order vs. liberty, etc. In myself, it is the knowledge that I believe most fundamentally that the Bible is true, that God exists, that Jesus lived and died for my sins, and that I am going to Heaven when I die. Accompanying this, however, is the knowledge that I read and enjoy comic books, watch a large sampling of movies, and learn from good literature - including science fiction - that does not invoke God every few pages. Deep down on the gut level I know that these activities are fine. But a large section of the deeply conservative Christian community thinks these things are sinful and from the Devil. They believe that they have to be perfect on the surface, all the time, like they can't admit that they have any interests or desires that are different from everyone else. I share these people's hearts and feel much more comfortable with them than with the pierced, black-wearing, pagan counterculture I wound up spending time with in the year I was 17. But I hated the image. I didn't want to be part of any artificial image. I wanted to be me. I didn't feel comfortable with people who weren't being themselves, or with people whose hearts were very different. So I wound up in the end with very few friends - until PHC.

I told my mom once that I felt like a "bridge person," like I stood alone with one foot on either side of a crevice. I thought at the time it was because I inherited skills from both parents - my mom's clarity of mental sight when it comes to events and people as groups and my dad's patience and understanding when it comes to individuals. Thus, I have two modes, between which I switch at will - rational, analytical, dispassionate; and friendly, goofy, loving. But now I think this is also partly because of my upbringing. My family has always placed a solid anchor in the "believer" side of homeschooling, understanding that a Christian heritage is the best. At the same time, we have "one foot in the counterculture," so to speak. We have never rejected a worthwhile intellectual endeavor solely because it was "not Christian." So my family has always been different from everyone.

It strikes me that Patrick Henry College is also trying to bridge this gap. It attracts leaders - independent free-thinkers. But it wants leaders who are solidly Christian. Perhaps this is why I have met people truly like myself at PHC for the first time. Thoughts?  ¶ 3:35 PM