Introduction: The Illusion of “No Strings”
In the public debate over school choice, a wide range of perspectives has emerged. One notable position attempts to stake out the middle ground, acknowledging concerns from both proponents and opponents. This narrative encourages a cautious engagement with publicly funded education programs, such as Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and vouchers, as long as “no strings” are attached.
To some, this approach appears more reasonable than the staunch opposition of many homeschoolers and private schools. These groups reject government involvement due to deep distrust and a refusal to participate in any state-funded model. On the other end of the spectrum are those who have embraced full dependency—designing business models around constant government funding and surrendering autonomy and mission to Caesar, as if forcibly redistributing wealth through taxation were a God-ordained solution for Christian education.
The Middle Ground: Pragmatism or Compromise?
The middle-ground approach—accepting government funding while planning to exit when conditions shift—offers a form of pragmatism that avoids full commitment or total rejection. Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, articulated this position during my interview with him. It’s a calculated strategy: use the resources while they last, then step away when the cost becomes too high.
The Illusion of Temporary Use
But I’m skeptical this approach will hold. First, few organizations or individuals have the discipline to walk away once they’ve grown dependent on easy funding. Second, history tells us the strings are never truly absent—they’re simply hidden at first. We saw this in higher education, where regulatory controls were present from day one.
The borrower will always serve the lender—a truth that reveals the deeper spiritual danger of accepting civil funding. Once you accept the state as your provider, you also receive the strings of its authority, priorities, and constraints.
This tension between trusting in human provision versus divine provision is not new; it echoes warnings woven throughout Scripture, where God’s people repeatedly falter by placing their security in political powers.
Biblical Patterns of Misplaced Trust
Out of Egypt?
The Old Testament contains multiple accounts of God’s people aligning with the world’s ways over God’s ways. Consider two examples:
First, when Joseph gave his final words in Genesis 50:24–25 (ESV):
“And Joseph said to his brothers, ‘I am about to die, but God will visit you and bring you up out of this land to the land that he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.’ Then Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, ‘God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here.’”
Though Joseph left clear instructions anticipating Israel’s return to the Promised Land, the people remained in Egypt for generations. What began as a place of provision ultimately became a place of bondage. They multiplied and settled, but over time, comfort gave way to control, and their deliverance required God’s powerful intervention. Their descendants would later repeat this same error during their wilderness journey. In Numbers 14:4 (ESV), faced with the uncertainty of freedom, they cried, “And they said to one another, ‘Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt.’” The pull of security, even under oppression, can be stronger than the call to trust God’s provision.
“The pull of security, even under oppression, can be stronger than the call to trust God’s provision.”
Give Us a King
Second, when Israel demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8:10–18 (ESV), God, through the prophet Samuel, warned them of the heavy cost of placing their trust in political authority:
- He will take your sons to serve in his army (vv. 11–12)
- He will take your daughters to serve his courts (v. 13)
- He will seize your fields and vineyards (vv. 14–15)
- He will take your servants and livestock (vv. 16–17)
- You will cry out for relief, but the Lord will not answer (v. 18)
Still, the people insisted, choosing to be ruled “like all the nations” and rejecting God as their king. This example is a solemn warning: when God’s people entrust their well-being to civil government, the result is not liberty, but loss. The strings of authority always follow the coin of provision.
Just as Israel’s trust in worldly powers led to bondage, we see the same trajectory in modern education history.
History Repeats: From Higher Ed to Homeschool
Higher Ed’s Fall—And Homeschooling’s Warning
This same pattern is unfolding in Christian education. We’ve seen it before in the slow erosion of higher education. It began with the G.I. Bill, followed by Pell Grants, and then federally backed student loans. Each expansion of funding brought greater federal oversight and influence. The Department of Education gradually gained power to shape institutional policy and priorities.
Prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale, which were originally founded to train ministers and uphold Christian doctrine, have since become pillars of secular ideology. The spiritual cost of this shift is sobering. Today, only 37% of pastors hold a biblical worldview, according to Barna (“American Worldview Inventory” 2023).
The Slippery Slope: When Funding Replaces Faithfulness
“Whether visible or invisible, the strings will pull.”
What happened? Christian education traded dependence on sacrificial giving for reliance on taxation and government handouts. Government—not parents or churches—became the primary stakeholder. Even now, K–12 voucher programs are being promoted with comparisons to higher education models. Senator Lamar Alexander and former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have explicitly likened these programs to Pell Grants.
“Government funding doesn’t come with potential strings; it comes with inevitable ones.”
This isn’t just a debate about policy—it’s a battle over allegiance. Government funding doesn’t come with potential strings; it comes with inevitable ones. The moment you take Caesar’s coin, you accept Caesar’s crown. Whether visible or invisible, the strings will pull.
Yes, there are the obvious ones: testing mandates, data tracking, and accountability reports. But those aren’t the strings that should truly unsettle us.
It’s the strings you can’t see—the ones that wrap around your soul.
- The string that embeds the belief that civil government has a rightful role in forming the minds and hearts of our children. This isn’t just bad policy, it’s spiritual surrender. And once that belief takes root, it is painfully difficult to uproot.
- The string that cultivates envy, persuading us that our neighbor should bear the cost of our convictions. Even in a world already overburdened by taxation, it invites us to heap more weight on others—righteous cause in one hand, redistribution in the other.
- The string of covetousness, cloaked in calls for “equity,” that teaches us we’re entitled to whatever someone else has. But God’s Word warns that spirit is not justice; it’s theft in disguise.
This is not neutrality. It is not a harmless transaction. It is a slow, subtle exchange of lordship: God for government, freedom for funding.
“The strings of authority always follow the coin of provision.”
Conclusion: The Real Strings
The “no strings attached” fallacy—this so-called middle-ground approach—ignores the clear historical pattern established in the Old Testament and echoed throughout history: when God’s people trade His ways for the world’s ways, the consequences are always severe. As 1 Corinthians 3:19 (ESV) says, “For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness.’”
“No strings attached” is a flawed paradigm that overlooks the very real consequences of government intervention in higher education. The promise of public funding led to skyrocketing tuition, diluted academic standards, and over $2 trillion in student loan debt. It is a cautionary tale of good intentions yielding lasting damage.
Finally, the strings we should fear most are not the visible ones. The real danger lies in the philosophical assumptions, with serious legal consequences, that are quietly being embraced, often without question. The quiet assumption that civil government has the right—or worse, the duty—to tax your neighbor to shape your child’s mind is not a harmless concession. It is a surrender of authority. It trades self-government for state control, and spiritual formation for state-sanctioned ideology.
It took Israel over 400 years to escape Egypt.
Pray we don’t make the same mistake.
Enjoy more articles here.
Written by:
