One argument offered is that orienting homeschooling organizations toward Christianity dilutes the educational purpose of homeschooling. Another complaint is that there being separate "Christian" and secular (where religion is not a consideration) homeschooling organizations introduces disunity at a time when homeschoolers need to be united in the face of societal disapproval and legal or legislative opposition. Some complain that having separate "Christian" homeschooling organizations is contrary to the democratic vision of homeschooling. Probably the most emotive complaint is that "Christian" homeschooling organizations are "exclusive". The focus of this complaint varies, the term "exclusive" being ambiguous and flexible: sometimes against groups with statements of faith; sometimes about groups that permit only Christian leaders for the group; sometimes on the ubiquity of religious observances and discussions in Christian-oriented groups; sometimes on how the overall Christian emphasis puts off non-religious homeschoolers.

Before responding to each of these complaints, I want to mention something, though it may sound a little (or a lot) arrogant or dismissive. All of these complaints ignore basic American freedom (many other countries have similar freedoms). Homeschooling isn’t a union, professional association, or a club, with fixed rules and goals. Homeschooling parents are free to work out the specifics of their children’s education - methods, subjects taught, friendships and associations - individually and as a family, without reference to another homeschooler’s vision or philosophy. Whatever their religion or irreligion, teaching parents are free to include it or not in their children’s education. Teaching parents are also free to associate or not associate with other homeschoolers on whatever basis they choose. Many (if not most) homeschoolers do so to educate their children in freedom, in the manner they choose. How ironic that Christian homeschoolers are being criticized by some for simply exercising that freedom. This, Christian homeschooling parents’ freedom, is a sufficient response to their critics. More can and will be said, though.

Two of the criticisms noted above implicitly advocate the idea that there is a unitary, unified definition of homeschooling - vision and purpose:

Certainly, there have been writers and speakers who have inspired many homeschoolers - Charlotte Mason, John Holt, Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore, and Gregg Harris, to name a few. Doubtless, some homeschoolers, having just read this list, thought, "Why wasn’t ______ included?", or "Why did he include ______?" These reactions are a key to a response to these criticisms. Many who so criticize Christian homeschoolers have been inspired by a particular person’s (or persons’) philosophy of homeschooling. While pioneering advocates of homeschooling agree on the desirability of parents directly educating their children, they vary considerably as to purposes and methods. Homeschooling has become larger than the vision and purposes of any of its individual pioneers. Thus, the premises of the these two criticisms - dilution of purpose and being contrary to the vision of homeschooling - are invalid, invalidating the criticisms. The criticisms are an attempt to pressure homeschooling parents who left the public school educational paradigm into accepting the critics’ educational paradigm.

The criticism that the existence of Christian-oriented homeschooling organizations introduces disunity, weakening homeschoolers when they are faced with legal and social challenges doesn’t withstand the test of reality. The leaders of homeschooling organizations, whether secular, "inclusive","Christian", or other groups addressing special concerns, have shown themselves to be adults, well capable of recognizing and working together when there are common concerns. Homeschooling organizations and homeschoolers of diverse philosophies have worked together numerous times around the US for mutual support and advocacy when faced with legislative and legal challenges. When dealing with social challenges, such as hostile, inaccurate, news coverage, having multiple sources and varying viewpoints for responses may amplify the voice of homeschoolers. There is no reason to assume that organizational separation and having organizations that focus on special concerns will suddenly reverse this track record of cooperation when a need for cooperation arises in the future.

Probably the most emotionally charged criticism of Christian-oriented homeschooling organizations is that of "exclusion". As noted above, this criticism may focus on different specific issues. One focal point is on groups that require signing agreement to a statement of faith. If a group with such a requirement is Christian-oriented (i.e., not Muslim, Jewish, atheist, etc.), this certainly excludes people who aren’t Christians; a Muslim or Jewish group requiring agreement to a statement of faith would likewise exclude those who aren’t Muslims or of the Jewish faith. As mentioned earlier, this criticism seems to be selectively focused on Christian-oriented homeschooling organizations. Depending on the particulars of a "Christian" group’s statement of faith, it may exclude Christians who might be variously described as "Fundamentalists", "Evangelicals", "liberal", or "Catholic". Not all Christian oriented homeschooling organizations who have a statement of faith require signing agreement to it as a condition of membership. As for the objection to groups that only permit Christian leaders, why shouldn’t the organizers of the group have been free to organize it according to their vision for the group? Since many "Christian" support groups were founded to be ministries, this leadership requirement is an attempt to assure that future leaders will understand, value, and continue to work toward the founding vision. The words, "exclusion" or "exclusive" are used very peculiarly by many making this criticism. In addition to the already noted selective application, when some critics choose not to associate with Christians, an equivalent act of choice, the critics see no problem. These inconsistencies touch one of what I believe are two roots of this complaint. The inconsistent critics claim for themselves and non-Christians generally a right they are not willing to afford to Christians: they want to be free to choose, to "exclude", but don’t want Christians to be free not to choose, i.e. to "exclude", them. They use guilt trips (using "exclusive", "hurtful", and other emotionally charged adjectives) to manipulate Christians into not doing what they themselves freely do. The other root is hinted at by those who complain that the religious observances, discussions, and overall emphasis in Christian-oriented groups puts off non-religious homeschoolers, effectively excluding them. If one looks past the veneer of reasonableness in such complaints, one finds something very unpleasant. These criticisms indicate that some critics aren’t content to observe and walk away from people with whom they disagree. They have taken it upon themselves to condemn the people with whom they differ, using feigned pretexts. Specifically, they are trying to pressure and guilt-trip Christians into confining their Christianity to the insides of their own homes and church buildings. The plain, ugly, word for this is bigotry.

Freedom of association is available to all. If the critics of Christian-oriented homeschooling organizations were to use their creativity and energy in seeking or starting organizations suited to their philosophy and methods, they would find themselves much happier, and the homeschooling community would be all the stronger. When like-minded homeschoolers associate and/or organize around the life philosophies and homeschooling methods they prefer, they strengthen and support each other without imposing on (or being imposed on by) homeschoolers who are different. Homeschoolers of a mind to do so are likewise free to form eclectic groups, with members having mixed philosophies and methods - "inclusive" in current parlance. Please note that in using the term, "inclusive", I’m using common terminology, but reject the criticism implied by it. If a group isn’t "inclusive" (by whose standard?), isn’t it, by default, "exclusive"? Is there anyone whose toes I haven’t stepped on, yet? At the same time, groups organized around a common philosophy (homeschooling or religion) or method will avoid some of the potential conflicts or constraints that can arise in mixed groups. Whether the point of conflict is pro-life vs. pro-abortion, creation vs. evolution, Christianity vs. atheism, school-at-home vs. unschool, or ??, the conflict is either worked out or not. If it isn’t, the conflict will afflict the group - ongoing disputes, people leaving, splitting or dissolution of the group. If such conflicts are worked out, a likely byproduct will be constraints (probably increasing, as more conflicts arise and are worked out) within the group - do-not-discuss topics and activities. Depending on the variety of families in the group, the off-limits list could become extensive, creating an atmosphere of reticence and a maze of don’ts that may mystify newcomers. This will interfere with the support a support group is intended to provide. That "inclusive" groups can work, however, is obvious from their number, and the longevity of many. On the other hand, groups whose members share similar interests will, through that commonality, avoid many potential conflicts and address many special concerns.

Critics of Christian-oriented homeschooling organizations voice one concern which I share to some degree. There are in the US many small rural communities, where towns are fairly far apart and homeschoolers are relatively few. In such a context, if a support group(s) requires agreement to a statement of faith, and there is no alternative support group, this effectively isolates, at least locally, those individual homeschoolers who cannot sign the statement of faith. Certainly, in such a circumstance, from the viewpoint of the isolated homeschooler, such a support group has acted unkindly (though not necessarily intentionally). From the point of view of the local homeschooling community, the support group(s) may have acted unwisely. The homeschooling family who cannot join the group requiring a statement of faith need not remain isolated, however. They can still network with other local homeschoolers individually or as an ad hoc group. Of course, if an "isolated" homeschooler doesn’t want to associate with Christian homeschoolers, even as individuals, this homeschooler is self-isolated, and wouldn’t associate with the "Christian" support group either, with or without a statement of faith. No doubt, such networking, or the forming of a new support group, is more work than joining an existing group. But this has always been true, whether for the pioneers who formed the first homeschooling support groups in their area, or for those who started groups to support homeschoolers with needs and concerns that weren’t being met by existing support groups. Trying to manipulate a support group into changing the whole way it is organized may be an appealing idea to an homeschooler unable to join that support group, but I suspect such an homeschooler would feel differently were the shoe on the other foot.

Christian-oriented homeschooling organizations exist because they address special interests and concerns many Christians share, and avoid needless conflicts. Such groups are an exercise of freedom of association. Critics of Christian-oriented homeschooling organizations would find their energy and creativity better utilized, and their frustrations better assuaged were they to focus on finding or creating resources that satisfy their families’ needs and benefit other homeschoolers.