The Telos of Education

I think true education has as its goal the complete maturation and development of a person. So it will entail training for a job (even if that job is domestic work), for working is a part of who we are. It will teach us history, philosophy, and critical thinking because citizenship is another part of our identity. It will teach us the great stories of the past to help us understand who we are as humans. It will teach us the proper use of our bodies and help us to train them via good diet and exercise. It will teach us to recognize and love what is beautiful both in nature and in art. It will help us think logically via the use of math and science so that we may understand and develop the world God has made for His glory. It will train our souls to be kind, patient, self-controlled, etc. It will disciple us in terms of the Christian faith. There is more that could be said, but ultimately education will train us in excellence in every area of life. What should be done at home and what in the school or church? What can we accomplish in 13 years? What is appropriate for each age? How much should a given person learn of general principles before they specialize? These are the difficult questions that I don’t have good answers to

The Paradoxes of Christmas

When we think of Christmas most of us think about Santa and presents or even good food and family. As great as those things are, they are not the ultimate reason we celebrate. In Christmas we celebrate the wondrous mystery of the incarnation. Think for a minute about how amazing the Christmas story is. While other religions seek to find timeless truths outside of this world, at Christmas we celebrate the moment when Truth itself, in the person of Jesus Christ, came down and revealed Himself to us. The eternal became temporal when our everlasting and infinite God was born and entered time. The uncreated creator who spoke all things into existence became part of His creation. The omnipotent God that holds all of existence together became a helpless infant that needed to be nursed and burped, that spit up and needed His diapers changed. The God that knows all that can be known, that has in His Being wisdom that we cannot even begin to fathom or even imagine, stumbled and stuttered as He learned to walk and talk. Why? God’s love moved Him to suffer and die for us. On the cross Love Himself was hated, the Truth condemned, and the giver of all life died so that we could live. This is a mystery of great depth and power.

On Nationalism

Nationalism has a beleaguered reputation of late. What with “my country right or wrong” sentiments and National Socialism, this should come as no surprise. Nationalism has had its problems and we need to be aware and weary of them. However, when rejecting something it is important to ask what we are pursuing in its place. If we are moving beyond nationalism towards greater faith and participation in God’s Kingdom, then by all means let us be done with nationalism! But I fear this is not the case. Nationalism emerged to unite people of various “tribal” identities into a greater whole. If we are moving from nationalism back towards these rightfully discarded identities, then we are almost certainly foolishly devolving.

Why have moved we away from nationalism? Why are we embracing tribalism? What will the consequences be? The movement from nationalism towards tribalism can be best understood in reference to the acceptance of a post-modern mindset and understanding of the world. Contemporaneous with this embrace has been a loss of the understanding of the importance of foundational “myths,” namely the “myth” that America is a melting pot. In terms of consequences we should expect greater civil strife and the further centralization of power in the federal government.

Let us first examine the consequences of post-modernism. Post-modernism is a slippery term that lacks an agreed upon definition. In fact, many leading post-modern thinkers deny the mantle themselves! While there are many ways to define the meaning, when I refer to post-modernism I mean simply the idea that a subject (i.e. a person) can never be objective in evaluating an object (i.e. anything outside of him or herself). It follows from this belief that no one can ever truly know anything—i.e. there is no knowable truth.

Post-modern thinkers reject the idea that man has an immutable nature—to wit, that man is made in God’s image, but corrupted by his sinful condition. Given this people create their own identities—e.g. there is no gender by which anyone is bound so a man may choose to identify as a man, woman, or something completely different. This assumed and fluid identity of the subject is projected into all that he or she sees, hears, smells, tastes, or touches. It follows that each subject thereby sees every object differently and there can be no objective knowledge of any object. This belief is everywhere. For example, instead of stating that she would interpret the Constitution objectively, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor explicitly stated that her experience as a Latina would give her a fundamentally different perspective. How is that? She, having a different subjective identity, would project it onto the law (the object) differently than, for example, an Asian man.

Now this is not to say that historical or other contingencies don’t influence the way we perceive things. Our ethnicity, religion, historical era, philosophy, sex, etc.: all of these things influence how we see, or more accurately interpret, reality. But post-modern theorists think this influence is so great that we cannot, none of us, know reality.

The results of this theory are clear. If we cannot know things we cannot find agreement. If we cannot agree on anything, there cannot be any voluntary unity. The lack of voluntary unity in turns pulls us into anarchy. As anarchy grows we naturally fear it and seek something to hold us together. But if there is no truth to hold us together, all that remains is power—hence the precipitous growth of the federal government. To put it in simple terms, if kids won’t get along they need spankings. The more they are naughty, the more spankings the need. Likewise, the more we harm and hurt each other, rob one another, kill one another, divorce or defraud one another, the more “spankings.” The government in turn must needs grow to be able to deliver those blows.

Along with this, and developing congruently with the acceptance of a post-modern mindset, has been the rejection of one of America’s foundational “myths”: that America is a melting pot. I should first define what I mean by foundational myth. By foundational myth I do not mean a false or untrue story, rather I mean a fundamental story that explains the past, gives meaning to the present, and guides the future. Man cannot live without these myths because man cannot live without meaning. Destroy one set of myths and man will quickly create another to fill the vacuum. (For example, how quickly did the Jacobins move from their anti-clerical crusade to embracing the cult of reason!)

The melting pot myth never meant that all Americans were identical or that all would equally succeed. Rather it meant that no matter who you were or where you were from you could have a fresh start in the United States. There was opportunity here and if you worked hard and had bit of good luck, you could find success.

Was this completely true? Of course not! There has never been, nor will there ever be ,equal opportunity. This is because men are born unequal. The clever will always have an advantage over the simple, the hardworking over the idle, the strong over the weak, etc. To say that all men are equal is not to say that all will have equal opportunity, let alone that they will have equal outcome. Rather it means that men have equal value in the eyes of God and should therefore have equal opportunity before the law. In other words, there should be no aristocratic type privilege. The United States explicitly provided for this in its Constitution. As a result there followed the highest level of social mobility in the world. 

Yes all and well if you were a white male, critics might say. Equality before the law? Tell that to people of color or women! This critique is valid. Women to some degree, and African-Americans to a significant degree, were legally barred from full access to the American dream. Yet the genius of Western Civilization, of which America is a part, lies in this: its ability to critique itself and peacefully reform itself. It was not an internal uprising that gave women suffrage rights, it was peaceful and patient persuasion. It was not foreign invasion that buried Jim Crow, but a (largely) peaceful movement of non-violent resistance to unjust laws.

Critics are right in pointing out that the melting pot myth was never a perfect reality. But it is wrong to assume that something false in part is fully false and without value. The melting pot myth was in part true and, as time went on, it was becoming truer. Moreover, it was uniting people of diverse tongues, creeds, and backgrounds into a greater whole. As we debunk and reject it, it is not as if we are free from myth. Instead a new myth is filling the gap.

The myth we are embracing in place of the melting pot narrative is “tribalism.” By tribalism I don’t mean we are organizing ourselves like Celtic or Native American tribes, but rather that we are finding our identities in small, exclusive groups. These groups can be non-silly or harmless, e.g. I drive Chevys or I am a Packers fan. They can be focused around sexual identity or orientation, I am a cis-gender pansexual, around ethnicity, I am a wise Latina, or religion I am a Sikh.

So what’s the problem? Can’t a woman state that she is a woman, isn’t that obvious enough? Can’t an African-American be proud of his or her heritage? Of course! Nobody that believed in the melting pot ideal pretended not to see ethnicity or gender or to say that they didn’t matter. The claim, for example, to be colorblind was never meant to be taken literally, but rather to be seen as an ideal of how someone should live their life—i.e. to treat all men the same, no matter their contingent differences. (By contingent I mean “could have been otherwise.” For example, sex, age, ethnicity, height—all of these are contingent characteristics. I could have been a tall woman that lived 500 years ago in the Incan Empire and still have been human. Whereas I could not be without a body or without a rational mind and be human—I would have been an angel or animal instead.)

Why was the melting pot myth so great? The melting pot was an inclusive myth—it didn’t matter where you were from or what language you spoke at home, you could be a part of the American nation. Again, this ideal was never perfectly fulfilled, but it was and remains a noble ideal. One can have other identities, but these identities are secondary and subsumed into something that can unite us all. To put it another way, the American “story” was so great that it could fit all the individual “stories” of its immigrants, no matter their backgrounds. In America, every person could remain themselves while becoming a part of something transcendent.

On the contrary, the tribal narrative is exclusive. I will never be Asian. I will never be a Muslim, a woman, a transsexual, or a homosexual. If my primary identity is found in one of these contingent identities and there is nothing above or beyond these identities to give me a higher and deeper meaning, how can I be united with those outside my “tribe”? I can’t. And there will be an absolute breakdown of dialogue and understanding.

Think about how difficult it is to discuss controversial issues. On the one hand there is a constant invitation to dialogue, but once that dialogue begins it quickly becomes a one-sided lecture as participants say things like, how can you say I am wrong, you’ve never been a __________ and then proceed to identify themselves with their tribe. We see this all the time. How can you comment on abortion, you are a male and will never be pregnant! You’re white and don’t know what it is like to worry about getting shot by the police, so shut your mouth about police shootings! You get the idea.

Sentiments like this would have been incomprehensible to anyone living at any period in the past. A person in the past would have responded to the effect, yes I have my contingent characteristics and you have yours, but we are both rational animals made in the image of God and as such there is infinitely more that unites us than separates us. Certainly as rational men we can discuss this profitably. But our worldview prevents us from having this type of rational discussion. Instead we fall into the ad hominem fallacy and disqualify one another based on who we or they are. Well, you are X so of course you think that! You could never understand this issue, only Y can understand it!

For the last 30 years students in universities have been told how important ethnicity and gender are. Instead of being told that in America they can join something great without losing their individuality, they have been told that the melting pot myth destroys their individuality and that it is natural and desirable for them to self-segregate in order to preserve their various tribal identities.

But ideas have consequences! We should not be surprised when people, like those in the emerging alt-right, take those ideas seriously and act in accordance to their ideology. When you tell people that they are fundamentally different and that these differences are essential, as opposed to contingent, you will create division. You can tell people all you want to embrace “tolerance,” but the fact is when people feel separated they don’t feel equal to the “others.” Rather, given their sinful condition people will always feel superior than those that are fundamentally different and separate than them. (Herodotus noticed this 2,400 years ago!) That is when men formed nations—they wanted to unite with their neighbors in an attempt to destroy notions of superiority and the problems that come with it.

So what is the consequence of the loss of nationalism? In a word: death—the death of our republic. Every republic and democracy, every government in which men have fundamental individual rights, has only been able to maintain its liberty so long as some higher identity held its citizens together. Rome was able to expand in Italy throughout a number of diverse tribes because they exported, and people bought into, an idea of “Romaness.” Romaness, in essence, was the idea that no matter who you were or where you were from you could be part of Rome if you embraced certain ideas. As Rome began to splinter along class lines so too did its liberties diminish. Rome endured for centuries, but as an empire devoid of political liberty. As people moved away from a myth that united them they embraced myths that divided them. As a result they could no longer freely unite and strongmen had to unite them on the bases of fear and power.

I fear the same is in store for Americans. Nations arose because civil strife and unrest is unbearable.  If we cannot find a unity to rally around and voluntarily united with one another, only law and its consequences will unite us. As our ideologies further converge and the ties that bind us continue to disintegrate, our laws will have to become more invasive and harsh to hold us together. As a result, we will lose much of the liberty we once had and held dear.

We need to be drawn out of ourselves into something higher. Ideally it would be Christ’s Kingdom, but short of that we are far better off uniting our tribes into a nation than living in the anarchy that tribalism produces. Are there problems left for us to deal with as a nation? Yes, and there will always be. But they must be dealt with from within, not without. Burning flags or kneeling during anthems signifies a rejection and abandonment of the nation. People can never reform what they are destroying. Fixing this country can only be done by those that first accept it and love it. Nationalism is imperfect and will someday be replaced by something even higher and transcendent. But until that happens we should be hesitant to bury what has up until now been the greatest protector of individual rights and the greatest provider and protector of prosperity and political freedom.

Evangelicals and Trump

It does concern me that Christians are so tightly connected with the Republican Party. I think as Christians we need to keep our independence. And I think a lot of Christians have done a good job of this. Russell Moore definitely fits in this camp. He is a conservative (I think at least) but a man of very high character and principle and a man trying to bring attention to issues conservatives generally overlook.

Maybe it’s just the bubble I live in, but I don’t know anyone and haven’t read anyone that thinks Trump is God’s anointed. I regularly read Michael B. Dougherty and Ross Douthat (both conservative Catholics) as well as Niall Ferguson (a conservative atheist) and all endorsed Clinton. Jonah Goldberg, Yuval Levin, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray—all these conservatives and many more were Never Trumpers. Regarding my friends, every Christian I talked to my age or younger (admittedly it was only a few) voted 3rd party. The fact is there were a lot of religious people that didn’t support him.

From what I read in the New York Times, of all the contingents in the Republican coalition Trump’s lowest support during the primaries was among church going evangelicals. Ironically (or maybe predictably?) Trump's support was highest support was among people that consider themselves evangelical but don’t attend church. In other words, it was nominal/cultural Christians that paved the way for Trump’s nomination, not legitimate Christians. Now did most Christians end up supporting him in the general election? Of the 50% or so that bothered to vote, yes. But most did so while holding their noses. Even Michael Moore, no friend of conservatives, recently said that Trump supporters are by and large good people that dislike Trump but see no other viable option.

I think it is fair to debate who was the better choice, but I don’t think this was in any way an easy election, especially for Christians. Civil cases against religious speech and practice are up 125% over the last two years! Abortion, same-sex marriage (and the pressure on businesses to support it), transgender bathroom issues—Christians have lost the culture war and there is a sense that their liberties are under attack. When the CEO of a major company (Mozilla) can lose his over a political opinion, when the mayor of the 3rd biggest city in America (Houston) subpoenas pastors sermons, California is moving to consider all churches public spaces and thereby force them to open bathrooms to both sexes, and the fire chief of Atlanta lose his job for what he said outside of work at his church, who feels safe? And when these attacks, and many more, are all coming from one political persuasion it is tough for me to lend it my support.

Now we can disagree whether or not it is a sin to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage wedding—I personally don’t think it is—but the idea of living in a country where the government has the power to force a person to act against their conscience is terrifying. Think about it. Do we really want a government that says, I know you feel like this is wrong, but if you don’t do it I will put you in jail? If there is one liberty that our country was founded on it was the freedom of conscience. This is because the early settlers recognized that freedom of conscience is fundamental to any meaningful right or liberty.  Now it has been members of the Democratic Party (or their allies) that have been in the forefront of the attack against conscience in the name of LGBTQ or other non-discriminatory rights. I know Republicans use Christian conservatives and never follow through with their promises. But who am I going to vote for? The party that says they are sympathetic towards me and fails to follow through? Or the one that has Lena Dunham and Samantha Bee and a host of like-minded people in its ranks that all think that everything that I believe is ridiculous and dangerous and has no qualms of mocking me and fellow Christians? Ten years ago the Democratic Party made a push for evangelicals, was more moderate in its platform, and allowed more deviation from the party line. They’ve moved so militantly to the left in some of these social issues that it is hard for me to support a party whose social policies would undoubtedly violate what I take to be absolute and fundamental freedoms. If the government wants to allow same-sex marriage, fine. But it should not force those that think this is wrong to participate. And if the Democratic Party wants my vote, they shouldn’t call me bigoted or mock me for being on “the wrong side of history” because I believe and follow the teachings in the Bible. I could have supported Bill Clinton in the 1990s or even Hillary 8 years ago, but the party has moved too far to the left in these social issues. So far to the left that I will reluctantly and mournfully vote for a man to run the country that I wouldn’t trust to run my school. It is not a place I wish I was in, but it is the state of politics as I see them.

There isn’t a clear or easy path. To say that Trump is God’s anointed or whatever is blaspheme in my opinion. But to say that Clinton is clearly better I don’t think is true either. It is true that Trump lacks character, but so have many other presidents! FDR died in the arms of his mistress and JFK was the Charlie Sheen of his age! This doesn't excuse them or Trump, but we’ve survived disreputable men before and God willing we’ll survive Trump too.

Politics is messy. I think Christians should not and cannot let it divide us. I think we also need to find places that we agree on, things like the sanctity of life, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, policies that help families form instead of policies that put stress on the family, etc. and try to move both parties towards these. Until they move we need to pray and think and talk to try to figure out the best way to engage.

Thoughts on President Trump

How do I feel about Donald Trump being the next President of the United States of America?

I would say that I am cautiously optimistic. By that I mean I am hopeful that good will come out of this, but I am not expecting good to come out of this.

I think the doom and gloom, sky is falling view is just plain silly—I thought the same was silly when conservatives overreacted to Obama’s election and reelection (he’s a socialist, he hates America etc.) Likewise, I thought and think the “YES WE CAN!” type of optimism is misguided and foolhardy. People expect too much from politics and are therefore unduly enthusiastic or fearful. God is sovereign. Period. This alone should cause us as Christians to temper our responses to any advance or set back. (I think this is a great article that puts things in perspective.)

As much as I dislike and distrust Trump, I think Clinton would have made a worse President. She is for more or less unrestricted access to abortion in the United States, wants to help fund and spread abortion abroad, was the favored candidate of Wall Street, and is arguably the most corrupt politician of our generation. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is an obscene and vulgar, self-centered egoists. I have no illusions about him. Nonetheless I think Clinton is worse.

Likewise, I think Clinton’s foreign policy would have been a disaster. She was unnecessarily heating up rhetoric against Russia (though Trump is too cozy with Russia—can’t anyone hit the virtuous middle!)The Obama foreign policy in the Middle East was a disaster. More people have been killed in the Middle East under the Obama presidency than the Bush presidency—isn’t that a crazy statistic! I was talking to a friend that lives in the Middle East about the election. She is well informed and told me that Clinton is far less popular than Trump. She said Clinton has had so many corrupt dealings in the region that people distrust and dislike her and prefer Trump, whom they see as a wildcard. I found this unbelievable—that, in her opinion, the Arab/Muslim world prefers Trump! She went on to say that right now the United States is currently bombing seven (!) countries: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia. She regularly sees refugees and meets people whose homes and lives have been destroyed. Bush began this policy bu Clinton expanded it during her tenure as Obama’s Secretary of State. The expectation of Arab-Muslims was that if Clinton was elected, this policy would continue whereas Trump is likely to pull out of the region (which is what they desire). Given that Trump is a populist and populists rarely in engage in foreign wars, I think they are probably right.

Why did Trump win?

I think Trump won because he paid attention to the breakdownof order in rural communities that both parties have ignored. Poverty is up, suicide is up, drug use is way up as is divorce—I don’t think Trump is going to fix these problems, but referring to these people as a “basket of deplorables” (as Clinton did) or telling them they are “privileged” and just need to get over themselves isn’t going to help.

The fact is globalization has led to a massive increase of wealth. (By globalization I mean the free movement of people, goods, and capitol—i.e. immigration, trade, and foreign investment.) But this increase of wealth has been concentrated. For example, in the early 1990s 50% of our economic growth was spread out over about 300 cities; today about 50% of our economic growth is concentrated in about 20 cities! Of all the growth over the past 40 years, virtually none has trickled down into the middle and working classes—their wages are stagnant. Instead that growth has been concentrated in the upper class that mainly resides on the coasts. I think Trump as well as Sanders recognized this problem and that was their draw. Think about it: each talked about immigration, our trade deals, and bringing jobs back (which is an issue of foreign investment). They recognize a problem, I just don’t think either has good solutions.

I know a lot of people are trying to chalk this up to racism or sexism—that this was a reaction to black President or that men can’t handle the idea of a woman in charge. I don’t think that holds. First, I think racists would have been more mobilized against a black man than a white woman! Per the New York Times, more African-Americans and Latinos voted for Trump than voted for Romney. What is more, Trump carried a number of white, rural areas that Obama carried twice. Likewise, around 43% of women voted for Trump. These people want change. They didn’t get the change they wanted with Obama, so they voted for another candidate that said he would bring change.

Trump won because he ran as an outsider. The recovery from the recession has been very concentrated—there is a desire for change in areas that haven’t yet recovered. You don’t run an establishment candidate in a year where people want change! Had Sanders run, I believe he would have walked away with this election. Clinton was the wrong candidate. What is more, she was a weak candidate.

I saw one exit poll from Wisconsin wherein 63% of respondents viewed Trump unfavorably. Yet over 20% of these people voted for him! That high of an unfavorable rating should have sunk Trump. It didn’t because as much as people disliked Trump they disliked Clinton more. Further proof of this is the fact that Trump received 3 million fewer votes than Romney and still won (this despite the fact that our population grew!). Disgusted with both candidates, millions of people that generally vote stayed home and about 5% of people voted for a third party when no major third party candidate ran! This is not a case of a bunch of bigots champing at the bit to elect some misogynist, white supremacist (though some may have voted for these reasons), but a by and large disgusted America choosing what they took to be the lesser of two evils.

Ultimately American politics are always volatile. In the last century the Democrats have only once held the presidency for more than 8 years (with FDR and Truman); the Republicans have only held it once for more than 8 years (Reagan and Bush). So this was almost to be expected.

So what does the future hold? I don’t know! A lot of the hopes I had for an Obama presidency (e.g. greater racial healing, greater peace in the Middle East) didn’t happen. I suspect that many fears of a Trump presidency are likewise misguided.

Ultimately God is sovereign. I am not sure if this election is a part of God’s judgment; it might be. It also could turn out to be a blessing—Trump doesn’t care what other people think, which gives him the potential to be a truly great and effective leader. We can’t judge that now.

Let me end with a story to illustrate what I mean.  

There was once a poor old man with only one horse. Now this horse was beautiful and strong and highly prized. A nobleman offered the old man great riches for his horse, but the old man declined. Within a couple of days the horse went missing. When the townspeople heard about this they mocked the old man. “You old fool, don’t you realize what you’ve done! Your horse has been stolen. You could have had great riches, now you will die poor. What a great misfortune!” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

A few weeks later the horse returned and brought with it a whole herd of horses. The old man rounded them up and put them in his pen. When the townspeople heard about this they lavished their praise upon the old man. “How fortunate you are! You are wealthy beyond measure! This is surely a gift from heaven!” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

Later that month as his son began to break the horses he fell and broke his leg. When the townspeople heard of this they returned to the old man’s house and once again mocked him. “Unfortunate man, cursed by the gods! Surely this is a sign of their disfavor. Your son will never walk again and you and he will die in poverty.” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

Early the next month war broke out with a neighboring kingdom. The local baron rounded up every man of fighting age and ability. On his way to the front lines his army was ambushed and routed—not a man returned home. The old man’s son, with his hurt leg, was spared conscription and thereby was the only young man to survive the massacre. When the townspeople heard about this they came to the old man and once again praised him. “Old man, you are truly blessed! You alone of all of us have your son to keep you company in your old age. How we envy your great luck!” The old man replied, “That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.”

-God is active in our affairs, but it is impossible to judge what He is doing and why He is doing it—His plans are far too complex for any of us to completely grasp. Why is Trump President? What will come out of this? That this has happened is all that I know. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, only time will tell.

Every unexpected event is an opportunity to deepen our trust in God. Don’t miss this opportunity. 

The End of Desire

“Whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst.”

Every man from the moment of his birth is full of desire—humans want warmth, to be held, to slake their thirst and appetite. As we grow older our desires become more complex: we desire recognition, security of position; we desire romantic love and acceptance; we desire a good name. Given our sinful condition our desires often become corrupt and perverse and frustrate our goals and the goals of others. The desire of wealth devolves into avarice and leads to hoarding that destroys wealth creation; the headlong and promiscuous pursuit of love destroys the stability and commitment upon which true love is built.

Be that as it may, desire in and of itself is not bad. Humanity would long have been extinct had it not been for mankind’s natural sexual urge. What progress would we have without the desire to learn and know? It is not desire that is evil, but disordered desire. Desire in itself, when morally and temperately pursued, can lead us to the End of all desire. This is not to say a man will cease wanting new things. Rather there is a purpose, a final goal, that drives all of our desires, but that is not found in the desire itself. This great mover is above and behind all desire, driving desire beyond itself towards its true and ultimate purpose.  

Nearly all our desires correspond to an earthly consummation. For example, we hunger, there is food; we tire, there is rest; we desire to know and be known, there is family and community. Yet as C. S. Lewis pointed out, there remains a desire greater and beyond all desires that nothing on earth can satisfy. Given that all our other desires correspond to means of consummation it is only logical to reason that this desire too has a means of consummation. Since that consummation cannot be found in this earth we may infer that it can be found outside our world. Now, desire alone does not prove satisfaction—a hungry man may die of starvation. But hunger does prove that we are beings that require food to survive.

Our ultimate desire, the desire behind all other desires, is our desire for God. This desire does not prove that we will obtain God, but it is good proof that we are made to know and be known by God. 

Lacking connection with God we turn to pale idols, weak imitations of what can only be found truly in Him. Lacking security in Him we seek security in money; lacking acceptance in Him we vainly seek it in the approval of our peers or in the romantic embrace of another. These idols, being dumb and mute, can never satisfy our longings for the infinite and eternal.

A great example of their failure is seen in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. The title character makes the pursuit of a woman the center of his life. His love for her is obsessive and grand, extending high above and beyond the typical bonds of romantic love. When Gatsby finally is united with the object of his passion and obtains all he has been longing after, he is still left unsatisfied. “There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams—not through her own fault but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion. It had gone beyond her, beyond everything.” Gatsby looked to a finite human to quench his longing for the infinite. The object of his desire broke his heart and left him broken and alone at the time of his death.

St. Augustine, like Gatsby, was a man of desire. Augustine too desired the love of women; he too desired to make himself great. But unlike Gatsby Augustine turned from these false pursuits and turned towards God. As he himself prayed to God, “You make us for yourself, and nothing else will do. Our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Recognizing Christ as the ultimate fulfillment of every noble and good desire freed Augustine to rightly enjoy the things of this world. Following Christ does not mean hating all things, as Augustine discovered, but rather thanking God for all things and enjoying all things in God.

Without God, our enjoyment of things can never be temperate. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, “All men need love. When deprived of true love men must needs turn to false love.” Without God we will always be tempted to expect too much from the things of this world and give to these created things the devotion merited only by their Creator.

The love of earthly things apart from God can only make a man wretched. If in this place a man is willing to admit his wretchedness and seek his happiness elsewhere, God in His grace will often lead him to Himself as He did with Augustine. If, however, the man doubles down and seeks to find his happiness in created things he will not find God and not overcome his wretchedness.

Pascal said there are there three types of people: those that seek and are happy that they find, those that seek and will find, but are unhappy until they find, and those that don’t seek and remain blind to their inevitable and eternal unhappiness.

Our unrequited desires will lead to unhappiness on this earth. While earthbound even the greatest saints long for deeper intimacy with God—this intimacy will only be found in Heaven. This frustration need not be in vain. The purpose of desire and its inevitable earthly frustration is to lead us to seek things beyond the world. If it leads us to seek God, we will have moments of frustration still, but insignificant will they be in light of the glory and beautification that will be ours as we know and love and enjoy our Maker and Redeemer for all eternity. 

The Worldliness, Death, and Salvation of Ivan Ilyich

“There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.”

Many men, blinded by sin and selfishness, recognize this truth tragically too late. Death is our great curse, the penalty of our rebellion against God. Yet God’s redemptive power is greater than our sin. The greatest sin in man’s history was deicide—our God and creator, the maker and sustainer of the universe entered His creation and we murdered Him. God took this unimaginably wicked sin and used it to undo the curse, to free us from sin and the clutches of the devil, and to bring us into a place of new life. God’s redemption is greater than even our greatest sin.

God does not just redeem our sins; in His power He is capable of redeeming even the just consequences of our disobedience. In The Death of Ivan Ilyich Leo Tolstoy shows how God redeems the death of a foolish and worldly man, using the penalty of his sin to free him from sin.

“Ivan Ilyich’s life had been most simple and commonplace—and most horrifying.” Ivan is like most men and most men are worldly, self-indulgent, selfish, and sinful—to live a commonplace life in our fallen world is to life a life apart from Christ, a life that can only end in death and damnation. It is to live, in a word, a horrifying life.

Throughout his life Ivan pursued all that which is easy and pleasant. This keeps him from real relationships with people. He diminishes his wife to a cook, house-cleaner, and partner in bed. She, being a living and breathing woman, is both unwilling and incapable of being reduced to this role. As a human being with free volition she interferes with his pleasant life. For this reason he makes his work the center of his life. Ivan’s work is a place where he can easily abstract himself from himself and live his life passively. He does this by focusing on the tasks at hand while ignoring their significance and the people that his decisions affect.

Ivan’s selfish and shallow approach to life is best embodied in his love of cards. Whist is his central pursuit and consumes the majority of his free time. Why does Ivan love it so much? It is pleasant and it requires nothing of him. 

The faults of Ivan are obvious to most readers, but Ivan is completely blind to them. Everything he does is approved of by those in his society so he has no reason to doubt their morality. Ivan is attracted to man’s approval like a moth to light. When a moth attains its object and reaches the flame it loses its life. In the same way, when society is worldly attaining society’s approval can only come at the cost of losing one’s soul. This is the situation that Ivan is in when his health begins to deteriorate: he has gained the world, but has forfeited his soul.

While Ivan is healthy it is easy for him to ignore the fact that he is in a state of sin and damnation. But illness soon makes him confront his mortality and the way he has lived his life.

While he was healthy cards were his greatest care and pleasure. At one point during his illness he misplayed a trick and lost a hand. This would have been bad enough, but Ivan soon realizes that this doesn’t even bother him. After all, what is one lost trick when one is confronting death? This realization terrifies him.

In the same way, when healthy Ivan was able to abstract himself from his job and his family. When he contemplates his death Ivan realizes he is more than an abstraction. “Caius is a man, men are mortal, therefore Caius is mortal” may be a valid syllogism, but Ivan is more than a syllogism! He is a man with a past, a man with hopes, a man with pain and joy, a man that has loved and been loved—surely his existence cannot be reduced to this cold, hard fact of logic! In order to maximize his tranquility Ivan has been striving to abstract himself from his life. Ironically, in contemplating his death, Ivan comes to realize that he is more than a mere abstraction.

The growing pain that Ivan experiences begins to lead him to question more aspects of his life, but the approval of his fellow man prevents him from discovering the truth. “‘Perhaps I did not live as I should have,’ it suddenly occurred to him. ‘But how could that be when I did everything one is supposed to?’ he replied and immediately dismissed the one solution to the whole enigma of life and death, considering it utterly impossible.” Ivan’s failure to admit his faults keeps him from entering new life. He cannot discover the real purpose of life before admitting that he has been chasing a false purpose; he cannot have forgiveness without first admitting that he is wrong.

On the last day Ivan of his life Ivan finally admits that he had not lived how he ought to have lived. For a while this fills him with fear—he has lived wrong and there is now no time to make amends and live as he ought to live! This despair is graciously short lived. As Ivan seeks truth he quickly finds it. “Yes, all of it was simply not the real thing. But no matter. I can still make it the real thing—I can.”

What is the real thing? It is not found in religious observation. When Ivan receives last rites he immediately declares this is “Not the real thing.” He has a vague sense that the “real thing” has to do with following his conscience and that he ought not have suppressed a natural goodness that he used to have. But the question remains, how can he retrieve that?

It is only when his son kisses his hand that Ivan finds the real thing. What is the “real thing”? It is love—specifically gracious love given to a sinner in spite of his sin. Receiving this unmerited love transforms and regenerates Ivan. He goes from hating his wife to pitying and forgiving her. Instead of clinging to his life for his sake he seeks to die for the sake of others. And his fear of death? “What death? There was no fear because there was no death. Instead of death there was light.”

Death, that which brings an end to life, is used by God to bring life to Ivan. Facing his death forces Ivan to reevaluate his life and admit that his life was not a real life. After he concedes this he is able to enter into true life by means of his death.

In The Death of Ivan Ilyich we see the mystery of redemption and the power of God to redeem the worst of things and the most foolish of men. This work should challenge us to see ourselves in Ivan and examine the unexamined parts of our life. It is appointed unto every man to die. Any fool can see this in the face of death; a wise man will contemplate it when he is brimming with health. Am I living as I ought to live? On what basis do I even answer that question? Am I basing my righteousness on that of Jesus Christ or the applause of my peers? Have I repented of my vain and sinful pursuits? Life is waiting for us, but we can only enter it by dying to ourselves. Reading this novella should lead us to seek our life in Christ now and not wait until it is too late.

Unpacking the Gospel Message in Crime and Punishment

In Crime and Punishment Fyodor Dostoevsky masterfully probed the psychology of a murderer. Much ink has been spilt discussing Dostoevsky’s theories as to why men commit crime, the consequences of revolutionary philosophy, and the connection between crime and madness. These are all interesting questions to discuss and pursue, but none reaches the heart of this novel. At the heart of Crime and Punishment is a demonstration of the power and beauty of the Christian Gospel to transform and redeem a life . . . and the consequences that follow when men reject the Gospel.

To briefly recap the plot of this novel. The protagonist, Raskolnikov, comes to believe that he is a “superior man” and as such has the moral duty to shed blood so that he may socially advance and thereby help mankind progress. He tests his theory by killing a pawnbroker; to cover up this murder he is compelled to kill her sister as well. He loses his head in the midst of his crime and it is luck, not criminal cunning, that helps him escape. The crime drives Raskolnikov to madness. All the while he plays a cat and mouse game with a police detective that attempts to convince him that it is in the best interest of his soul to confess. Finally, due to a combination of mental exhaustion and the encouragement of a young lady, Sonia, Raskolnikov confesses. He is sentenced to hard labor in Siberia where he eventually fully repents and finds salvation.

It is an intriguing and compelling story, but for Christians it is more than that. Though the Gospel message isn’t immediately apparent, there are a number of Gospel Truths, latently strewn throughout this work. Reading the work with these truths in mind can help us to both share and grow in our faith.

To begin with, Dostoevsky does a peerless job of characterizing the consequences of sin. When discussing his crime Raskolnikov cries out “Did I murder the old woman? I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once for all, for ever.” He may have destroyed her body, but he destroyed his soul that fateful day.

In criticizing Sonia Raskolnikov sneers “your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing.” This truth could be justly applied to his crime. Raskolnikov has lost his soul, lost himself, and in return he has nothing. That is cold, stark truth about the nature of sin.

Throughout the story Raskolnikov is repeatedly connected with Lazarus. Lazarus was dead, but the power of God brought him back to full life. Can the same happen to Raskolnikov? Before bringing his protagonist to salvation and new life Dostoevsky compares him with two other characters that for various reasons fail to attain salvation: Katerina Ivanovna and Svidrigailov.

Katerina shares two similarities with Raskolnikov, she is proud, yet she too is a recipient of the unmerited love of Sonia. Her pride is often portrayed comically, yet it is fraught with tragic consequences. As her husband lies on his deathbed the injury his failures did to her pride prevents her from forgiving him. In fact, she goes so far as to celebrate his death. “And thank God he’s dying! One less to keep!”

This same pride prevents her from receiving forgiveness. In the moments leading up to her death she is encouraged to repent. Blinded by her pride she responds “I have no sins. God must forgive me without [the confession of my sins]. . . . And if He won’t forgive me, I don’t care!”

Sonia acts as foil to Katerina. Sonia, forced into prostitution by her father, forgives him and embraces him at the moment of his death. What is more, Sonia loves, forgives, and even defends Katerina even though Katerina beats her. Instead of worrying about her rights, Sonia loves and forgives those who wrong her the most. This love could have served as an example and inspiration to Katerina, as it did Raskolnikov, but in her pride Katerina rejects it.

Svidrigailov is the second character that Dostoevsky contrasts with Raskolnikov. On the face of it Svidrigailov is the “superior man” that Raskolnikov wants to be. While murder overwhelms Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov seems capable of killing without the slightest moral qualm. He is unmoved by the censures of his fellow man and seems to live a life “beyond good and evil.”

Yet when the guilt of his past actions catch up with him, he ends his life quite differently than Raskolnikov. While Raskolnikov finds peace and forgiveness Svidrigailov ultimately takes his life in despair. Why the difference in outcomes? Raskolnikov finds unmerited love in Sonia. This gracious love transforms him. Svidrigailov seeks in vain for this same love in Dounia. When it is finally and irrevocably denied him, he is left in sin with no hope of redemption. In this state of permanent hopeless he has no other option but to end his pain and guilt by destroying himself.

Raskolnikov shares similarities with both of these characters. He, like Katerina, is filled with a delusional pride—after all, he initially thinks he is some type of Napoleon! Like Svidrigailov he longs to be beyond good and evil. But unlike either he finds light and life, hope and salvation. How? In a word, Sonia.

Sonia in person embodies the gracious, unconditional love of God. She loves Raskolnikov wholly and fully, without regard to what he says or does, in spite of what he does! After finding out that it is he and no other that has murdered her friend Lizaveta, Sonia embraces and comforts him. “‘What have you done—what have you done to yourself?’ she said in despair, and, jumping up, she flung herself on his neck, threw her arms round him, and held him tightly.” She at once recognizes both the nature and consequence of his sin and this fills her heart with pity.

Raskolnikov, for his part, initially rejects her gracious love, refusing to admit any wrongdoing. “I’ve only killed a louse, Sonia, a useless, loathsome, harmful creature.” In response to this Sonia tells him that he must confess his sin. If he does this then “God will send you life again.” She promises to follow him to Siberia and to bear his punishment with him.

Raskolnikov confesses to the police more out of ennui than Godly sorrow. He is sentenced to hard labor, but remains proud and unbroken. After nearly a year after his crime, he breaks down and receives Sonia’s love, weeping while embracing her knees. This is the moment in which he experiences “a full resurrection into new life.” In case we missed the significance of this, Dostoevsky went on to write that this ushered him into a new story, “the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life.”

There is much to learn from this tale. We can clearly see the nature of sin and the death it brings sinners in the suffering of Raskolnikov. We see some that are offered gracious love and salvation, like Katerina, that in pride reject it. We see others, like Svidrigailov, that search in vain for redemption, fail to find it, and end life in bitter despair.

Ultimately we see that salvation is a function of grace. Raskolnikov does not deserve to be saved! He committed double premeditated murder. He did not murder out of need, but in the pride that he was above the rules and expectations of the common man. Raskolnikov initially sneers at the gracious love of Sonia and mocks her faith. He refuses time and time again the offer of her love and her request that he admit his guilt. But ultimately, in a process mysterious even to him, he repents and finds love, and in love, new life.

Those of us in Christ can ask like questions: why did we turn to Christ? Why did we turn to Him when others in similar situations turned from Him? Why did we repent when we did and not earlier or later? These are mysterious questions. For Dostoevsky they are questions that cannot be answered for our salvation lies not in a theory, but in gracious love, freely offered us. Accepting this love brings life; in refusing this love we will forever remain in the state of death that our sins create.

What is Christian Education?

Christian schools provide children with a Christian education. What does that mean? While there are many other things we could include, it is possible to reduce the essence of Christian education to three essential aims.

1. The ultimate goal of Christian education is that children will know the Truth. This should be the goal of every school, but many are ignorant of or in rebellion against the Truth. Christian schools recognize and proclaim that the fullest revelation of Truth is found in Jesus Christ and we seek to help our children accept this Truth in faith.
2. We train our students to view everything in relation to the Truth. This is not to say that Christian school students only read Christian books; they don’t. We don’t shelter our students from bad or false things, rather we help them to understand these things in light of who God is and who He has made them to be.
3. We seek to foster an environment where kids are encouraged to walk and grow in Godliness. Christian schools do this by hiring teachers that are examples of wisdom and virtue worthy to be imitated. What is more we hold kids accountable when they begin to stray from the narrow path.  

To put it succinctly, being a Christian school means we want our kids to know God, to see the world from His perspective, and to live their lives in obedience to Him. Everything we do, from who we hire to the various curricula we use, is done in an attempt to further this goal.

What is Classical Education?

Classical education has been growing in popularity over the past few decades both in the founding of new schools and in homeschooling. Despite this a lot of people don’t know what classical education consists of.

So what exactly is classical education? In short, classical education is a tried-and-true pedagogical approach that doesn't just teach children what to think, but rather teaches them how to think. A core goal in a classical education is to instill within students a desire to learn and to equip them with the tools they will need to be lifelong learners. One of the central ways in which classical schools equip students is by following the trivium.

Trivium. In following the trivium classical schools divide learning into three stages: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. During the grammar stage students learn the fundamental facts and principles of the various disciplines (e.g. multiplication, spelling, etc.). During the logic stage students learn to question and critically examine facts and information. During the rhetoric stage students learn how to communicate all that they have learned clearly and winsomely. These three stages mirror the natural development of children, which allows students to learn with greater ease and effectiveness.

Other hallmarks of Classical education include the use of the Socratic Method in classrooms, a focus on Western Civilization and the Great Books, the study of Latin, and high expectations for students.

The Socratic Method. The goal of the Socratic Method is to help students discover answers themselves as opposed to being fed answers by the teacher. The Socratic Method fosters discussion and the ability to draw clear distinctions as students work through difficult and engaging questions.

A focus on Western Civilization. Not that Western Civilization is better or worse than any other civilization, but as Americans it is our civilization. One needs to understand one's own culture and history in order to understand oneself. Likewise, one needs to understand one’s own culture before one can understand another culture. Knowing our heritage is particularly important given that we as Americans live in a country where we have the right to elect officials and influence policy. If we don’t know why we do what we do, it is easy to disregard good things or to try things that have already been proven to be failures or worse.

A focus on the Great Books. Classical students learn science and math, but the goal is to help them be mature men and women of character, not dutiful worker bees successful enough to purchase lots of consumable goods. For that reason classical schools give equal weight to the humanities instead of narrowing their focus to applied science and mathematics like most conventional schools. In our teaching of the humanities we read classic texts in place of textbooks. For example, instead of reading a text on the philosophy of Plato, students read Plato himself; instead of reading a modern professor describe ancient Rome, students read Livy and Plutarch. This is not a new approach, but rather an old one. Like centuries of students before them, our students read the texts that form the backbone of Western Civilization and Culture.

Latin. Classical students study Latin and often Greek. This helps them to dive deeper in their understanding of Classical Cultures; it also helps them to better understand the Bible and early Christian Theology. Moreover, having a foundation in Latin helps students to learn English grammar. It may be surprising, but in the past English grammar was often taught using Latin. Likewise, an understanding of Latin equips students to be able to quickly learn other languages.

High expectations. Classical schools have high expectations both in terms of academics and behavior. Character formation used to constitute the core of education; the ancients focused on it and modern psychology is proving that they were right on two fronts. First, your grit, or the character that is a product of your habits, is a far better indicator of your success in every area of life, from job to family, than your IQ. Right now the average student in the United States gives up on a problem they don’t understand in 20 some seconds! Our society lacks grit and this shows in our failed marriages, cheap friendships, lazy parenting, job hopping, etc. Second, we have come to recognize that kids that are taught basic etiquette and manners in little things are less likely to do big harms. Right now we as a society (implicitly) teach young men that they can swear in front of girls, that they need not hold doors etc. and then go on to tell them that as adults they had better treat their wives and girlfriends with respect. This, as we are seeing to the harm of many women, simply does not work. If you want to stop people from committing big harms you need to teach them to treat others better in small, day to day things. The habit of holding doors and watching their language as boys will make men far less likely to abuse a woman in the future; likewise, getting kids in the habit of sticking with a hard homework problem will make them far more likely to stick in a hard marriage, remain in a tough job, or complete a difficult task.

Education used to be centered on the pursuit of the True, Good, and Beautiful. At classical schools we seek truth in the books we read and in our pursuit of mathematical and scientific knowledge. Classical schools seek to develop within students character capable of knowing and loving the good. And classical schools point out beauty in the world and the works of men, all the while encouraging students to develop beauty of soul.

All in all, those of us in the classical school movement believe that that a classical education is the best means possible to acquire wisdom and virtue, both of which help one to grow in maturity and to flourish in a variety of human endeavors. 

Euthyphro as Praeparatio Evangelica

From the earliest ages of our faith Christians have wrestled with our relationship to our pagan heritage. Some, like Tertullian, have more or less rejected it out of hand—after all, what good is great learning and philosophy when the foundation of our belief is its very “absurdity”? Though this fideism constantly reappears throughout Christian history, it is not the dominant strand of thinking. Going back at least as far as Justin Martyr has been the notion that Christ has been known, obliquely and wrongly in many cases, but known nonetheless, by many pagans. While Christ is the only full expression of the Word and that the Bible is the only infallible revelation of God, God is not wholly contained in either. Because of this and since we all bear God’s image and all of us have access to God’s general revelation, most cultures have insight into the Truth.

As a classical educator, I obviously follow this approach. I wouldn’t be dedicating my life to transmitting the wisdom of long dead pagans if I didn’t think they had something fundamentally worthwhile to teach my students. That being said, I also recognize that while all men bear the image of God, sin has profoundly broken that imagine. Knowing this I don’t naively or foolishly accept everything ancient; I know that for every profound pagan insight there are a dozen errors. No matter its age or reputation, I know I must evaluate every work on the basis of God’s revealed word.

There is good reason for us to take this approach. In preaching to the Athenians Paul quoted pagan poets to elucidate his points. What is more, we can see the fruit of this approach in the conversions of many great Christians. C. S. Lewis converted because he was convinced Christianity embodied and actualized the best of pagan myth. St. Augustine became a Christian after he realized that everything true within the neoplatonists was incomplete and only fulfilled in Christ.

In teaching our students how to discover good and true things in pagan works we can help them identify good and true things in our post-Christian culture. Being able to recognize these things will empower them to better contextualize the Gospel and thereby be more effective witnesses. A great source for this type of training is Plato’s Euthyphro.

For those unfamiliar with this dialogue what follows is a brief summary. In the final stage of his life Socrates talks with a young man, Euthyphro, that is prosecuting his father for murder. Ironically Socrates states that Euthyphro must know everything about piety to do something that on the face of it appears so impious. Euthyphro in pride responds that he in fact is an expert on matters of piety and holiness, at which point Socrates asks Euthyphro to instruct him. Euthyphro confidently attempts to define holiness a number of times. Socrates, through his questions, shows how each definition fails. The dialogue ends with Euthyphro giving up and abruptly fleeing Socrates.

Given that Socrates lacked God’s specific revelation there was no way he could have known specific truths of the Gospel like the fact that God would become man and die in man’s place—human reason is incapable of accessing mysteries such as these. However, using his God-given reason, Socrates could and did discover many errors and deficiencies in the religion of his countrymen, errors and deficiencies that the Gospel would correct and complete.

To begin with, consider the famous “dilemma” that Socrates raises: is the holy approved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is approved (10a)? As Euthyphro shows in his confused and stumbling answers, this is a question that pagan religion cannot answer. If the gods answer to a standard above them, then they are not gods in the fullest and most meaningful sense. But if there is no standard and their power and wills alone determine what is right, human beings are left in a rather precarious position. The gods are in this scenario no different than the worst of tyrants that rule by fiat and justify their crimes by declaring in effect sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas— “I command it. Let my will take the place of reason.” What can a human learn of justice or holiness from such beings as these? Only fear could inspire a man that worshipped these gods. Such a man would cower and propitiate, but never have his heart changed. In pointing out this dilemma Socrates showed the need for a Christian understanding of God.

In God there is no division between essence and existence like there is in human beings. We as people can know truth; God is Truth. We are capable of love; God is Love. We have life; God is Life. Given this, God does not arbitrarily choose what is good nor is there some standard of goodness apart from or above God. Goodness is objective and unchangeable, but it emanates from the character and being of God. In uniting Goodness with the person of God Christians have been able to solve this seemingly insoluble dilemma.

Socrates also points out the need for a concrete, specific revelation from God. When Euthyphro uses the past actions of the gods to justify his behavior Socrates ironically asks, do we not “admit for ourselves that we know nothing about them” (6b)? Elsewhere Socrates repeatedly asks for “proof,” “clear proof” that the gods really approve of Euthyphro’s actions (9a-b). Of course Euthyphro cannot give proof, let alone clear proof. Pagans lacked a specific revelation from the gods—all they had were conflicting, contradictory myths. Since they could not reliably know the will of the gods from their stories, pagans looked to other sources on which to ground morality. The problem was that all these alternative sources fail. Emotions cloud and mislead when people are upset and need clear guidance. Tradition often justifies past oppression. Reason was the best alternative, but given man’s limitations and passions, it too could not and cannot be fully relied upon.

Given that our natural abilities fail to lead us, we need a supernatural communication to guide us in how we ought to live. Euthyphro knew this but lacked it. His want of this revelation points for the need of the Bible.

Finally, Socrates shows us our need for grace. Euthyphro attempts to define the pious and holy as that which is “concerned with looking after the gods” (12e). Socrates points out that looking after something improves it. Given this definition, being holy is something that improves the gods (13c). Given the absurdity of this, Euthyphro instead states that man’s holiness is looking after the gods like a slave looks after his or her master (13d). But any type of service we provide for the gods, Socrates points out, implies a corresponding need, for it would be foolish to provide something that the gods have no need of (14e). After pointing this out Socrates proceeds to berate Euthyphro, “Show me what benefit the gods eventuate from the donations which they receive from us…. [H]ow are they benefited by what they receive from us?” (14e-15a) In other words, Socrates shows that we cannot define man’s holiness by his works!

As Christ and the apostles would make clear centuries later, there is nothing a man can do to be holy; our holiness is a gracious gift of God. Socrates could not have known this, but he does hint at this possibility in one of his ironic questions. “Or do we come off so much better than [the gods] in this trade, that we get all good things from them, while they get none from us” (15a)? In essence, a Christian can respond to this with a hearty YES! That is how grace works! We get all the benefits even though our righteous works are like filthy rags before God. Socrates could show the need for grace, but it is only in the fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ that His grace was actualized and our need was met.

Still, the question could be asked, what value does this have in a Christian classroom? After all, our students have God’s full revelation and thereby no longer need the incomplete, half-blind gropings for truth of the pagans...right? In a word, no.

First off, there are a number of students raised in Christian homes that become inured to the Gospel. Showing them Gospel truths in other sources is a great way to reinvigorate their faith and give them confidence that what they believe is in fact true.

Second, these sources can be used to correct misunderstandings of faith. Every good Protestant child knows they are saved by grace through faith. And yet I don’t know how many times I have talked to a student that has told me the reason why they shouldn’t sin is because it hurts God (e.g. it makes baby Jesus cry). When I push them on this, I find that they believe that God’s commands were given for His sake, not ours. Euthyphro is a great source to by which we may probe these false understandings. “If God gave commands for His sake, how does our obedience benefit Him? If not for His sake then for whose, etc.?”

Finally, our students need to be trained to view things that our culture believes as Praeparatio Evangelica, as things that prepare the way for the Gospel. To give just one example, consider the premium that most modern Americans, especially young ones, put on tolerance and diversity. These are good things, but have been largely misunderstood. This gives us an opportunity to spread the Gospel. We can say that we as Christians really value these things. Our society does as well, but in practice our society is divided like never before. Then we can go on to show that historically, people have always been divided by race, class, etc. and it has only been in recognizing the fatherhood of God that we have achieved the brotherhood of mankind. People that want diversity want a good thing, but destroying all absolute moral standards except tolerance will not get them there! One need only open a newspaper at random to see how this approach is daily failing. That’s the bad news. The good news is we Christians have the solution! We have that which people are blindly searching for. Simply declaring that Jesus died and rose isn’t going to open too many doors to evangelize; showing how the things that people are rightly seeking after can only be found in God will open doors. Instructing students on how to do this by using old texts is one of the best ways we can prepare our students to be effective witnesses in the world.