The Joy of Seeking Something Great

I was recently reading the second chapter of Matthew with my children when I was struck by the contrast between the Magi on the one hand and Herod and the people of Jerusalem on the other.

Consider the Magi, the aptly named “Wise Men”, for a second. They see a star and then they think: I bet that signifies the birth of a king! There is no proof of this—indeed, what type of proof could you have that a star signifies something like that? They don’t know who this king is or even where exactly he is; consider for a moment that they stop and ask for directions en route! And yet despite the lack of proof that they will find anything, they travel for months through harsh climate and hostile territory on the chance of meeting and worshiping this supposed king. They were men that pursued evidence, no matter where it led, and passionately sought after the thing that the evidence pointed to all in the hope of finding something greater than themselves. They sought the Truth, and as Christ promises, they found Him. When they found Him they worshiped him and rejoiced.

Contrast this with Herod and the people of Jerusalem. When the Magi tell them that a king has been born they are disturbed and even, according to some translations, afraid. Unlike the Magi who sacrificed vast quantities of wealth and traveled for months on the chance of meeting the newborn king, Herod and the people of Jerusalem would not travel a few hours to see this supposed king. (For Jerusalem and Bethlehem are very close, a ten minute cab ride today.) What is more, in his fear of this new king, in his fear that there might be someone or something greater than him, in his fear that he, Herod, might not be the center of his own life and that he might in fact be accountable to another, Herod unleashed violence against a number of innocent babies in an attempt to destroy the newborn king and secure his own power.

Two thousand years later we are in the same position as Herod and the Magi. There is evidence that a King has been born. Will we imitate the Wise Men and seek Him out? If we do, we too will be filled with joy when we find and worship Him. Or will we be filled with fear like Herod and the people of Jerusalem? Will our fear lead us to lash out as we try to protect our place as “king” of our own lives? These are the only two options open to us—we can worship and follow God or we can worship and serve ourselves.

As a father and head of a classical Christian school I encourage my sons and daughters and I encourage my students to seek and find Christ the King. I want them to see the evidence for His divinity, to dig into this evidence as they honesty seek the Truth, I want them to find Him and then worship and rejoice in Him! I pray that this Christmas season God gives grace to many to overcome fear and pride so that they may seek and find Him, the Goal of all seeking, the embodiment of all Truth, and the source of all Joy.

The False Doctrine of Rob Bell and the Remedy of a Grounded Tradition

C. S. Lewis once observed that a well-traveled man is unlikely to fall prey to the local superstitions of his village; in the same way a scholar, because he has “lived” in many ages, is not likely to fall for the folly and nonsense of his own age.

Every age has its own nonsense, but each age tends to have its own “brand” of nonsense. This is why it is absolutely essential to understand our Christian tradition. Without knowing our tradition it is impossible to know if an idea or doctrine is in keeping with orthodox Christianity or if it is a heretical innovation. Providing young men and women with a foundation in the Christian tradition may be the most valuable aspect of a classical Christian education. To illustrate the value of this I’ll discuss a new, popular book about the Bible.

I recently picked up a copy of Rob Bell’s most recent book What is the Bible? at the library. First a disclaimer: I did not read the whole book. That being said, I have read significant chunks of it (it is broken up like a series of Twitter threads, so it reads really fast).

Bell’s book takes an innovative approach to the Bible. When discussing the question of whether or not the Bible is inerrant, Bell writes the following. “Where did people get the idea that without error is the highest form of truth? Is the sunset without error? Is the love between you and the person you’re in love with without error? Is the best meal you’ve eaten without error? You don’t think about those experiences in those terms because that would rob those experiences of their depth and joy” (page 282, the italics and bold are in the original).

To begin with, these are very poor analogies! The Bible is not like a sunset! It repeatedly says things that are either true or false and if its promises are not true, we are fools to believe in them. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.” That is a truth claim; it is not something we enjoy like a good meal. If it is true we had better submit to Christ and trust Him for our salvation; if it is false we had better find another way. “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” That is not analogous to being in love! That statement makes a truth claim: it is either true or false. If it is false my hope for salvation is in vain; if it is true then I can be confident and live in hope and joy.

When considering the question “Did Jesus Have to Die?” Bell answers “No. He didn’t. He was killed” (page 240). However, in the Gospels Jesus repeatedly stated that He had to die. After His resurrection both His Apostles and His Church came to share this understanding (c.f. Acts 3:18 and 4:28). On what reasonable basis can one believe, like Bell, that when Peter said “God was fulfilling what all the prophets had foretold about the Messiah—that he must suffer these things” Peter was simply sharing his perspective, but when, in the very same breath, Peter said “Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away” Peter was saying something that we can rely upon and that we should believe? How can anyone rationally divide the two and accept the latter claim, while rejecting the former? Peter’s understanding of salvation must be right or wrong—there is no rational or Biblical principle that allows us to divide it up and claim part is right and part is wrong. Furthermore, on what basis is Bell claiming that he is right that Jesus did not have to die and that Peter is wrong? And why on earth does he think we should not read the Bible in terms of truth and falsehood?

This is where it helps to be able to put together what Nietzsche (a very bad man, for what it is worth, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day) called “a genealogy of morals.” There are a ton of unspoken assumptions in Bell’s book. However, students like ours that have read a number of original sources will be able to see what sources Bell is drawing from. This in turn will allow them to better understand unstated and underdeveloped assumptions and premises.

For example, when discussing the crucifixion Bell states that it is “a story about humanity growing in maturity, leaving behind the idea that the divine needs blood. . . . The Bible is a reflection of a growing and expanding human consciousness” (page 245). In similar fashion, when discussing the conquest of the Promised Land Bell writes “when you read that God told them to kill everyone in the village, someone wrote that. That’s how someone understood that event. Don’t drag God into it. The Bible is a library of books reflecting how human beings have understood the divine. . . . What you’re reading is someone’s perspective that reflects the time and the place they lived in. It’s not God’s perspective—it’s theirs.” (page 295, italics and bold in the original.) Do you get that? According to Bell, the Bible is not God’s word about Himself and man, it is man’s word about God. This is not how orthodox Christians have seen the Bible. But if Bell’s is not an orthodox view of the Bible, where did it come from? 

A student familiar with the history of ideas will immediately say, “oh, that’s a mixture of Hegel and Natural Religion. Bell also has a lot of existentialism (c.f. chapter 40), with a pinch of post-modernism (c.f. chapter 37), all covered with a light glaze of New Ageism (c.f. pages 266-267). [I apologize that I only refer to these ideas, but this post will become far too long if I develop all of them.] This is nothing new! I’ve seen these ideas before, I’ve seen them articulated far more persuasively and effectively, and I’ve already worked my way through many of them. Bell believes the Bible is a collection of books written by people who put words and ideas into God’s mouth that He never said; if this was true, I wouldn’t trust these people to give me directions to Kwik Trip, let alone to instruct me in God’s plan for salvation. Ultimately Bell believes that the Bible is man’s Tower of Babel—it is our creation, something that we have constructed in our attempt to reach God (c.f. pages 304-305). I’ve read enough to know how that works out!” 

Specialists trained to spot counterfeit bills don’t spend their time looking at every type of false bill. Instead, they look at authentic bills over and over and over and over and over again. Because they know the truth they are able to spot the false. In the same way, a student, like our students, that has read Athanasius, Augustine, Bede, Benedict, Boethius, Dante, Luther, Lewis, and many more great authors has seen the truth articulated over and over again—in many ways, in many genres, and in many ages. Our students have a knowledge of the Christian tradition and because of this knowledge they can recognize whether or not someone is within that tradition. Knowing the Christian tradition they will recognize that Bell does not read the Bible as Christians historically have (he does not even read the Old Testament the way the New Testament authors do). This isn’t to say that the tradition is automatically right and Bell is automatically wrong, but instead of directly engaging the tradition and showing why he is right where Aquinas, Edwards, Irenaeus, Origen and countless others have been wrong, Bell time and time again side steps difficult questions by saying he “isn’t interested in those types of things” or that he is after “higher truths.” A student trained in logic will not find that compelling in the least! Finally, knowing the Bible, when they read passages wherein Bell does things like doubt the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus (page 185) our students will rightly see Bell for who he is: a false teacher. That is what a classical Christian education provides and this education is sorely needed.

History, Archaeology, and Biblical Reliability

"Because of the temporary nature of their buildings and towns, no major archaeological trace of the Hunnish empire has been found." -Jesse L. Byock

I recently read the Penguin edition of the Saga of the Volsungs. In the introduction I was surprised to read the above quote. The Huns controlled a tremendous amount of territory. Their domains began east of the Volga and ran as far west as the borders of modern-day France while encompassing all the land between the Baltic and Black seas. What is more, the Huns wreaked havoc far beyond their borders. They ruled in a period that is firmly historical (the 5^th century AD), a period of which we have fairly extensive records. And yet there is no major archaeological trace of their empire. Despite this lack of evidence, no serious scholar doubts their existence.

Now consider for a moment the case of the Exodus. There are a number of scholars, like my old Biblical Studies professor, that argue that the Exodus is complete fiction. One of the main arguments he and others deploy against it is that despite the fact that the Hebrews wandered in the Sinai desert for forty years, there has been no archaeological evidence found of their presence there. (Note: we don’t have any evidence for the Hunnish Empire and yet we expect to find evidence of a wandering, nomadic people? What on earth does anyone think they would leave behind that we could reasonably expect to find?)

Consider the two cases for a moment: there is no archaeology evidence for either and yet the Hunnish Empire is universally accepted and the Exodus is largely doubted. This begs the question: how do we know about either? We know about both because they were recorded; we learn about both through historical study. Why is one accepted while the other is often doubted? That is a question I don’t know enough to fully answer, but I reckon that it has something to do with the fact that we have one source for the Exodus and multiple sources for the Huns; it also undoubtedly has something to do with the propensity of man in his sinful condition to doubt the word of God.

Instead of trying to answer this specific question I think it is better to step back and ask the broader question: why do we accept some historical accounts and reject others? The short answer is that if we think an author is honest and informed we accept his account; if we think he is dishonest (i.e. biased or self-interested) or ignorant (i.e. he wasn’t an eyewitness, he only saw part of an event, or he lacked access to specific information) then we reject his historical claims.

Many parts of the Bible give historical accounts. By that I mean that many sections like Exodus and Nehemiah and Acts claim to give factual accounts of certain periods and people (other sections, like the Psalms or the Epistles make historical references, but their main purpose is to communicate truth poetically or indicatively, respectively). As historical accounts we should examine the reliability of the authors: if the authors are reliable they should be accepted and believed; if the authors are unreliable they should be rejected. But to reject a historical claim because of a lack of archaeological evidence is preposterous! That is not how either archaeology or history operates—they ask different questions and use different methods to answer them.

Let me give one more, related, example. I have a study Bible written from a theologically liberal perspective. It argues that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles because the Gospels portray the Pharisees as the main opponents of Jesus when the Pharisees only rose to prominence after the destruction of the temple at the end of the first century. These “scholars” argue that since the Pharisees were the main opponents of the (unknown) authors of the Gospels these Gospel authors anachronistically made the Pharisees the opponents of Jesus to legitimize their own position against them. This is a specious claim for a couple of reasons.

First, just because the Pharisees were not dominant or prominent until later in the century does not mean they did not exist at the time of Jesus (they did and no one doubts this). They could have been Jesus’s opponents even if they were more of a minor sect and it is illogical to conclude they weren’t His opponents simply because they came to greater influence later.

Second, on what basis do these scholars think the Pharisees came to prominence later? Archaeology is silent—we can’t dig up pottery shards and figure out which ones were used by Pharisees and compare them with the ones that were used by Sadducees. No, this is a historical question. How many historical sources do we have from first century Israel? Not a whole lot!

Again we are left with a question of history and questions of history are solved by determining the reliability of the author. Questions of history must be answered historically. Can we prove the Exodus happened or that the Pharisees were outspoken opponents of Jesus? Not scientifically or mathematically, but these are not questions of science or math! To apply non-historical criteria (like archaeology) to (most) historical questions is like asking for scientific proof that I like ice-cream. You can’t “prove” it, but it is obviously true that I like ice-cream! In fact, there is a lot that we know that we cannot scientifically prove (e.g. Beijing is the capital of China, Augustus was a Roman emperor, my parents love me, etc.). To reduce all knowledge to what can be proved scientifically, which is what people are doing when they look to archaeology to validate history, is to destroy most of what we know. Instead, we judge the reliability of our knowledge based on its type: we answer historical questions historically, subjective questions subjectively and so on. 

Questions like the actuality of the Exodus are questions of history, and though I don’t have time to go into this further, I firmly believe the evidence clearly points towards the reliability and truth of the Biblical account.

The Impermanence and Unreality of our so-called "Reality"

“The world is in a great dream and but few are awake in it.”  

                 

The above is a quote from William Law from his book A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (1729). Describing our world as being in a “great dream” is very fitting; there is a lack of permanence, even an unreality, in all that we see. Our bodies will grow old and die and decay. Things we build may outlast us, but not for long. Even great things like our nation and our economy are temporal—if life continues long enough on this earth they will fall and be forgotten; if Christ returns only that which abides in Him will remain. Either way everything on this earth that we see, experience, and contribute to will someday be no more.

And yet most people hold unto these things and treat them like ultimate ends. How many people show more concern for the government of this country, a government that will ultimately fall and be no more, than they do for God’s Kingdom, a Kingdom that will forever endure? How many people are more concerned about what their friends think of them than what God thinks of them? How many people pay more attention to the state of their car than the state of their soul? They are dreaming. And like everyone in a dream they treat their dream as if it is the ultimate reality.

What is particularly interesting and often painful to witness is people recognizing that there must be something more than this dream, but they do not have knowledge or hope of anything greater and so they live in despair. This is a constant theme in our art. For example, consider the following from one of Beck’s songs. “I just hold unto to nothing/To see how long nothing lasts.” To see that everything on this earth is ultimately nothing yet to hold unto it nonetheless out of despair that there is nothing more, that is depressing stuff. This is a person to whom the Gospel would be very good news!

Or consider the following from Conor Oberst. “I’m so bored with my life, but I’m still afraid to die.” This is an honest sentence if I ever heard one and I believe it to be the true, though unspoken, opinion of most people. Without Christ there is no purpose, no comfort—there is ultimately nothing. To quote my favorite nursery rhyme, “life is but a dream.”

I say all this to highlight two very important purposes of Christian education.

First, Christian schools partner with parents to teach their children that there is an abiding reality beyond this world. Yes, many treat this life as if it is all there is, but they are in a great dream for there is a reality beyond what we now see and experience and this reality is everlasting and eternal. When everything we watch and listen to treats this world as the final reality, it is easy to be influenced by this thinking. As Christians schools we want to swim against that current and help children grow the muscle they will need to swim upstream.

Second, as Christ said in Luke 10 “the harvest is plentiful.” People out there are desperate. Many see the futility of this life, of this world, yet without the Gospel message they will continue “to hold unto nothing.” I hope that my students graduate with both the ability and the desire to share the Gospel with the countless lost out there who need it, but live in such blindness that they don’t even know what they need.

My Current Political Concerns

The five political issues that most interest me at this time are religious liberty, the rule of law, federalism, civic discourse, and abortion.

I believe that religious liberty, and by that I mean the right to share one’s beliefs and worship according to one’s conscience, is a fundamental human right. There is a growing anti-clerical feel in the atmosphere and that worries me. Republicans appear to be more concerned about this issue than Democrats, but I think the arguments that Thomas Frank made in What’s the Matter with Kansas are fairly accurate. I believe many Republicans are frankly full of crap and provide mere lip service to the beliefs I sincerely hold and deeply cherish. Yet despite voting Democrat in the past I progressively feel like there isn’t a place for me in the Democratic Party because of its increasing and often open hostility to religion.

We were founded as a nation of laws, not men; however more and more of our self-appointed elites think themselves above the laws of this land. President Trump is a crass and obvious example of this, but frankly President Obama abused his Constitutional mandate via executive orders. I am honestly appalled and distressed by many of the words and actions of our sitting President, but some of the extra legal tactics of the Democrats, like the character assignation that we’ve seen with Kavanaugh this last week, are just as distasteful to me. (I have no idea whether the allegations against Kavanaugh are true and I believe fair and open hearings to get to the truth are important, but the way victims are being deployed for Machiavellian political ends is obvious and rather disgusting.)

I think most problems are best solved locally. Both parties claim this but both aggrandize power to themselves whenever they control the federal government. An unelected federal bureaucracy checked by an unelected judiciary determines the grand majority of political controversies, especially important and difficult ones—this makes a mockery of our pretensions to democracy. When people don’t have a real say they lose civic virtue and become apathetic. They forsake the common good because they have no real say in it and instead find their identity in individualistic and materialistic pursuits. The best way to reinvigorate the American people would be to give them a real say and real control in politics and this can only happen at the local level.

Maybe it is because I am on Twitter, but it seems as if our discourse has lost all civility and been stripped of all moral norms. A lot of people like to blame our current President, and he is certainly part of the problem, but this issue runs deeper than one person and a new President will not bring about a significant or material change. I think the heart of our problem is philosophical. If all real knowledge comes from experience then only those that have experienced something can talk about it. What is more, if only certain groups can talk about certain things then all discourse will be reduced to lecture. For example, if only a woman can talk about sexism or a person of color discuss racism then there can be no discourse between a man and a woman on sexism and no discourse on racism between a Caucasian and African-American. Instead, the person with experience will talk and the other will be reduced to listening. No one likes one-way discourse and this creates resentment that comes out in virulent insults and the expressions of toxic prejudices. Neither are justified, but I think our post-modern epistemology destroys any hope of a commonly accessible truth and this in turn shifts the goal of discourse from either the discovery or proof of truth to the imposition of power.

Finally, I have been convinced, via philosophical argument, that abortion is wrong. I believe the government should do all in their power to limit it. Most Republicans pay lip service to this issue, but I doubt the sincerity of many.

I should add that I don't think many of these things can be solved through the political process. Things like our epistemology, the way we talk to one another, and even our commitment to religious liberty inform our politics and can at times be influenced by our politics, but they problems rooted in habits, customs, etc. that run far deeper than what mere lawmaking or litigation can reach. 

What is more there are a number of structural changes, like the increase in surveillance technology and the ability of robots to replace human workers that will have huge social and eventually political ramifications. These will likely prove to be the biggest challenges the next generation will face. 

An Education for a Dog or a Man?

Are men made in the likeness of God? Do they bear His image? Or are they the random by-product of purposeless flux and change? This is a really important question because a being with a divine and eternal soul would live very different and have different moral requirements than a being that was purely biological.

For example, consider the different expectations that we put on children as opposed to pets during mealtime. While animals simply eat, children are expected to have good manners, to engage in polite conversation, and to remain at the table until dismissed.

We rightly have different expectations because a dog and a child are two different types of things. A dog, because it is strictly a biological being, eats food only to maintain its body. People, because they have souls, eat certain foods because they enjoy the taste and they eat with others because they enjoy company and conversation.

Or consider a sunset. If you were to attempt to point out a particular beautiful sunset to a dog it would likely sniff your finger. This is because animals have no capacity to recognize and appreciate beauty. Whereas a man that can’t recognize and appreciate beauty is defective.

Because humans are made in the image of God they are created to know and live according to truth, to do what is good and right, and to appreciate and express beauty. We don’t fault a dog for living exclusively for the cravings of its belly, but we rightly fault a man for living the same way. A man that lives like a dog denies and thereby loses a part of his humanity—the part that is highest and best.

What does this have to do with education? Here’s the answer: this has everything to do with education. You see, if people are strictly biological beings, like dogs, we ought to give them a certain type of education, but if they are made in the image of the God they are fitted for a completely different type of education.

For example, if man is merely a biological being then the purpose of his education should be to help him survive and flourish biologically. He will be taught “real-world skills” and things that are “relevant” and “practical.” He will also be taught utilitarian morals like “tell the truth or others will disbelieve you,” and “be kind if you want others to be kind to you.” He will be taught like this so that he and his fellow creatures don’t destroy each other. In this education there is no room for poetry and philosophy—when are you ever going to use those types of things! History and literature will be placed on the backburner—after all there are plenty of millionaires who know nothing of the Peloponnesian War and couldn’t give a lick for Dostoevsky. In this schema knowledge is only valuable if it is useful. In terms of morals these biological beings would be taught to be safe and not harm others, but there would be no talk of developing inner nobility or being a person of integrity—if something feels good and doesn't hurt anyone else, why should they deny themselves it?

The type of education I am describing is one that many of us had, yet it is an education fitted for a dog and not a man. To put it another way, everyone talks about teaching the “full person” but you cannot teach the full person without knowing what a person is. Because man is made in the image of God we cannot know what a person is without knowing who God is.

Because we are divine image-bearers our education must be fitted to that reality. Yes, we must learn how to meet our biological needs, but we are more than bodies, more than producers and consumers, and an education that only focuses on the maintenance and perpetuation of bodies, whether physically or economically, denies and fails to develop what is highest and best in us. Those of us that work at Christian schools don't just want the bodies and bank accounts of our students to flourish, we want their souls to flourish! Our sons and daughters have a God-given capacity to appreciate beauty—we seek to expose them to works of beauty! Our children have a God-given capacity to know the truth—we seek to instruct them in the truth in the hope that they will come to love and live in light of the truth. Our kids have the capacity to live lives of virtue and goodness—we want to show them the fruit that these lives produce and how they can grow not in self-righteousness, but in real righteousness.

You and I are not the random by-products of unthinking matter; we are thinking, feeling, eternal souls made in the image of God capable of living flourishing lives and spreading joy and goodness wherever we go. A true education is one fitted to this reality.

Anachronistic Children’s Literature

Even though I am an educator I rarely read children’s books—I rarely read them because I generally find them boring and filled with rubbish. I had heard a lot of good things about the Magic Tree House series and had been recommended books from this series a number of times. What is more, both my children and my students regularly read from this series, so I thought I should check them out.

I only read two titles: Night of the Ninjas and Hour of the Olympics, so my knowledge of the series is significantly limited. Yet after reading these works I have no intention of reading any others; to say that I found them lacking would be an understatement.

To begin with, Hour of the Olympics repeatedly emphasizes the fact that women were not allowed to compete in or view the ancient Grecian Olympics. Over and over this is stated along with a running editorial about how unfair this fact is. The problem with this assertion is that half of it is false and the other half is misleading. Unmarried women, while unable to compete in the Olympics, were allowed to attend the games; the Priestess of Demeter actually sat in a place of honor. A huge section of the plot of this book revolves around keeping Annie hidden at the games. We are told in no uncertain terms that if she, being a girl, is discovered there will be serious consequences; in reality this fear is completely unfounded, being based on false premises.

Hour of the Olympics likewise fails to explain that the women of Ancient Greece did not compete in the Olympic Games because they instead competed in the Heraean Games, a separate athletic event dedicated to Hera.* The Greeks had separate events for men and women because women then, as is still the case today, lacked the physical ability to compete with men in most athletic contests. We enlightened moderns who loudly proclaim that men and women are completely equal are no different than the Ancient Greeks in that we still have separate events for men and women—we simply combine our athletic events in one great contest whereas they had parallel events that took place near one another.  

There is also no discussion about the purpose of the Olympics , which is something one would expect to find in a book that markets itself as teaching children history. The Olympics developed to give the warlike Greeks an opportunity to show off their prowess without actually having to go to war. Think about the various events the Greek competed in: the javelin throw, wrestling, boxing, sprinting, chariot racing—these are all the skills a Hellenic warrior would need. As will be discussed later, women in a pre-industrial, pre-contraception world did not participate in warfare, so why would they devote themselves to preparation for warfare?

In contrast to this, when the Magic Tree House kids go back to ancient Japan in Night of the Ninjas they meet a woman samurai, which is of course a historical falsehood. The contrast between these two books, judged by modern standards, paints Ancient Greece, one of the two main sources of our civilization, in a bad light while painting ancient Japan in a positive light. I have no problem whatsoever painting Japan in a positive light, but it is perverse to make an unduly positive judgment of another’s cultural heritage while unreasonably disparaging one’s own.  

The second ignorant anachronism in Hour of the Olympics deals with education in the ancient world. The author repeatedly states how unfair it is that girls did not go to school, but fails to communicate any knowledge of the historical context. First off, what percentage of boys went to school? A very low percentage—most boys, as well as girls, did most of their learning in the home as did most children in most ages. Second, we must ask: what was the purpose of education? Was it not to prepare children for adulthood? What was the primary thing a man needed to prepare for? War. What was the primary thing a woman needed to prepare for? Motherhood.

But wait, isn’t that sexist! Can’t women, some women at least, make good warriors? Yes. But in an age without birth control nearly all women were pregnant or nursing the majority of their lives. But isn’t this unfair? Why should women have to do this? Given high mortality rates, this is the only way to keep a community in existence.

The ancient Greeks, like all pre-modern men, lived in an age of scarcity. Societies therefore did not organizes themselves around giving every individual the liberty to pursue his or her dreams, a luxury that only a society of super-abundance like our own can provide, but around policies and principles that would best stave off extinction. You see, human beings have an aversion to extinction and will put up with high degrees of misery in order to keep it at bay. Most men did not want to incessantly march and campaign and  die in an alien land, far from their hearth and loved ones; most women did not want to perpetually devote their time, energy, and bodies to giving birth to children that died at alarming rates. But they did and they did this because it was what needed to be done. For those of us that live in industrial societies of plenty it is impossible to appreciate just how difficult life was for our ancestors. To daftly condemn them without any reference to the differing nature of their environment is not to display their immorality, but our own ignorance.

Still, it could be argued, war is one thing, why were women prohibited from playing any part in politics? How is that fair? After all, history clearly shows that women often make fine political leaders. This begs the question: what main issue did Hellenic politicians deal with? War. They asked whether or not to go to war, how to wage war, on what terms would peace be acceptable, etc. When aristocrats alone fought, poleis were aristocratic; as the middle class began to fight in the phalanx, poleis introduced democratic reforms; when the lower classes finally became involved, as was the case with the Athenian navy, poleis became radically democratic. Historically speaking, it is nearly always the case that those that fight in wars get to decide issues of war making. As shown above, women were unable to fight and for that reason they were not involved in politics. Only in the modern age with mass mobilization did women participate in war making in large numbers by sewing uniforms, manufacturing munitions, etc. and it is therefore no coincidence that women all over the Western world were given suffrage rights following the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. All of this is by no means a justification of any past political practice, but all history, including history for kids, must not begin with judgment, but rather clear explanation.

To judge from our historical point of view is not necessarily wrong (though God’s point of view is infinitely superior), but passing judgment without clear context and explanation is antithetical and anathema to a historian’s work. This is true whether one is writing for academics or toddlers. Moralistic pseudo-historical works like the Magic Tree House are so keen to judge that they fail to contextualize. By this they do nothing more than provide kids with the illusion of knowledge, a thing far worse than simple ignorance.  

At the end of the day readers of Hour of the Olympics will have learned absolutely nothing about Ancient Greece but will be left with the impression that Ancient Greece, the fountainhead of their civilization, is somehow bad. Again, I have only a small sample size but Hour of the Olympics was unduly harsh and Night of the Ninjas simply false. As an educator devoted to passing on historical knowledge, I was quite disappointed by these so-called historical books.

*Though to be fair this fact is mentioned in the companion Magic Tree House Fact Tracker.

Progress, Privilege, and Post-Modernism

Walk down any high school hallway or through any university campus and you are likely to hear discussions about various sorts of “privilege”. Many of the people having these conversations would style themselves “progressive”. However, many of those that both support and oppose progressive policies fail to understand the philosophical underpinnings of progressivism. My purpose here is not to argue for or against progressivism or to investigate to what degree privilege exists and what should be done about it. Rather, I want to give a brief “genealogy of morals”—I want to discuss the philosophical presuppositions that inform these distinct, though often overlapping, movements.

The modern progressive movement has its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau rejected the traditional Christian dogma of an Edenic fall and instead imputed all of man’s misery on society and education. This resulted in the theoretical possibility of perfecting man. To wit, if man is the product of his environment and education, then a perfect environment and education would create a perfect man. From this it followed, not logically, but emotionally, that if governments can create perfect men, then governments should create perfect men. But existing states and institutions like the church and family desire their own flawed preservation and thereby hinder man’s progress; worse still, they continue to create imperfect men incapable of seeing their true good. In order for man to reach his potential all the old institutions that have created imperfect men must be done away with. As a result of these convictions Rousseau’s progressive heirs have tended to favor revolutionary change.  

Traditional Christian teaching rejected these utopian impulses—if man was born with a sinful condition no perfection could ever be reached upon this earth. Instead of rushing to pull down all existing institutions, Christians have sought to improve existing institutions. For example, anarchists believe that men can live peacefully without government while communists believe men can live happily without the traditional family structure. What is more, these co-heirs of Rousseau believe that the state and family actually make life worse, not better, and for that reason they must be completely done away with. Christians on the other hand know that since men are sinners government will always be needed and that since the family was instituted by God we should not attempt to abolish it. As a result Christians, instead of seeking revolutionary change, have sought to reform institutions—to move existing structures toward their original purpose, knowing full well that, given man’s sinful condition, all the things men create will constantly be moving away from their God-ordained purpose.

While the bases of progressivism and traditional Christian teaching are radically different, their aims have often overlapped. For example, a reformer and a revolutionary may both desire higher wages, more humane prisons, improved schools, and abolition. As they have shared common cause these groups have indeed worked together. However, their final and ultimate goals—creating a perfect society as opposed to improving a fallen one—do differ and that is why a distinction between Christian reform and progressivism must be made. A Christian can support a number of progressive causes and even call himself a progressive, but he cannot ultimately be a progressive in the way I have described without denying traditional Christian dogma (i.e. sin).

Post-modernism is a loose “philosophy” and for that reason it is alternatively and often ill defined. To the extent that we can find a core to this nebulous worldview it is the belief that the subject always puts a part of him or herself into the object and therefore cannot have any independent, objective knowledge. For example, when I read the news I don’t do so dispassionately, but as a member of a certain generation, class, race, religion, etc. and I project these and other aspects of myself into the object of my study. As I cannot separate myself from the various facets of my identity, I cannot look at anything beyond myself without myself clouding the object I seek to know. As a result I am incapable of any full and certain, objective knowledge of anything beyond myself. In theory, there may be objective truth, but in practice it is unknowable.  

This philosophical outlook begs a further question: if everyone projects various features of themselves into the objects they study, which aspects predominate? According to Karl Marx, “it’s the economy stupid.” Marx believed that the economic substructure that people inhabit determines their thought. For example, a man living in a feudal economy would have different ideas of politics, religion, family, etc. than a man living in a capitalist economy and that there is nothing either of those men could do to change their outlooks apart from changing their economies, as he recommended. Most scholars today have rejected this claim, but neo-Marxists have picked up on this idea and adapted it to contemporary pluralistic Western societies. Instead of economies determining all, neo-Marxists believe that our gender, race, and sexuality determine the content of our thought.

Now it is important to note that neo-Marxist/post-modern thinkers don’t think that race, class, and sexuality influence thought. That is obvious and nearly everyone agrees with that. Rather, they argue that these factors determine thought. However, if everyone’s race or gender determine the content of their thought, then there is no such thing as objective, knowable truth. The only thing one can “know” is one’s own internal experience and this is of course completely unique to every individual. This epistemology has huge implications for human communication.  

If there is no knowable truth, then there is no point in debating policy for there is no truth, no resolution to come to. What is more, if the characteristics of a person determine their beliefs, then it follows that all attacks must be against the characteristics of a person as opposed to their beliefs. Anyone with an eye to perceive can recognize this happening all around. The majority of what passes as “political debate” is ad hominem attack. “Of course you would say that [thing about race, sexuality, or gender], you’re a member of that specific group! How dare you think that you know anything about [the pay gap, the achievement gap, bathroom rights] when you haven’t experienced what I have!” When there is no common, objective truth the only thing left to appeal to is power. When all that remains is power we get the type of broken political system that we have as politics becomes increasingly brutal and society becomes “poore, nasty, and brutish.”      

The connection between post-modernism and the privilege movement is fairly clear. If everyone perceives a different “truth” based on their gender, race, and sexuality, if certain classes of people have historically suffered discrimination while other groups have benefited, and if a core, common goal of politics is to liberate people from oppression, then many good-natured people will naturally want to distance themselves from the oppressing class. Combine with this Marx’s view that the proletariat, i.e. the oppressed, are always correct and you will have members of some groups rushing to admit their privilege and embrace the narratives/worldviews of various oppressed classes of people.

It is not my purpose to discuss whether or not the desire to confess one’s privilege is good or bad, wise or unwise, but simply to show the philosophical roots of this movement. Though I will add in passing that, practically speaking, words alone don’t bring change. Declaring one’s “white privilege” won’t improve inner-city schools; mourning one’s male privilege does nothing to undermine the multi-billion dollar semi and fully pornographic industries that objectify and exploit women.  

Our words must be connected with real action if we want tangible change, but before we can have meaningful action we must have meaningful words and words can only have meaning if there is an objective, knowable truth for them to point to. Actual problems have been successfully reformed in the past and we can continue to have efficacious reforms in the future. But to do that we must reject the poison of post-modernism and accept the reality of a knowable and communicative truth beyond ourselves.

The Difficulty of Reforming Education in a Secular Age

As men and women of modernity we are accustomed to believe that every problem can be solved via the application of the correct technique. Is communication too slow? We’ll invent the telegraph, then the telephone, radio, television, and then the internet. Then we’ll make the internet faster and put it on phones and we’ll continually make them faster. . . . If you are reading this on your smartphone you have more computing power in your hands than NASA had when they landed a man on the moon—take that in for a second.

Because technology is always improving, and it is always improving (we don’t expect next year’s phones to be slower or have less memory!) we think that technology, or the right technique, can solve everything. Are you frustrated with your job? Here are five steps to a better, more productive you. Are you unhappy? Take this pill. Do you have a bad marriage? Attend this seminar or talk to this counselor.

This is not to say that modern business techniques, therapy, or medicine are bad—they can all be good if used in the right way, at the right time, to the right degree, and for the right reasons. I say this only to show, too briefly, how we are prone to look for a better “how” when we face a problem instead of reevaluating our “why.” We often become so focused on what will work that we fail to question the wisdom and worthiness of our pursuits.

Recognizing this tendency is of the utmost importance when we consider how we can best fix our schools.

By any measure American schools are doing poorly and are getting worse. There are a number of proposed solutions for our malaise: more technology in the classrooms; get students out of traditional classrooms and into virtual classrooms, transform schools into places of secular activism; bring God and prayer back into schools, get more kids on drugs to help with behavior; get kids off drugs and outside, increase instructional time; have kids play more and develop creativity on their own, strengthen and fund public schools; build more charter schools, etc.

In my opinion, none of these proposed reforms will fundamentally improve our schools. This is not to say that all proposed reforms are equally valid—some are indeed wiser than others. The problem is that none of them ask and deal with the fundamental question: what is an education for? Because this question is difficult to answer, we focus on what we are good at: technique. We don’t ask what purpose or function our schools should serve, instead we try to tweak them to make them better. But better at what?

Is the purpose of education job training? Or is the purpose of education to prepare our young to be informed members of a representative democracy? The way we answer this question will determine the type of reforms we should pursue.

Or what if, as I believe, the purpose of education is to cooperate with God’s grace to form the whole person, to do what is in our power to help our sons and daughters to become men and women of faith and virtue? In that case, we need to know what faith and virtue are so that we can set up our schools to effectively pursue these goods. But this very idea undermines the foundation of secularism: if we say there is one faith, we are implying that all other “faiths” are vain, false, and not worth pursuing; if there is true virtue, then everything that contradicts it is wrong and sinful.

To truly reform our schools we need to determine their purpose and reorient them toward this purpose. The difficulty with this is that our secular age refuses to believe that there is any one, true, ultimate purpose. We therefore do not seek it and do not orient our schools toward it. We try to make our schools better, but we lack a clear end and goal. We are like a mechanic lost in the winding backroads of the mountains. We can continually fix our vehicle, but we lack a map and refuse to seek one out. We are constantly moving, but we lack clear direction. This is why all our attempts at reform end in futility.

When our schools lack a clear purpose, our classes will lack a clear purpose and our students, in turn, will lack a clear purpose. When our students lack clear purpose they don’t learn! ‘Man can endure any “what” so long as he has a “why.” ’ Education takes work and discipline, but people are incapable of disciplining themselves if they don’t see the purpose of their sacrifice. A clear purpose is precisely the thing that secularism is incapable of providing.  

Let me explain. According to Aristotle everything has four causes:

           1) Material (what a thing is made out of)

     2) Formal (the thing’s structure or design)

     3) Efficient (the cause or agent that brings the thing about)

         4) Final (the telos; the end or purpose for which the thing was                designed) 

As a clarifying example, consider a table. The Material Cause of a table is wood, the Formal Cause is the blueprint, the Efficient Cause is the builder, and the Final Cause, or purpose, of a table is to have something to share a meal and fellowship on and around.

Secularism, by definition, rejects the transcendent and thereby rejects Final Causes. It can tell you what a thing does, and even how to make that thing work better or faster, but it cannot tell you what you ought to do with the thing. Knowing a thing’s purpose is essential to learning how to use it the right way; without this, knowledge of the thing is incomplete.

For example, consider a hammer. I can look at it and determine its Material Cause (wood and metal) and Formal Cause (it has a relatively skinny handle with a heavy, fatter end). With a bit of research I can figure out its Efficient Cause (it was likely made by some Chinese workers). But without referencing the transcendent, without a knowledge or understanding found outside of our world, I cannot know its Final Cause, its purpose. Is the purpose of my hammer to build something of value for my neighbor or to hit my neighbor over the head so that I can take his things? If my neighbor is a random and temporary collection of material, the accidental byproduct of natural forces working on matter over eons, then what moral duty do I owe him? Why shouldn’t I hit him and take what I want? But if he is made in the image of God, and if God has instituted rules as to how His creatures are to treat one another, then I may not hit him. Only in understanding Final Causes can I have full knowledge of something as simple as a hammer.

For a more relevant example consider the human body. A secular person can teach about the mechanics of human reproduction, but he or she cannot say under what circumstances it should occur—i.e. before marriage, outside of marriage, only in marriage, etc.

Or to give a less obvious example, a secular education can instruct an engineer on how to build a building, but it can give no guidance regarding what types of buildings are worth building; a secular philosophy can help us effectively manage employees and increase our business’s profitability, but it cannot tell us how our profits ought to be spent.

Honestly consider for a moment the value of an education that tells a student about rocks and ferns, planets and stars, but tells a student nothing about the purpose of his her body, provides no instruction on the difference between worthwhile and worthless work, and is completely silent on how to be a good steward of the resources that pass through the student’s hands. We may call this amoral instruction an “education,” but despite having the appearance of education, it lacks the reality. A full and true education must train the whole of a person and prepare that person for the totality of life. As creatures made in God’s image we are moral creatures that constantly seek meaning and purpose. Any education that fails to recognize this cannot truly educate our children.

Educating the whole person is one of the great advantages of Christian schools. Christian schools not only instruct students on the practical, everything we do is infused with a higher meaning. This meaning not only allows us to impart full knowledge, the type that can impact the whole of a person, it also helps to motivate students.

For example, my students are currently reading Dante’s Comedia. Let’s say one of the students asks me why we are reading it. If I believe, along with Bill Gates and seemingly every politician in both of our major parties, that the purpose of an education is to get a good job, how can I answer the student? I can’t. At least not well. There are plenty of people with good jobs that have never read Dante. Well, I could say that reading Dante requires him or her to pay attention to detail and stick with a prolonged narrative, which in turn will help him or her build the types of skills he or she will need for a job . . . but building large Lego sets also requires close attention to detail and requires kids to focus their attention on one task over a long period of time. If all I want for my students are the “work-ready” skills that Dante provides, there is no reason to read Dante—my students can get those skills many other ways. This is why the “purpose of education is employment” narrative doesn’t motivate students. They can obtain the skills we say we are giving them in ways that that are more entertaining and require less of them.

Then why read Dante? How about something like this for answer: “Dante won’t help you get a better job, but you are more than an economic machine. Producing and consuming are indeed part of your life, but your purpose is far greater than making money and spending it. You should read Dante because Dante produced one of the most beautiful works of art in mankind’s history. Dante can show you the nature of sin, the tensions inherent in the human condition, and the beauty of God in ways so insightful and moving that you might never be the same after reading his work. In fact, countless people have had their minds and affections transformed by Dante; many have come to faith, repented of sin, or grown in their faith while reading Dante. If you read Dante, I can’t guarantee that at the end of your life you will die with more money in your bank account. But don’t you know, deep down inside, that you are created for something far more beautiful and sublime than that anyways?”

This appeal doesn’t motivate every student; I can’t say that it would have motivated me when I was 16 years old. But if we treat our students as utilitarians that will only do something if there is a material advantage for them, then they will become utilitarians that will only do something if there is a material advantage for them! If we treat them as young men and women made in the image of God, capable of nobility, capable of knowing and loving God and their fellow man, capable of recognizing and pursuing truth, goodness, and beauty, then some of them will become pillars of faith and virtue, people of nobility, and people that love and serve God and their neighbors. That is the purpose of education and anything that isn’t seeking that, or something like it, is a mere spinning of tires, a vain chasing after the wind.

Christian schools are unique. Many of our schools will never have top of the line technology; many don’t have varsity sports, drama club, or show choir; many have cramped or shared facilities. We don’t have these things, but for all that we lack we have something more: clear, Biblical purpose. I can tell any of my students why we teach what we teach. I can do this because I see the big purpose and I understand how all the little purposes connect with it. Granted, some of the things we do are less essential than others, but we have a clear goal and we communicate that to our students in the hope that they will be moved by more than mere self-interest to seek the good, the true, and the beautiful, to cooperate with God’s grace to become devoted spouses, wise parents, honest workers, virtuous citizens, thrifty consumers, loving neighbors, and blessings to their local churches.

False Happiness and Human Flourishing

“And sometimes when you’re on,/You’re really [flipping] on/ . . . But the lows are so extreme/That the good seems [flipping] cheap/And it teases you for weeks in its absence/But you’ll fight and you’ll make it through/You’ll fake it if you have to.”                –Rilo Kiley

I know of no better description of the fruit of pursuing episodic happiness and the tenacious, if not illogical, commitment that many of us have to it. Yet despite our attachment to it, the modern notion of happiness is rather novel.

Traditionally the great pagan and Christian thinkers alike viewed happiness in terms of human flourishing. The word they often used to describe this flourishing was eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία). This word has its roots in “wellness” and most writers used it to describe the wellness that men experience when they live well. Plato and Aristotle and their followers believed that eudaimonia was the fruit of virtue; Epicurus taught that human fullness had to be pursued as a unity as men should not pursue one human good at the expense of another. While these ancient schools of thought differed with one another and with later Christian writers on a number of details, all agreed that eudaimonia was not something that could be pursued haphazardly or partially attained at the cost of other goods.

Contrast this notion with the view of happiness espoused by most contemporary Americans. To begin with, instead of an idea of flourishing that is largely determined by their choices, most moderns tend to conceive of happiness in relation to what happens to them. As a result, modern men believe that happiness can only be found in the moment. This understanding produces an episodic view of happiness wherein we either pass from a moment of happiness to another moment of happiness or from a moment of happiness to a moment of sadness. If life is nothing but a series of episodes, who wouldn’t want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain? Wouldn’t the best life be one of uninterrupted happy moments?   

While pain can be used as a means to something good, it is not good in and of itself and it is therefore not unethical to wish for a life of uninterrupted moments of happiness. The problem with this view isn’t its morality, but its practicality, for what it is ultimately asking for is uninterrupted good luck. After all, what are good moments but moments of good health, spent in good company, with plenty, and free from sorrow? In a world marred with sin these things are intermittent at best and rarely under man’s control. It is folly of the highest degree to rest our earthly hopes in things outside of our control. Instead, like the ancients, we ought to return to a deeper notion of human flourishing wherein we can play a part in our flourishing and find fulfillment of purpose even in the midst of trial and tribulation.

Not only does an episodic view of happiness produce an unattainable ideal, it compels men to seek happiness in a way that is parasitic on other human goods. In the 1960s Westerners began to pursue episodic happiness in a way they had not done since pre-Christian times. Because they sought happiness in the moment and in things outside of themselves, they turned to drugs and sexual promiscuity in unprecedented numbers. Given their view of happiness this was no surprise. Indeed, what is more in the moment than a narcotic high or a sexual hookup?

The problem with these pursuits, outside of their obvious immorality, is that they prey upon other facets of the good life and thereby prevent men from flourishing. For example, drug use undermines health—one can have a moment of euphoria, which is a good, but only at the cost of another good like mental well-being or respiratory integrity. Likewise, fornication can bring about a moment of bliss, but at the cost of other human goods like a stable marriage where children are welcomed and lovingly raised. For a man cannot dally about, indulging in the variety that promiscuity offers without sacrificing a deeper and nobler love that can only be enjoyed with one person after years of mutual support and commitment. A life spent chasing moments of happiness can indeed yield moments of happiness, but it can yield no more that moments of happiness for it sacrifices deeper goods in its quest for immediate goods.

God, however, has created us to enjoy so much more than momentary happiness. God has so ordained things that we can have moments of pleasure and also live a flourishing life. A man in a committed marriage will indeed enjoy moments of sexual and romantic bliss, but unlike a philanderer a chaste man can have these moments without sacrificing the security that commitment affords, the intimacy that only a life lived in constant companionship can bring, and children that are eagerly anticipated instead of anxiously avoided. In the same way, a man that drinks moderately can enjoy the relaxation and ease of conversation that accompany a good drink without sacrificing mental and physical health.

The great secret, as C. S. Lewis asserted years ago, is that God is a hedonist at heart. God tells us to say no to many things, but only that we may say yes to higher and better things! God instructs us to say no to avarice and prodigality in order that we may be able to say yes to generosity; He commands that we say no to selfishness and self-centeredness so that we may say yes to love and community. If we make higher things, God’s things, our goal our lives will flourish and they will be filled with moments of unexpected ecstasy and joy—the sight of a joyous sunset, the smell of baking bread, a warm bath after a hard day’s work—but only if we seek the Kingdom first, only then will all these things be added to our lives. If we make these moments our central pursuit they will undoubtedly let us down, break our hearts, and damn our souls.    

Still we need to eat and drink, work and rest; how do we enjoy moments of happiness in the right way, at the right time, and to the right degree? This requires wisdom and discernment. In order to enjoy things the right way we have to understand our telos (τέλος); we have to know the purpose or goal for which we are created. We also need to know the telos of the activity or action in which we are engaging and in what way and to what degree the telos of the act accords with our ultimate telos.

“Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” This is the plumb line by which we should judge all our thoughts and acts. For example, say I am considering signing my son up for little league. I first ask: what is the thing for? It may be I want him to show off his athletic prowess; it may be that I want him to learn teamwork and discipline. The former is inconsistent with his telos while the latter is not. That is the first question I must consider. Yet as good as my intention may be, there may arise a time wherein I have to choose between little league and family dinners or little league and piano lessons. In that case I will need wisdom to judge which is the higher or better of the pursuits; if they are equal, I need discernment to ensure that the good that we are pursuing is not coming at the cost of another good and thereby impeding human flourishing in a different area.

The ancients were right in believing that we can have and should pursue eudaimonia, but without knowing man’s telos they could not fully and consistently pursue it. We on the other hand think that technology has rendered the pursuit of eudaimonia obsolete. It is true that technology has provided us with the means to great health and comfort, speed of travel and unquantifiable amounts of information, but as a result we have come to believe that we can so arrange the world as to have all things at all times on our terms. We have deceived ourselves into thinking that we can simultaneously have freedom and commitment, radical individuality and community. After all, if we can send a man to the moon why can’t we square the circles of man’s paradoxical desires? Added to this we live much of our lives in unreality, passively observing the scripted experiences and relationships of others in films, television shows, and on various social media outlets. They move from happiness to happiness, why can’t we? They are capable of pursuing seemingly incompatible goods, why can’t we?

We want things in a way we cannot possibly have them for men, made in the unchangeable image of God, have an immutable nature. We can have true happiness, but true happiness is a product of flourishing, a flourishing that can only be recognized in light of our telos and the various teloi of the things we do and pursue. Seeking happiness apart from virtue is like setting an apple on a countertop and leisurely eating it. It may produce momentary delight, but it will never satisfy the appetite of a man. Instead, a man must clear and till his ground, plant seeds, tend the saplings and over time he will find he has a number of apples as well as shade and beauty in his garden.