Of course, as Christians, we expect this view from an atheist. It reminds us today that the Resurrection is our great hope for those in Christ. I particularly like the title The Story of Everything because it reminds us that our most important truths—the ones that shape our paideia and worldview—are encapsulated in stories.

Hollywood, the muse and myth-maker of our time, frequently presents a story about death that sounds “almost right” but pollutes our Christian paideia with pagan ideas.“ “Worm food” doesn’t play well with audiences. So Hollywood has long leaned on a much more insidious viewpoint for our children—that of Eastern religion. The “Circle of Life” seems so, well, natural. (I just put that song from The Lion King into your head, didn’t I?) Disney’s earlier film Bambi played on the same theme. On a whim, I recently watched Tuck Everlasting, a Disney film from the 1980s with a remake in the 2000s. It was clearer in its worldview: the “wheel” of life is to be preferred over immortality. The ending of Tuck, honest to this theme, may explain its lackluster ratings. Eastern religions, taken in full, are hopeless.

Variations on this view of death come in various packages. “Death is a natural part of life” from the Star Wars franchise depicts cremation as a passage into the spirit afterlife, integrated with an impersonal reality that cycles on. We see this in the funeral pyres where the body is reduced to smoke and rises to return to the circle of life. So what’s wrong with this view? Is there something wrong with cremation?

Christian cosmology uniquely tells us of a personal “Storyteller” God. In His world, time is linear, leading from beginning to end—Genesis to Revelation. There is no circle. At the beginning of the story, God creates perfectly, and sin enters to corrupt the world, leading to death. We were created as eternal beings, but must now suffer death as a curse. Yet there’s hope. This hope began with the promises we see early in God’s story in the Old Testament. The good news emerges in the New Testament with the resurrection of Christ and the pronouncement of His Kingdom on earth. Death, far from natural, is conquered. Those in Christ sleep, awaiting the great and final resurrection. Our souls are eternal. There is nothing more true. We yearn for it, as Ecclesiastes says: “God has set eternity in our hearts.” And we look toward a future of communion with Christ, eternally worshiping the greatness of our God. That’s why it is the greatest story ever told. God’s greatness and His love for us win.

For nearly two millennia, the church proclaimed this reality in word and deed. For centuries, Christians carved out caves from the limestone beneath the cities that martyred them in which to lay countless believers who sleep. As Christianity spread, churchyards became the resting place, commonly with all bodies oriented toward the east, from which Christ will come (Matt. 24) as we await the great resurrection. As our grasp of the story loosened in recent times, we spiritualized eternal life as a ghostly existence in the clouds. The Eastern method of cremating bodies eased into practice. Of course, we know from Revelation 20 that the dead will be reconstituted from whatever earthly state they are in. But the true story dimmed as we conflated the “circle of life” from Eastern religions and animism—and their practice of funeral pyres—with the Christian narrative.

As we absorb more and more from Hollywood, the story blurs and blends into our paideia. Our affections start to embrace death as natural. We cave to the lie that we should embrace death. In this Easter season, we can take the opportunity to teach our children about the hope we have. Tell the story, from beginning to end. If you watch Hollywood’s stories with your children, be sure to point out the hopeless and false “circle of life” and its various narratives. The Christian story of Resurrection has been ridiculed for centuries, and there’s a good reason why: it is not hopeful for those outside of Christ. And as C.S. Lewis depicts in The Great Divorce, those who refuse the new heaven and new earth do so because they hate the very idea of it. We should expect unbelievers to embrace a story more to their liking.

The insidious thing about stories is that they influence us more than arguments. We can immerse ourselves in better stories, even outside the Scriptures, to deepen our affections toward the truth. Many stories from old Western Christendom better depict our lives as a gift from which we can love and sacrifice, even to death, with the hope of eternal life. Stories like Les Misérables or A Tale of Two Cities, even when written by unbelievers from that time, still reflect the truth of a culture once steeped in the Christian story. If we make these a regular part of our literary diet, perhaps we can counteract the “almost true” lies etched into the silver screen.

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.”

Two key features make the CLT critical to the future of good education in America.

1. Verbal Reasoning: The Forgotten Predictor of Success

The first is that the CLT continues to test Verbal Reasoning while the SAT has diminished or removed this factor in its testing.  Not much is said about this metric these days.  However, over the past 80 years, no metric has correlated with success in college, business, or career more than Verbal Reasoning.  In fact, it's estimated that 70-80% of corporations use a verbal reasoning test as part of their hiring and evaluation. 

DEI initiatives in colleges put pressure on the SAT organization to move away from Verbal Reasoning because it favors those in stable families, in homes with many books, and in families where more formal English is spoken.  DEI proponents call this a "disparate impact" on minorities.  They know Verbal Reasoning is the key indicator of successful people.  But, their DEI goals outweigh merit.

2. The College Admissions Shakeup

In 2003, SCOTUS ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan's admission policy which awarded 20 points to minorities and only 12 points to those with perfect SAT scores was unconstitutional.  Colleges could no longer override the standardized test based on DEI.  The SAT reacted as it moved away from Verbal Reasoning to limit this "disparate impact."  Instead, it moved to test "common core knowledge" which could be more easily infused through test preparation and k-12 curriculum standards.  This had some limited effect, but it didn't change fast enough.  By 2021, amid the DEI frenzy, there was a rush to drop the requirement for ANY college entrance test and as of 2025, 80% of colleges have gone test optional.  This creates a problem.

High School GPA's are notoriously "grade inflated," which makes them a poor predictor of college success -- there are a lot more "straight A" students than there used to be!  Admissions essays can be written well by AI.  And, for those who do submit SATs, the new test has lost its claim on meritorious success because these claims were based on Verbal Reasoning, which it jettisoned.  So, colleges basically now admit solely on soft non-measures which allows them to perpetuate their DEI practices. Even if a college wanted to admit students based on merit, all of the indicators of merit have been compromised.  This is where the second reason for CLT's importance comes into play.

The Rise of a New Academic Elite

There is a coming shakeup in the college world.  Over a longer time-horizon (I'm predicting about 15-20 years), the lack of standards will impact employers who hire college graduates.   For quite some time, elite colleges have been able to turn out good employees based on their reputation.  The best and brightest apply to the top colleges. This means that even if the college parks its students in a party dorm for 4 years, naturally gifted kids will still emerge.  Inputs equal outputs.  So, hiring from an elite college historically still got employers top-tier talent.  Now, the top 100 colleges, by and large, are admitting based on DEI.  And, even non-minority students are being admitted based upon soft standards.  This upends the whole natural advantage that came from selective enrollment.  Of course, for a while, DEI friendly employers will still seek these elite graduates.  But, capitalism is not mocked.  A lack of meritorious standards always results in long-term failure.

Colleges that catch on to the reality of this qualification sink hole the soonest will shift back to merit-based admissions and eventually leapfrog the elites.  But, with the SAT compromised, how can colleges do this?  Enter the CLT.  This test remains steadfast in its pursuit of merit.  In the past year, we've seen corporation after corporation reject the DEI narrative.  These employers will soon figure out, through their own Verbal Reasoning tests, that colleges that accept the CLT as an entrance measure will turn out better employees. The new elites in the college world, at least for employers, will be the tier of colleges that reflect merit in admissions and graduation.

Now, we all want everyone, including "disaffected" minorities, to participate in the American dream.  The way to achieve this is through merit, not through DEI.  DEI will simply place more and more "underrepresented" groups in positions for which they are less prepared than their counterparts.  This results in resentment, and it drives biases, based in real policy, that are harmful to a society which should be color blind.  

Regardless of where you stand on DEI, the college world is changing.  I believe this change will thrust the CLT upward as the go-to standard for college admissions.  Whether we like it or not, merit finds a way. 

Last spring, I joined Pete for a public event in Alabama after he recorded this series with RRP, but I had not seen this series until now. I recall at the time thinking that his command of this topic seemed to have leapt to new levels. His exceptional grasp of education in the United States, even more so than in our previous engagements, began to eclipse my own. I now realize why. Pete’s been on a journey that surpasses the project we undertook together.

I commend Pete, of course, but also his pastor Brooks Potteiger who shepherded Pete’s journey toward the Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King.

If you doubt whether Pete can master the art of running the biggest defense organization in history, watch this series. He mastered an understanding of culture and education at a level few can match. I’ve witnessed him put together the complex history, philosophy, and theology of education as he synthesized what we discussed in our book, but also as he journeys toward truth.

Jen and Pete are blessed, I’m convinced, because they have humbled themselves to serve Christ, regardless of where God plants them. In doing so, Pete is a learner. He has a grasp of the facts, but also an understanding of the system.

Of all the resources released about our book, I think this podcast series summarizes it the best.

I’m particularly impressed by Joshua Haymes and his interviewing skill. Pete, of course, is a gifted speaker. But, to concentrate a podcast on substance, you need to have a good interviewer. Haymes fills that role well.

This series goes right to the heart of the book in a high-energy, to-the-point way that neither the Miseducation of Education on FOX, nor the book itself, can top. Watch this series and read the book, and then join the insurgency!

Below is Pete with his current pastor, Brooks Potteiger.

For me, this was another offhanded post about education. The volume of the responses caught me by surprise. I have a little background in both science and engineering, even though my professional work has long been in business. With this post, it seems I've rejoined friends I haven't seen in 25 years since I worked as an engineer in a tech company. I'm a bit out of place among the science and engineering crowd these days, but there's something familiar about it. Many of those who responded were on board with what I said-- the physicists and mathematicians for the most part. Others were not convinced. Some seemed to think philosophy was siloed in the humanities. Others thought engineering was just an extension of physics.

In college, I had to read "The Odyssey" and some other classics as part of my core. This experience comported with my scientific viewpoint: People were really primitive back then and reading this stuff seemed irrelevant. Science, on the other hand, was eminently relevant. It did things. It revealed things. It made real things happen. There were many similar responses to my X post. I bumped along with this view until about 7 years into my professional career. That's when a group of folks challenged me. They were classical Christian educators.

When considering STEM as a primary source of truth, I'm reminded of an old joke about a drunk looking for his keys under a street light.

A passerby stopped to help. After a while, he asked "Where did you lose them?"

The drunk replied "Down the street."

"Why are we looking here?" inquired the passer by.

"Because this is where the light is" said the drunk.

Somewhere in the mid 1990's, I realized that I was looking to science for answers because it could illuminate things well. The things it illuminated, however, tended to be as shallow as they were concrete. Imagination is the fruit of education. STEM’s fusion of philosophy and application stunts what we imagine to be true.

Classical scholars see knowledge in three spheres: The natural, the intellectual, and the divine. Each of these spheres have a philosophy and a history. Science, in the strict sense, serves only to provide knowledge from nature, and in one limited way, using the scientific method. The scientific method is only a sliver of the discipline of logic.

In Battle for the American Mind, Pete and I described the thought experiment: What is a sphere? One might describe a ball. Or a planet. Science might describe that a sphere based on experiments with and observations of real-world spheres. Euclid described a sphere as "a solid figure, all the points on the surface of which are equidistant from a given point, the center." Notice, this is not derived from the scientific method. Nor is it a math problem. It's logic, in the domain of philosophy. And, it's ideal-- no sphere in the real world could approach the perfection of Euclid's description. "All points" means an infinite number. This definition is as unobtainable as it is precise. Theoretical physics now often enters this realm with its description of, say quantum mechanics. Or string theory. Each uses mathematics, or the primary language of logic, to describe what Euclid would have described with words. Much of the work of Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, and other "scientists" are part of intellectual history. Most of these men would not have called themselves “scientists” at all. They drew conclusions in the natural world, but they did so from the ideal "forms". They were philosophers who left us a base of knowledge from their work on which we can now build.

Nature may be divided into natural philosophy and natural history. Natural history involves human classifications and observations about nature over time. A bear is in the genus Ursus. Igneous rock is rock that was once molten. Again, this does not use the scientific method. It's human classification and observation. Then we have Natural philosophy. This involves hypothesis. Or a before-thesis. Even the scientific method cannot escape the rhetorical art that it descends from. In the ancient art of rhetoric, you defend a thesis after you've amassed an argument. In science, you defend a thesis after you've hypothesized and experimented to amass an argument. So, the scientific method is really a descendent of the liberal art of Rhetoric! The scientific method, however, is but one narrow form of argument based in uniformitarianism and experimentation in the natural world.

Finally, we approach divine philosophy, sometimes called moral philosophy. The materialist told us we needed to relegate all questions that can't be answered by science to "faith." This is the fallacy of materialism. Divine philosophy and history is knowable, it's just hard. I’m reminded of the drunk and his keys. What is the nature of God? In one respect, logically, we know He's the uncaused cause. What ramifications does this have? One of them is that He cannot be eclipsed by his own creation. Proofs for this are scattered throughout antiquity. And, the reality of divine philosophy is no less real than natural philosophy.

Sometimes, the natural and divine cross. Some time ago, a famous scientist tried to explain string theory. He wasn’t sure it was even science, since its hypothesis was the result of math and the only way to really prove it was to experiment in extra-dimensional space— something we cannot, by definition, really do. If we can’t experiment with it, can we call it science?

So, with the philosophy and history covered within the three spheres, what has science to do with engineering and technology? These are crafts, as I said. They are not about apprehending knowledge, they're about doing things. A watchmaker 200 years ago would be called an engineer today. I'm sure that's what Rolex calls those who design their mechanisms. If an engineer is called upon to build a bridge, math and a knowledge of physics and materials are part of his skill set. This is like a theologian vs. a pastor. Pastors need to know theology, but most pastors reject the idea that they are theologians. The pursuit of knowledge and its application are two different things.

In the case of Archimedes, we have an ancient example of a scientist who applied his knowledge. Archimedes famously invented a mechanism to elevate water. He was a natural philosopher who used his discoveries to build some impressive tools. But, does this automatically mean that one is the extension of the other?

The danger of making STEM "a thing" is that it turns Science and Math naturally into handmaidens of Engineering and Technology. We start to see science as primarily a path to application instead of knowledge. We start to see math as a tool for technologists and engineers to apply rather than to increase our knowledge. The departments get intermixed. And, math and science are enslaved to application.

If you go to Europe today, you will find natural history museums. If you read a book about Newton, you'll find he thought of himself as a “natural philosopher.” If you ask a tour guide who designed Chartres Cathedral, or Notre Dame Cathedral, you will be told "we don't know" because the tradesmen who designed it were not named. Who built the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal? Even that late in history, the Army Corps of Engineers are credited. Why the army? Because engineering has historically been a martial art. The idea of STEM is foreign to the historical divisions between knowledge and application. These divisions are part of why the West is as successful as it is.

The whole STEM debate is a telling outcome of a world narrowed, confined, and abbreviated by a utilitarian culture with a very small vision. I pray we will someday return to knowledge (philosophy) and application (craft) as they served the West, in separate categories, for more than two millennia.

 Of course, a more publicized trial this week rung with the phrase "No one is above the law."  Except, it may be noted, "the law" itself. “The Law” is the judge and prosecutors, once again from New York, who tried a man for election interference when the only clear case of criminal action in that court was the election interference by the prosecutor and judge. 

Around the year 550 BC, a coalition of commissioners and bureaucrats (called Satraps) conspired against a man who threatened their power.  Despite their best efforts to accuse him, Daniel could not be credibly accused of any real crime.  So, they made one up and tried him for insurrection. Daniel was promptly convicted and thrown to the lions.  Within a few short years, the Medes were deposed and the Babylonians were conquered by the Persians.  Daniel got a book of the bible named after him.

In about 33 AD, a coalition of Jewish bureaucrats called the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of insurrection.  When the Roman authority found no fault in him, "the law" demanded he be put to death as an insurrectionist.  He was, and just under 40 years later, the nation of Israel was wiped off the map, with its greatest city torn down to rubble.  “The Law’s” instrument of justice onto which the charge of insurrection was nailed, has become the most universal and enduring symbol of greatness and goodness in all of history.

In about 520 AD, a Roman Christian senator named Boethius denounced the corruption of the deep state among the Ostrogothic administration in Rome.  The bureaucrats and lawyers of the Roman court accused Boethius, essentially of insurrection, and some financial crimes that were not crimes at all.  But, the conspirators got the ear of the judge and ruler, Theodoric. He allowed the bureaucrats to have their way.  The deep state put Boethius to death in 523.  Boethius became a saint and martyr, while "the law" kept control of Rome, which would continue in decline and soon become a more failed state than it already was.

In about 1521 AD,  Martin Luther was accused essentially of insurrection against the church in Rome-- at the time, a co-ruler with the state.  He was tried in a kangaroo court, accused of false crimes, and convicted by "the law".  He narrowly escaped with his life and by 1570, the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition were in full swing.  The great Church was split causing damage that remains one of the greatest blights on the church today-- our division.  Luther got a branch of the church named after him and is the grandfather of all protestant churches.

We all know these stories, yet in moments like this, there seems so little clarity.  Official lies seed confusion and we wonder if there may be some truth to the charges.  We're told no man is above the law, but just what is "the law"?   "The Law" is just people.  They are simply those who have the power to wield a pen in the moment. When "the Law" has no virtue, it becomes a vicious tool of the bureaucrats. As we've seen, the consequences of allowing "the law" to be manipulated is so often the last gasp of a failed state. 

As we see this path through history, it seems that at 500 year intervals we enter a time when we forget that evil can take the form of the empowered deep state and twist the minds of the masses.  The result is bad for everyone, even the bureaucrats who bring it about.  As for Orange Man, it seems his enemies might just put him in some good company if they're not more careful.  Before I get complaints about the company in which I'm putting Trump-- I'll preempt the critique. I’m just telling an historical story.  If the Democrats were students of history, or had any forethought, they might consider their actions.  Blind self-righteous rage is not fertile soil for forethought.

This was the beginning of a project. What if people who had no one in the school WANTED to come to our school program? What if it became a community event? I know little of music, but I hired some additional music staff and set them about the project. They made it happen!

For a classical Christian school, Christmas is low hanging fruit. What other time during the year do people WANT to hear traditional, classically oriented music? It took us several years to get things in place, but by 2015 when I left, the program had moved to our city’s most established venue, drew around 2000 people and was televised on our local NBC affiliate 3 times over Christmas. The tradition lives on. So, I thought I would share it with you.

I know many other classical Christian schools have excellent programs— I just don’t have access to them. So, I’ll send along the one. Seek out more!

This is a raw cut of the whole program. Start about 5 minutes in. And, don’t miss the last two songs— it ends every year with the Hallelujah Chorus. Another standout- part begins around 1:13— The Holly and the Ivy.

The Ambrose School Tradition

https://vimeo.com/event/3954228

This is a preview of an article I wrote for The Classical Difference, to be released in January 2024.

New York has been called the city that never sleeps, the big apple, and the world’s melting pot. It has been the cultural bellwether of America since the 19th century. Sadly, there seems to be one culture that’s disappearing: America’s. After recently visiting Nairobi, Kenya, I’m not certain if Nairobi’s vibe or New York City’s is further from middle America. The closest remnant of American culture in New York, post-COVID, seems to be the decadent echo of American consumerism still on display in Times Square. Glitz, glare, shops, entertainment, and sensory overload is displayed alongside homeless people, drug addicts, and the naked (except for body paint) exhibitionists. The city somehow has become a place of show-trials, election corruption, and erosive media.

Ancient Rome had its own sort of Times Square. I wonder what that last chariot race in Rome’s Circus Maximus was like in 594 AD? By that time, chariot racing in the Circus had long drifted from its lofty position as a show of Roman leisure and greatness. Did it resemble Times Square as we now see it?

Sometime near 700 BC, the early kings of Rome used the valley between the Palatine and Aventine hills to race chariots. As the great Roman Republic grew and became powerful, so did the Circus. In the Republic’s waning years, Julius Caesar built the grand and glorious Circus Maximus, where men came from far and wide for a chance at glory. Many more came from around the world to watch. This seems to be an historic trend: When a civilization reaches ideological decline, its wealth holds on for a while and it builds great cultural showpieces in a seeming attempt to hold on to greatness. Contemporary sources claimed that 250,000 spectators cheered on the bravery and skill of those who raced in the Circus Maximus. For reference, Bristol Motor Speedway is the largest known venue in the U.S. with seating for 146,000 (ironically, also a racing venue). Other tracks might be larger, but none that I could find are estimated to fit as large an audience as the Circus Maximus.

As the Republic’s ideals gave way to the high Empire of Rome, the Circus became more sensational. A thousand-year-old obelisk was brought from Egypt and erected in the median of the Circus, furthering worship of the sun god. Incidentally, New York imported its two-thousand-year-old Egyptian obelisk and placed it just north of Times Square, in Central Park. In Nero’s insane decadence, the wooden structures around the Circus burned and were eventually replaced with stone by the Emperor Trajan c. 100 AD. Through the high Empire, idolatry in the Circus increased. Several temples to deities like Ceres, Luna, and Venus were erected nearby. Bread was famously thrown to appease the crowds, and sensational showmanship became part of the entertainment—including gladiators. The last race in 594 AD was overseen not by a Roman, but by an Ostrogoth king named Totila. The name “circus” came to be applied to shows of great spectacle in the 1700s, and eventually “circus” became a word that we use for organized craziness (i.e., Times Square is a circus!).

Instead of a circle (circus), America has its square. Each time I go to Times Square, it seems to have more jumbotrons. It’s as though we’re replacing the light of greatness with photon generating illusions. But, there is hope. In the same decade that the Circus Maximus fell silent, the Irish monk Columbanus was founding monasteries in Ireland that would become repositories of learning, preserving books and Christian thought. In the same century, Cassiodorus was founding classical Christian Schools in Britain. And Boethius, who was born in Rome, fled the decadence to Pavia in what is now northern Italy. His work in the church and academia is still read today. He reconciled Aristotle and Plato with Christian theology and is a father of classical Christian education.

His life echoes strangely in our time. Boethius was a well-reputed political leader until he started to root out corruption in the government bureaucracy. He and his sons were soon falsely accused of treason and, although the basic facts were not in dispute, their interpretation was highly unusual. What was claimed to be technically fraudulent was open and common practice, though others were not prosecuted. Nonetheless, a threatened political bureaucracy sentenced him to death (although exile was the normal penalty for his alleged crime), and he was bludgeoned to death. He is regarded as a Christian martyr.

The outer territories of the old Roman empire in the 6th and 7th centuries would become the next center of Christian greatness through classical Christian education and the church. In this light, our times are an opportunity. As our cities decay, we can participate in the dawn of a return to the order of Christianity which will, one way or another, replace decadence with hope, civilization, and light. Rome’s path is well worn. America, it seems, still lives in the shadow of the “eternal city.”

David Goodwin

https://charliekirk.com/podcasts/?ep=f564d1d8-bbd7-4f04-8a24-b0aa0060e5d5

As I write, I’m on an airplane, returning from Africa. This piece struck me. I was in Kenya just after the attack on Israel last week. Our Christian sisters and brothers there seem to have few illusions about Christian culture vs. Muslim culture. They live with it every day. Security was tight everywhere— metal detectors at churches and hotels, and several times at the airport. You may recall that a shopping mall was attacked there by Muslim militants not too many years ago, and a hotel. I heard many stories about how the muslims are pressing into the country and exerting influence. Most Africans I talked to are clear eyed about what this incursion would mean— oppression, atrocities, and intolerance.

But for Christianity, we WILL face the same in America.

Classical Christian education establishes a Christian paideia that perpetuates Christian culture. This is why our work in classical Christian education is so important. As some of our nation’s biggest cities look more and more like they would fit into a developing country, we should work with urgency to establish more CCE schools.

Breakpoint: Barbaric Norms: Hamas-Israel and just war.

I’ve been tied up in another writing project of late, so I’ve neglected to post often here on Substack. I plan to be back once the manuscript is turned in! In the mean time, here’s a piece worthy to be read by anyone interested in the renewal of classical education.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/classical-educations-aristocracy-of-anyone

Voddie Baucham joined Ben Shapiro on his Daily Wire Sunday show and it was worth the whole 47 minutes (more if you have DW+).  I suggest you watch the whole thing.  About 28 minutes in, they address wokeness in Christendom and why so many Christian ministries start to compromise in small ways, and then eventually bigger ways.  Voddie covers patriarchy, racism, and those aspects of Woke that infect Christian institutions slowly.  And later, at about 38 minutes in, Shapiro makes a great point about what it means to take the Lord's name in vain.   Baucham makes a good argument about confronting the lies late in the interview, claiming that the shame put upon Christians for being too political is really a one-sided ploy by the left to dominate the discussion.  We have work to do in the Kingdom, but part of it is to reject "neo-Marxism" in all its forms, even under cultural pressure from soft-headed Christians.  At 45 minutes in, Voddie unashamedly describes the outcomes of the leftist presuppositions as "a disaster" and goes on to promote the greatness of Western civilization.  

What Does It Mean to Be a Man? | Voddie Baucham

Occasionally on long flights, my battery on my laptop dies, my book is in the overhead, and my ipad is all that’s left.  On these days, I watch some movie the airline provides – one which I would probably never watch otherwise.  Two of these illustrate something about truth that Christians seem to miss – All truth is God’s truth.

SPOILER ALERT

Several years ago, I watched Molly’s Game on a flight.  The film recounts the true story of Molly Bloome, an olympic skier who, taken out by injuries, turns to high stakes gambling.  I found the film to be refreshingly true even though no one would call it “Christian.”  Bloome’s attorney is an upstanding father who insists that his young daughter be substantive.  He engages in her education and models a father who leads and values true education.  Bloome has a strong ethical streak, even as she engages the underworld of elicit gambling.  This ethical streak comes to the fore as, near the end of the film, she accuses her father of being demanding, overbearing, and unsatisfied with her lack of success.  In a particularly uncharacteristic scene for a mainstream film, her father calls her out.  Her ethical stance came from his demanding upbringing.  He corrects her trite and cliche assessment of the problem between her and her father.  He then confesses that his affair with another woman, repressed in her memories as a little girl, was the real cause of the break between them.  Sin, not his strong paternal manner, was the real problem.  I could hardly believe the script had that much truth in it.  

This past month, I saw A Man Called Otto.  I’m a sucker for Tom Hanks performances, but he disappointed probably because the script was so preachy.  The writers didn’t even try to tweak the tired trope of “grumpy old man” until it came to a trans-teen that he encounters, with a sudden acceptance – it was the only thing he accepted in the whole show.  Hanks had a tough job with this plastic character.  The rest of the cast reflected every stereotype of “diverse” characters.  Of course, these characters were the heroes that changed his heart.  The twist at the end is that his enlarged heart kills him, which brings his new friends to laugh.  The show reflected truth in many respects – about love, community, and bitterness.  But these truths were used to tell lies about what it really means to love.  

Right now, there are a number of good Christian films circulating – The Sound of Freedom, Jesus Revolution, and Nefarius.  These films show that good stories, well told, appeal to everyone.   But we should not fail to see the truth or the lies in films that are not Christian.  Molly’s Game is not perfect.  There are ideas that clearly defy truth.  But, in real and important ways, it conveys truths that help shape our affections rightly.  Otto used true truths to get us to buy a lie.   

The medieval church embraced the writings of pagans like Aristotle, Cicero, and Virgil because they contained true truth, told well.  The heroes, while not Christian, taught us of humanity in ways that Christian writings may not have.  This helps fill in the blanks and better grasp the author of truth.  When we see this, we should call it out.  As Dante used Virgil to guide us through his Christian story, Christians should view our culture’s myths with great skepticism.  But, when truth is shown, it should be celebrated.  Good Classical Christian schools use the classics in conversation with today’s myths and stories like Molly’s Game, to return to the medieval tradition of attending to the truth, wherever it is found.

Dubbed "The Canon Wars," the recent controversy over Western classical education is really a battle in a much broader culture war that is affecting CCE schools.  We've seen more than a handful of schools run aground on debates that started with seemingly borderline woke sensibilities.  These created a crack that opened into a fissure.  They originate with subtle oppressor/oppressed undertones that fuel a call for justice (of the “social” kind) in some form (i.e., women were kept out, so now we need to right that wrong…). 

In Voddie Baucham's prophetic 2020 book, Fault Lines, he says:  “In other words, Critical Theory is not just an analytical tool, as some have suggested; it is a philosophy, a worldview.” And of this worldview, he says:  “The fault lies in believing that such a vision can be attained by affiliating with, using the terminology of, or doing anything other than opposing in the most forceful terms the ideology that lies at the root of the social justice movement.” ― Voddie T. Baucham Jr., Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe

Below is a chronicling of the back-and-forth within the movement.  It is meant to provide a map of the fault line, so to speak.  Please add updates to the comments below so that I can keep this updated.  This map will become more important as the divide becomes deeper.

THE DIVIDE OVER CT-BASED FEMINISM

January 12th: 

It began with Hooten Wilson's article: “Is White Supremacy a Bug or a Feature of Classical Christian Education?” in Current, an online publication.  In this publication, Hooten Wilson initially claimed that Douglas Wilson was a racist and implied he was a misogynist.  She later retracted that claim.  But the rest of the article, including claims that CCE needed to be more inclusive, remained.

January 20th:  

David Goodwin  responded in the Federalist:  “Wokeness Is Coming For Classical Christian Education.”  Goodwin claimed Hooten Wilson was compromising the classical canon by adding people who had no previous claim to greatness, but who were now added by Hooten Wilson and others to conform to woke pressure. “If classical Christian education is to survive, it has to reject the foolishness of our age and embrace Christ’s way alone. Christ’s church favors neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free.”

January 24:  

Douglas Wilson responded to Hooten Wilson: “A Woke Framing of the Classical Christian School Movement.”  In his response, he claimed this was not an in-house debate, but rather a question on another order.  “This is what indicates the presence of the woke narrative. In the woke narrative, any form of inequality is equivalent to oppression. But this is critical theory, and is not the scriptural view.”

February 3rd: 

Hooten Wilson published in the Dallas Morning News:  “Must schools choose between dead white men and pop culture YA novels?”  Because this article is behind an email wall, I'll pick a few quotes from her thesis, which uses the "Third Way" category to suggest more inclusiveness in the CCE canon: “[Mortimer Adler's] list became the ‘canon,’ as we refer to it today. When it was updated in 1990, four women were added and no writers of color. Adler defended his decision, saying in a New York Times interview, ‘Before the 19th century, for instance, there were almost no women and Black writers.’”

Note: In context, Adler meant of comparable greatness to the list he had formerly published.  [This quote has been contextualized by Jeff Wilson here.]

“Despite knowledge of [sources she lists] authored by women and persons of color, adversaries of a fluid canon contend a scarcity of time to allocate to these writers: if we add women and writers of color, we will be required to cut canonical authors, meaning white men. Expanders of the canon have no interest in lowering the mountain of Parnassus, to borrow Swift’s metaphor, but simply want to raise up to their rightful place the quality works by other writers that have been ignored because of superficial prejudices created by race and gender.”

“… if we staunchly assert that no changes be made to a 20th-century list, we inhibit women and persons of color from fully recognizing themselves in this tradition. Not to mention that both reduced versions of tradition are untruthful.”

February 4th: 

Hooten Wilson published on her Substack a series of topics including: “Disagreeing: Classical Education & the Church” in which she said, “...celebrating the great tradition by reclaiming from outside the narrowly defined canon the voices of indigenous people, Africans, South Americans, Asians, Middle Eastern writers, and others who have been contributing for centuries—millennia even!—but ignored by a certain contingent in the West.” And, “In the same way that Christian educators sought out Christian texts missed by Adler, we are seeking the women and persons of color that he missed. To do so is not to be influenced by critical theory, but to not be blinded by the fallacies of the past.”

April 3rd: 

Matthew Freeman published in the American Conservative: “Classical Education’s Woke Co-Morbidity,” which called out Hooten Wilson, Prather, Parham, Tate, and to some degree myself (David Goodwin) because of what Freeman believed was a capitulation to the ideology of woke position in my Federalist piece.

April 3rd: 

David Goodwin responds in his Substack:  “Misquoted in The American Conservative.” In this, Goodwin restated his position and clarified that he did not capitulate to Hooten Wilson's core argument.  “Classical educators are at risk of gathering our forces, trying to defeat a balloon army that claims we are ‘racist’ or ‘misogynist.’ We need to stop.  We should view all of these descendent calls to inclusiveness and diversity as diversionary tactics to be ignored.  If they draw our focus, the enemy has already achieved their purpose.”

April 4th:  

Ben Merkle of New Saint Andrew's College responded:  “Is the CLT going Woke?”  in which Merkle addresses matters later released to the public on April 14th.   “I really dislike the stripping of ‘Christian’ from Classical Christian Education. Once you strip Christian out of there you will either end up with cultural Marxism on the one hand – you can’t say that one culture is better than another, so there is no reason to prefer one tradition over another. Or, on the other hand, you will end up with an academic version of white boy summer – we pick white authors because we just like white people. Both of these paths are the death of classical education.”

April 7th:

Clifford Humphrey published in the American Reformer “The Ends of ‘Mere Classical’ Schools” in which he reflects upon Freeman’s piece and the purpose of classical Christian Education. He proposes two meanings of classical and education. “The two opinions on the meaning of the term education diverge on two points. First, they diverge on faith that the tradition as generally received is trustworthy or not, and second, they diverge on the purpose of education. These two points are related.”

April 14th: 

Jeremy Tate responded to Freeman in the American Conservative:  “Diverse Classics and Whole Persons,” in which he defended the breadth of voices in CCE, and pointed to Ben Merkle's work at the CLT.  “There is also disagreement over the scope of classical education. One could quite reasonably limit one’s study to the works of the Western world. After all, this is an inexhaustible store of wisdom that no individual could come close to exploring fully in a lifetime. Yet the great minds of the canon chose the more diverse path.”

May 3rd: 

A new piece in Law and Liberty is published by Josh Herring of Thales Academy: “What Is the Future of Classical Education?”  in which he argues, referencing Freeman's piece, that Hooten Wilson and the others are "opening the movement to the forces that derailed mainstream education a century ago."

May 4th: 

Jessica Hooten Wilson responded to Herring's article in Law and Liberty: “Restoration, Not Representation” where she claims to point to discrimination in the past:  “But that means we cannot repeat the errors of the past — we cannot limit ourselves to those writers listed by Adler or curated by the first few classical schools in America. We exclude too many people from the invitation to classical education when we refuse to admit certain authors to our canon, which should be dynamic and alive, not static and dead.”

May 9th: 

Scott Yenor responds to Hooten Wilson in the American Conservative:  “Maintaining a Canon in Woke Times: Jessica Hooten Wilson proposes a revolution in classical Christian education under the guise of restoration.” Yenor points out inconsistencies in what Hooten Wilson claims to believe and what she wrote in previous articles, and he challenges her standard for the Canon.  “Hooten Wilson polishes her revolution with a patina of restoration and reform. But as with Greeks bearing gifts, classical Christian educators should scrutinize her intent before opening the gates to her canon.”

May 15th:

Nathan Ristuccia published “Combat rules for a Canon War,” where he nuanced the back and forth and proposed some rules.

May 15th: 

Douglas Wilson weighed in with “Fault Lines: The Classical Christian Ed Kind.”  In it, Wilson argues that woke will be the death of our movement, if we let it take hold.  "What do you get when you make room for feminist sensibilities? For woke nonsense? You get the death of a movement." and “I want to argue that the woke disease is the single greatest threat to the resurgent classical Christian school movement. I regard it as the biggest threat we have faced thus far—and there have been many threats to choose from.” His argument is the most direct and clear of the set, in my opinion.  

May 19th:

Colin Redemer wrote in an American Reformer article, “Classical Education and its Discontents,” that Tate's description of CCE of April 14th mischaracterizes Aristotle's view of education — it's not about diversity, but unity in the trunk of theology.  

May 23rd:

Matthew Freeman is back in the American Conservative with a response to the responses: “Toward a Classical Counter-Elite: An education in hero-worship will aim to produce new heroes.” In it he says “My anti-woke comrade-in-arms, Ben Merkle, goes so far as to say that only Christianity justifies the study of the classical pagans. How? Why? It is not clear. Josh Herring, writing in Law & Liberty, relatedly warns that ‘classical Greece must be tempered by both Christianity and modernity.’” And “Does self-consciously and artificially re-creating a pious and patriotic folk culture count as ‘tempering’ classicism with Christianity and modernity? If so, I will take it, even though sowing and caring for a folk culture is almost the antithesis of what the word ‘classical’ implies.”

UPDATED on 9/21/23:

THE DIVIDE OVER CRT BASED “RACISM”

With the release of “The Black Intellectual Tradition” by Angel Partham and Anika Prather in 2022, the woke-leery among us were curious. As a work exploring the African American subculture’s literature as part of American folk literature, it makes many compelling points. (one reader provided a link to a review in the comments below). The unfortunate title implies “black” as a race? a people? a nation? has a tradition. This might surprise those with black skin in Africa today who know next to nothing of African American culture and have their own traditions. Was TBIT altering the canon based on race? That was unclear. But, a number of CCE schools began doing just that, along with soft compromises for diversity committees or activities like black history month celebrations. These moves were raising yellow, though not yet red flags. The same logic for a special month or intellectual tradition based on the color of one’s skin could lead to…

And, that seems to be where things have lead.

September 2, 2023:

Over the past few years, the Society for Classical Learning, a competitor of the ACCS in the CCE market, has added "kingdom diversity" tracks, speakers who promote "diversity", and they host urban school efforts that often, unfortunately, speak of racial equity when they could just speak about serving the poor.  Those in close alliance with the SCL have been interested in distancing from pastor Douglas Wilson because he is too controversial-- in matters of race (falsely accused) and biblical gender roles.  Anika Prather, co-author of The Black Intellectual Tradition, is now concerned that the SCL leadership isn’t going far enough.

( https://drprather.com/2023/09/02/we-must-have-the-conversation/)

From this blog post by Anika Prather:  "I think of the Society for Classical Learning and how right after George Floyd’s murder, they invited me, Angel Parham, Aaron Howard and others to HAVE THE CONVERSATION. I still am moved by the beautiful time that I had…  We were trying to carefully move together in fellowship to have this conversation…   Before long, White school leaders who serve diverse communities were chosen to have this conversation and the only way I was welcomed to present is if a White male interviewed me on the stage. I was not welcomed to speak without that supervision or without being segregated to help someone who was asked to lead a pre-conference session (always a White male who had started a school in a diverse community). I do not believe this shift happened out of malice or even racism. I actually believe that the leaders of SCL still want to have the conversation and they want to invite people of color to help lead that effort (and the effort should be joint), but like [America's] Founders feared losing the country, maybe the leaders of SCL feared losing the organization.”

And, in a social media post on LinkedIn, Anika writes regarding a classical Christian conference in Africa in October of 2023:

“We cannot protect efforts that are rooted in White supremacy, even if the hearts of the people are unaware of what is happening… [speaking of RAFIKI, a CCE Africa mission— that used an African symbol, criticized by Anika, seemingly as appropriation] To host a conference where most of the featured speakers are not Black.  The one Black speaker is considered to be offensive to many African Americans and who openly attacks very strong Christian Black preachers.  Yet this conference is being created to promote what appears to be a very imbalanced effort to bring classical education to the African people.  Why  aren’t the teachers of these schools in Africa who are also African, invited to speak and FEATURED?”

Of course, the subtext of this criticism is as we could anticipate: race is the definitive measure of whether something is diverse, who can speak, and who and how people engage CCE. This is what critical theory sought— division along lines that were not economic, but that were indelible— our sex and our DNA. This division could then be used to create animosity that could foment revolution against the Western tradition.

ADDITIONAL PIECES that tap on the fringes of the woke issue…

November of 2022: (background)

 Jeremy Tate of the Classic Learning Test made a bold and courageous decision to invite Anika Prather and Douglas Wilson onto his popular podcast Anchored, hosted by himself and Chris Perrin of Classical Academic Press.  The conversation was between Christian brothers and sisters, and seemed so.  Wilson explained a writing of his long ago, and Prather expressed her feelings about the inclusiveness of classical Christian institutions.

April 5: 

Anika Prather and Angel Parham wrote an op ed in the Washington Post titled,  “As Black educators, we endorse classical studies” where they repeated  CRT talking points about race:  “We recognize the vapidity of this debate, which recalls the sometime description of Black people who are Christians as dupes of the ‘White man’s religion’. Has Christianity been identified with Western European colonizers generally described as ‘White’?”

April 28: 

Scott Yenor published in the American Conservative:  “A More Sex-Sensitive Classical Christian Education:  The Christian and Western traditions offer a refreshing alternative.”   Here he argues we are not doing enough in CCE to promote traditional feminine values.

December 2022

Gregory Soderberg published in The Consortium a review of The Black Intellectual Tradition which was favorable in some respects, but also asked some important questions. (This original is hard to read in the online format).

“It’s not clear to me how it is “inherent” in the classical education philosophy to value all voices. In fact, this seems to contradict one of the central tenets of the classical tradition— that there are works of literature, art, history, philosophy, and theology that are inherently better than others, and that these should be the focus of our studies and our life-long pursuit of wisdom.”

______________________________________

In summary, the two sides are growing apart.  The conservative side, on which I sit, believes there is grave danger in adopting critical theory, even when it is presented as a nuanced or kinder, gentler version.  On the other,  Hooten Wilson and associates are trying to correct the classical Christian model because of its presumed racism and sexism.  Their position calls for and will inevitably lead to our acquiescence to the culture's demands.

The "third way" suggested by Hooten Wilson is not really an alternative, but rather a quiet version of acceptable wokeness.  We've seen this type of compromise disrupt countless denominations, ministries, Christian publications, and pastors over the years.  J. Greshem Machen's Liberalism and Christianity is still the best resource for spotting and rejecting these types of compromise.  John O'Sullivan, a speech writer for Margaret Thatcher, asserted his law:  "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."  In his May 15th article, Douglas Wilson attributes an updated version of this from the Hoover institution's Robert Conquest.   Hooten Wilson's call for a third way is the same path taken by so many other Christian ministries in recent times, leading to decline and compromise, and the acceptance of whispered lies, disguised as something else.

If you are at a classical Christian school, even one that holds the line on the canon, do not let the cultural Marxist narrative infiltrate your classrooms quietly.  Hold to historical integrity, especially as it involves popular talking points like colonialism, slavery, and women's roles.  These are the most likely to be distorted (by one side or the other!).  Respect the views of authors like Milton or Austen as they characterize sexual differences.  Make it clear who you are when you admit new families to your school so that, when the zeitgeist of our age comes calling, you can remind them that you were true to your advertising.

I will leave you with sound advice from Voddie Baucham … written to pastors, but applicable to schools:

“Pastors, I beg you to consider what I have written here. I believe the Church—your church—is under attack. As shepherds, we must defend the sheep. We must repel the wolves. And yes, the wolves are many. However, this one is within the gates and has the worst of intentions. He desires to use your genuine love for the brethren as leverage. Don’t let him! Recognize the difference between the voice of the Good Shepherd who calls you to love all the sheep and the voice of the enemy that tells you some of them are guilty, blind, ignorant oppressors and that others are oppressed—all based on their melanin. Reject cries that take principles and stories of individual restitution (Numbers 5:7; Luke 19) and eisegetically twist them into calls for multi-generational reparations. Reject the cries of those who twist the repentance of Daniel and Ezra 1) on behalf of theocratic Israel and 2) for sin that took place during their lifetime, in an effort to promote multi-generational, ethnic guilt that rests upon all white people by virtue of their whiteness.” ― Voddie T. Baucham Jr., Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe

Because I’m not too familiar with Lindsay, I wiki’d him. It seems the Wiki-woke site consider him a conspiracy theorist (unsupported). Linday’s speech here follows ideas through time and states a thesis about their consequences. This is a classical approach to rhetoric. The new definition of “Conspiracy” must be “someone who puts together a convincing thesis we don’t like”

Lindsay's European Parliament Speech (short form but on twitter)

Or, in its Youtube form (the first of two included speeches.)

So, still knowing little about Lindsay, I find him most credible in this 29 minute speech— possibly since he synthesizes a similar story to the one Pete and I researched on cultural Marxism in Battle for the American Mind.

The West is the target of CRT and cultural Marxism. Yet, a few people have entered the CCE world and are now basing their recommendations in things that descend from cultural Marxism. This is how you cut off the branch you’re sitting upon. I suspect this handful of diversification proponents do not realize this, or they have chosen to believe that claims about CRT are over-applied or part of a conspiracy, or that their point of view is not motivated by CRT.

For Classical Christian educators, this matters to what we do every day because we are unashamedly Western. On balance, we believe the “West is best” as the saying goes. Not perfect, but the best of our cultural choices.

Ben Carson and Kyle Mann are speaking at the ACCS Repairing the Ruins conference this summer in Pittsburgh.  They join Rosaria Butterfield and Al Mohler, as well as a cast of classical educators including Douglas Wilson and George Grant as plenary speakers.  And, of course, we have over 70 other speakers on classical Christian education. (See the list here.)  We select our plenary speakers because they have something to say in this cultural moment that is of interest to classical Christian enthusiasts.  Since retiring from politics, Carson has turned his focus toward education.   Mann is at “The Babylon Bee” and will speak about the importance of Christian art in culture.   Drs. Butterfield and Mohler speak regularly about Christian worldview and culture.  So why this lineup?  Classical Christian education, far from an anachronism, should have a transformative influence on culture – including religion and politics.  This influence is rooted in the very nature of paideia.   But, some wonder if we are choosing political sides, and if that is appropriate.

A friend of mine, Dr. Scott Yenor, places CCE enthusiasts in two categories.  There are those in CCE who take a “shire” approach– they desire to remain outside the fray of our culture and away from controversy.  One well-spoken reader represented the shire view well in response to my last post:  “I think we can speak beautiful truths and stand firmly for what’s right without mucking up ourselves in the process” (referring to political partisanship).  And there are others who view CCE through the “culture war” lens.  This category was well represented in a response to my post as well:  “I also appreciate the encouragement to see things from a bigger vantage point vs ‘just looking through the keyhole’.”   

Where the fictional Hobbits came by their ambivalence naturally, Christians today have had our affections shaped by an idea that was planted by the Progressives over a century ago.  We chronicled this in Battle for the American Mind, citing the brilliance of Christopher Nolan's insight in his 2010 movie "Inception."  The movie is about the power of ideas, and particularly the power of embedding a new idea into the conscience, with wide-ranging effects.   In our case, the Progressives planted the idea in our cultural consciousness that there are separate religious, political, and secular worlds, and these are not to be traversed in civil society.  By dividing Christianity away and putting it in its own box, it has become irrelevant in the culture. It’s as though we each live in three worlds, only one of which is effectively ruled by Christ.   If engaged at all in politics or culture, Christianity is now the tail being wagged by our post-Christian society.  Our churches and statesmen, by and large, try to nuance, blend, and compromise their way into relevance.   Still other Christians believe they can live in their local community shire and just stay out of national politics.

 Historically, this is a departure from what the church has been about for the past 2000 years. Instead of blending, Christians spurred transformation.  Ambrose of Milan was a politician who sought to quell problems in the church and became a bishop who continued to engage in political controversies.  He famously wrote against and chastened Emperor Theodosius, threatening him until he repented.  Ambrose took bold public positions on political matters as a Christian Bishop.  John of Salisbury (12th century) exerted the supremacy of the church over civil government.  Certainly, as Christians engage the political sphere today, we should always remember that Christianity does not support a particular political party, but rather a political party is supported by Christians insofar as it reflects the good, the true, and the beautiful.  John Calvin worked hand-in-glove with Geneva’s city government.  While Martin Luther echoed St. Augustine in the two kingdoms doctrine, the practice of this did not remove Christians from the political realm.  Luther’s ties were strong enough for a prince to save him from the Catholic church.  William Bradford and the early colonies were intertwined, with the majority of the original 13 colonies having official religions.  American clergy fought in the Revolutionary War, and the intertwined relationship between the civic government and Christianity was daily fare.  The Civil War in America was argued on Christian grounds, from both sides.   

 Some now tend to believe it is wrong for Christian institutions to be political, or for religion to be applied to secular decisions … or even for Christians to voice their position in the media or invite Christians with political or journalistic ties to speak.  This reaction flows from the secular religion of America, sometimes called “pluralism”:  Don't cross over these lines that we, the Progressives, have created.  This pseudo-ethic has resulted in public schools indoctrinating generations of children in atheistic humanism, colleges that do the same, the mutilating and sexualizing of young children, the suppression of debate and dissenting viewpoints, and laws encouraging abortion, divorce, and fornication.  What happens when we isolate Christianity from cultural and political concerns?  It no longer influences. Christianity becomes only about personal salvation (usually on our own terms), and much of Scripture is rendered moot.  And, our kids get swept into the culture without Christian responses to important questions that relate to the forbidden realms of politics or secular life.

Perhaps there was a time in America when the two parties represented two paths to the same end – they both wanted the same ends by different means.  Now, the left seeks the demise of Western Christian culture and to replace it based on lies. We should oppose any party seeking that goal if we love our neighbors, because no one will be better off if the Progressive agenda succeeds.  This is openly and plainly obvious now in a way that it was not 20 years ago.   Christians who do not confront this will eventually become enveloped by it, if only because they were not taught to resist it.  Having said this, in my piece earlier this week about FOX News, I was suspicious and critical of Progressive tactics.  Some thought this partisan.  I did not intend it to be.  I think we all should be against the Progressive agenda.  I hold no allegiance with any other political party.  

Recently, I’ve become more publicly engaged in political matters because, as with my Federalist piece earlier this year, I’ve seen Progressive ideas seeping into classical Christian education.  When ideas go unaddressed and take root, they often create mercurial feelings that sway us.  These feelings trigger action.  Deeply rooted Progressive ideas result in classical Christian schools that bend to the spirit of our age as they acquiesce to anti-Western rhetoric, remove classic books, stop reading certain Shakespeare, insert new works into the tradition based on intersectionality, accept abuses of their freedoms, and engage in reverse-racism.  I’ve seen all of this at specific CCE schools.  In the absence of a diligent and thoughtful Christian focus on matters of our times, schools fall prey to the Progressive zeitgeist that surrounds us.  If we do not dialog about these matters openly, they easily become assumed.  Things like “Kingdom Diversity” seem to be “they might have a point” instances, when really, they originate with the subtle ideas implanted by Progressives. These ideas are a starting point with an intentionally designed destination, and that destination is not Truth. If the “culture war” folks do not engage, we will allow this infiltration to continue.

When Jesus stood in front of the most powerful political leader He faced on earth He taught us about His kingdom and His truth: 

As Christians, we must continue to bear witness of His Truth in every sphere of this world so that those who are of Him will hear.  The hope of the whole Gospel, over all of life, is the power of Christianity, and a gift to this world.

Since my earliest involvement in classical education in the mid 1990s, the movement has been Kuyperian.  Abraham Kuyper, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905, famously said,

Why do we engage in political or “secular” domains?  Because classical Christian education always has.  We read Burke, Locke, and Voltaire.  We read the Koran, the Enuma Elish, and Beowulf.  Why would we narrow our focus when it comes to the pagan world around us in our present age – especially when Christians are pulled into lies told during these times?   If we don’t apply these works to our present age, what good are they?

As a parting thought, we should remember that, as the Hobbits ignored what was going on around them, Saruman’s thugs took control of the Shire.  It took only four Hobbits to return and organize a revolt, break the chains, and lead them back to freedom.

Tucker Carlson's departure at FOX News reflects a much bigger story, regardless of what you think of FOX News or Carlson.  It seems that the sweeping narrative of the story is lost in the 24-hour news cycle and our moment-by-moment mentality.  The story here is less about FOX News and more about echoes of a lesson learned long ago. 

In 2016, after 8 years of Progressive government in America under Barack Obama, the left thought it had the numbers to, once and for all, impose the Progressive vision in America. In 2016, Donald Trump won the election.  Friend or foe?  That is beside the point, except that the Progressive left thought Trump to be America’s greatest foe.  My story here is about the direction of America, not Trump.  The left publicly laid the blame for Trump’s election at the feet of Russian collusion.  But, internally they understood that, given the influence of FOX News, the real danger was a mainstream news outlet that was not under their influence and was threatening the Progressive cause.  Yes, FOX, by its numbers and namesake, is mainstream.  Progressives knew FOX was beginning to reach their voters.  By February of 2022, Tucker Carlson was the number one watched cable host across all networks among Democrats in the key demographic of 25-54.  The danger posed by Carlson to the Progressive vision was clear and present.

In 2017, before the dust had settled from Trump's election, two sex "scandals," which later dissipated, ousted two key figures at FOX — Roger Ailes, the executive who led FOX News to its success, and Bill O'Reilly, the most popular host on the network.   A second popular FOX host in prime time, Megyn Kelly, was hired away by NBC with an unprecedented contract at nearly the same time.  This required at least a handful of insider women at FOX to accuse Ailes and O'Reilly simultaneously, and NBC executives to spend $69 Million on a three-year contract for Kelly.   True or not, the timing of the sexual accusations should cause a discerning observer to question how all of these things came about at that moment.  And, given the time that's passed since 2017, why haven't we heard more about those sexual accusations?  Shortly into Kelly's NBC contract, she was fired on the usual trumped up charge of racism (or insensitivity).  The offense was so minimal, even by leftist standards, that it was clear NBC had no real interest in Kelly.  Was this turn of events a very unlikely coincidence?

FOX bounced back with Tucker Carlson as a singular force de jour.  By 2021, Carlson had eclipsed O'Reilly's average 3.3 Million viewers and could command his own destiny at FOX.  In response, Progressives pressured advertising agencies not to place ads on Carlson's show.  Regular viewers would notice that My Pillow and vitamin supplements were far more common than automotive or pharmaceutical ads on Carlson.  This financial boycott by big corporations drove FOX to look for new ways to pay for Carlson's show, given that it was the most popular show on Cable TV.  FOX gave Carlson a prominent show anchoring FOX Nation, the paid streaming service of FOX News.  As I understand it, Carlson insisted on journalistic independence and he largely got it.  As Covid wound down, Carlson became more dangerous to the left with his reporting on Covid and January 6th.  Early this year, he received exclusive access to the January 6th footage, released to him by Kevin McCarthy.  

On Monday, March 6th, Carlson started to release the January 6th footage.  By the 7th, power players from both parties were crying foul.  On the 8th, Carlson went silent, despite his earlier promises of a full week of releases from the tapes.  This did not go unnoticed.  Dinesh D'Sousa tweeted around the 9th that someone must have silenced Carlson.  Within a week, discerning viewers may note that Carlson, who normally broadcasts from Florida, was in the New York studio for the week — at FOX headquarters — right around the 15th of March.  The press in the past few days has been focused on Carlson's role in the Dominion lawsuit, but I believe that the problems might have begun when FOX News, under threats or pressure, called Carlson to headquarters to discuss censoring him.  FOX News, it seems, silenced Tucker's release of January 6th footage — possibly under threat, or by the timing of the Dominion lawsuit. 

Which brings us to another strand in this story.  On April 18th, a Jury in New York was seated for the FOX Dominion Voting Machine civil suit against FOX.  Commentators on FOX had called the integrity of Dominion machines into question.  This type of commentary has long been protected by the 1st Amendment and is done routinely by news commentators across networks.  The number of inaccuracies that are printed every day by the media are countless — and this assumes the worst case with FOX — that the claims were untrue.  But, a civil suit can be brought anytime by anybody, and this one was brought in a New York Court. No sooner had the jury been seated than FOX settled, with the largest settlement of its kind in history - about $780 million.  

To understand this turn of events, we need to look back to the lawsuit brought by New York State's leftist Attorney General Latitia James against the National Rifle Association in August of 2020.  Like FOX News, the NRA had been headquartered in New York and was therefore subject to a lawsuit over paperwork and financial technicalities regarding Wayne LaPierre, the outspoken president of the NRA.  The suit was supposedly about financial integrity.  Everyone with integrity who looked at the complaint could see it was politically motivated to silence the NRA.  The NRA, which famously had led the 2nd Amendment fight through the 1990s and 2000s, has been effectively silenced nationwide by the state of New York as it battles this frivolous suit.  A similar situation seems to be in play with a criminal investigation of Donald Trump over, once again, paperwork technicalities, selectively prosecuted.  New York State and City have become powerful allies of the Progressives as they control national political outcomes.

New York is so densely packed with Progressives that any jury there can be counted upon to vote according to its religion — Progressivism.  FOX News, once they saw who was seated in the jury, made a business decision that is telling.  The legal process of Voir Dire in jury selection would have given FOX attorneys a close look at who they had to convince.  FOX obviously saw the handwriting on the wall and accepted the largest settlement ever leveled against a journalistic organization for libel.  

Note the timing this time:  We are about 18 months from a presidential election and Joe Biden just announced he is running.

I write this piece not as a defense of FOX News or Carlson (well, maybe Carlson, given his Heritage Speech).  Rather, I think we should look at the power that is wielded by the forces of the Progressives.  Just this week, video of Biden claiming the government’s ownership of America's children surfaced.  The power-structure is my point, not the particulars. 

Carlson's timing is ironic, as the January 6th catalyst unfolded in mid March. History, as classical educators often note, can be a looking glass into the future.  On the 15th of March, 44 BC, around 70 Roman senators, numerous military officers and civilians conspired to kill Julius Caesar because, by popular accounts, he was seeking his ascension to Rex (king).  With the promise of ending a threat to the Roman Republic, the powers of the mob assassinated him.  He was assassinated by the nameless bureaucratic powers of civilians, politicians, and other interests, not one of which had the courage to face him head on.  What Progressive is willing to face Carlson in an open debate?  And what of his supposed allies on the right over January 6th footage? Et tu, Mitch McConnell?  

 Julius, it was widely believed, was a danger too great to allow to live. Octavius, his immediate successor, proceeded to establish the Roman Empire, ending the Republic.  He took an even loftier pair of titles —  "Caesar Augustus" — and did exactly what the bureaucratic mob who assassinated Julius, claimed he intended to do.  Octavius did it more so, all the while denying his intention — to become the most powerful of all Roman emperors!  There are two lessons in this.  One, empires rise when the winds of culture demand it, regardless of who is in power.  And two, the collusion of powers in a nameless, faceless power structure is a prologue to the rise of an empire.  An empire, I’m afraid, is on our doorstep.  Concentrated political power like this has not been seen since Rome, and America’s military influence far eclipses Rome’s.  Carlson’s story, and the FOX story, will be played out in the media as a story about FOX and Carlson.  Discerning observers realize there is much more at stake.

With this, for a little hopefulness, I encourage you to watch a related video from New Saint Andrews College. 

 And here are two more links to Tucker Carlson’s speech:

https://www.heritage.org/50

In Matthew Freeman’s April 3rd piece in The American Conservative, “Classical Education’s Woke Co-Morbidity”, I found little to disagree with, except that he uses me as his antagonistic foil.   

Given his argument, I wonder if “Freeman” is a pseudonym? His article is centered on this crux:  "But neither [Hooten Wilson] nor Theodor Adorno forced him [David Goodwin] to write that classical education exists for liberating the minds of people groups, marching for freedom, and giving them rights."

His evidence of my claim?  Freeman quotes from my Federalist Article:  “Classical education was created to, and has, liberated the minds of countless people groups in history, and it is capable of doing the same in America today — and beyond. It has been at the forefront of the march for freedom and education; for individual rights apart from race or class or sex. If we let the very toxin that infects progressive education get into our classrooms, we’re doomed. This toxin was created and propagated by those who hate our tradition. Should we voluntarily drink it?”

I made no claim about the ultimate purpose of Classical education.  I claimed classical education has an historical purpose of liberating minds, as evidenced by the medieval’s name for it — the Liberal Arts.  And that it did so for countless people groups as is evidenced by outposts among the Pics, Celts, Saxons, Danes, Slaves, Goths, etc.  I also claimed it had a pivotal role in the rights focused upon at America’s founding — “individual rights apart from race or class or sex.”  These claims are all demonstrably true.  But “Existing for” is a quality of classical education that my quote does not offer.  Such an assertion would call for the telos of classical education.  

The telos of classical Christian education, as close as I could state it succinctly, is to bring the student’s heart, soul, mind, and body into conformance with the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christ.  Or, as I describe less succinctly in Battle for the American Mind:  Paideia.  In a 1200-word response article, as in The Federalist, it would have been impossible to have that discussion.

Freeman applies another contrived, hypothetical quote to me: “No, we’re not racist — in fact, our books are anti-racist!”  As an aside, to claim our books are anti-racist would be to claim they are racist — maybe that’s his point.  In either case, nothing I said implies that.  The closest I might get is that there is a certain “equality of access” inherent in classical education’s tradition.  This belief is rooted in the church tradition of educating the poor and lowly, along with the aristocrats.  “Cathedral schools” and many monasteries served this purpose from the earliest days of the Christian era.  John Amos Comenius, one of our classical Christian forefathers, made educating the masses his life’s work.  We still revere his work in the movement today.  If this tradition makes classical Christian education too egalitarian in Freeman’s view, then I am guilty as charged. As a commoner myself, I wanted my children to have a classical Christian education so I helped build them a school.  Our movement thrives on the action of everyday commoners starting schools with the hope of better days ahead.

Freeman’s thesis seems to miss the relationship between freedom and virtue.  Freedom comes with virtue and cannot exist without virtue.  Virtue was viewed in antiquity as the path to freedom!  Classical education trains in virtue, through heroes, as Freeman rightly claims, to the end of liberating minds from vice.  Yet, his argument implies that virtue and freedom cannot coexist as purposes.  In fact, they are bedfellows.  Christians turned toward true freedom as an educational purpose.  True freedom is submission to the Truth (“The Truth shall set you free").  Perhaps Freeman presumes I meant “freedom” or “individual rights” in an unconstrained, libertarian sense.  Or, perhaps, he is unaccustomed to my protestant (though not “liberal protestant” as he claims) sensibilities toward freedom of conscience and the Bill of Rights, endowed by our creator.  

Freeman’s article is valuable in two respects.  It rightly views the entire woke enterprise as destructive for classical education — if for no other reason than it pulls us away from our mission.  One of General Patton’s least appreciated missions in the European Theater during WWII was to create a fake “balloon army” of tanks and men that would draw the German focus away from the Normandy invasion.  These types of diversionary tactics are effective, if you fall for them. 

Classical educators are at risk of gathering our forces, trying to defeat a balloon army that claims we are “racist” or "misogynist.” We need to stop.  We should view all of these descendent calls to inclusiveness and diversity as diversionary tactics to be ignored.  If they draw our focus, the enemy has already achieved their purpose.

Jessica Hooten Wilson and others are calling for a bombing raid on a bunch of latex.  These folks are among us and influence our leaders to focus energy on a faux problem.  The danger is not so much that students might read an obscure female author conjured into the mythical “tradition”, or that the discussion will inevitably turn to a demonization of our Western tradition – though these are both damaging – but rather that we’ll all shift our attention and focus toward placating an enemy who is not there.  The whole DEI apparatus was conjured, as Freeman referenced from my piece, by the descendents of the Frankfurt School, to get us off target.  Racism, misogyny, etc., are a bunch of balloon tanks that look pretty convincing from a 30,000 foot reconnaissance aircraft.  There are stories of atrocities and Western failures painted on every airbag.  But the damage is done when classical educators work themselves up and believe that racism/sexism are the real problems that need to be addressed.  We start new tracks at our conferences and find speakers who can talk about diversity, reconciliation, and there we go, leaving our defenses open to the real vulnerabilities.  The beaches of our families, our churches, and the paideia of our children are left unguarded.

Freeman’s article also reminds us that virtue requires heroes, and that classical education is not egalitarian, but views the world hierarchically. In some strange twist of irony, I just drafted the first chapter in my next book from Harper Collins about classical education.  It begins with a defense of hierarchy.  For the record, when it comes out, I wrote it before Freeman’s critique.  

I commend Freeman’s article to my readers, sans his foil of course, because he makes good points.  He is just a bit careless with his choice of quotes in an apparent strain to indict with a wide swath.  But then, indictments are easy to get these days.  

Aberrant theology was a specter that menaced the early church until about the 5th century.  Arianism was far and away the most influential heresy of this time.  It was not the most flagrant, nor was it the most obvious, nor was it as widely condemned– at first.  In the end, Arianism did the most widespread damage because it was a nuanced and subtle compromise that had major long term consequences. 

In several respects, Arianism was a Christian compromise with the “wokeness” of its day, just as some Christian leaders are compromising with “woke” ideas now:  Both compromises respond to a sophistry that originated in high academia from pagan or atheistic ideas.  In both cases, this ideology metastasized into cultural behaviors and action, demanded of everyone.   Both compromises sought to avoid shame from the dominant narrative and worldview, or reflected the sublimation of that worldview into the church.  Both compromises were justified using Scripture. Both compromises were championed by Christians using highly nuanced arguments.  And, both compromises were widely embraced among a sizable, influential Christian class. One compromise responded to an error regarding the nature of God (Arianism), the other an error regarding the nature of Man and justice (feminism/antiracism).  In a way, the Greek narrative provided an underpinning for the way they thought about life, just as Critical Theory’s DEI is now pervading our daily life.

Near the end of the 3rd century AD, Arius was a priest in the church at Alexandria, Egypt — the intellectual center of the Empire. Arius is said to have been distinguished in appearance.  People were charmed by his manners and impressed by his intellectual air.  He was devoted as far as we can tell, and even denounced Christians who too freely blended Christianity and Greek paganism.  But, when it came to meshing with Greek culture, Arius’s teachings would become a subtle salve.  

A short digression here might help:  According to Greek and Roman cultural belief, derived from Socrates, “God" must have singular unity.   What, then, could be done with the Christian claim of a God in 3 persons — Father, Son, and Spirit — all 3 transcendent?  This was anathema to the Greeks and wildly unpopular.  It drove the educated class away from Christianity.

Bolder heresies that addressed the “transcendence” problem were common at the time– and Arius rejected each of these.  But, Arius did make a small adjustment to be more “relevant,” as we would say today:  If God is the Father of Jesus, the Father must have preceded him in a very nuanced way.  

For about a decade, I taught church history in Sunday school.  When I first encountered Arius’s arguments, they were so fine tuned that I found it hard to discern the problem, even after several readings. Some of my friends claimed Arius said God came before Jesus in time– this turned out not to be true.  Arius was more nuanced than that.  What is the difference between “begotten” and “made,” especially when you’re outside of time?  Why does it matter?  I read the contemporary arguments on both sides, and admit that unlike other clear heresies, I could scarcely understand the Arian nuance.  My students asked tough questions about the distinctions of Arius that neither I nor they could parse. Yet, Arius’ heresy got the most attention.  

How does today’s “woke” doctrine compare with such an historic heresy?  The similarity is not so much between the errors themselves.  It’s more of a reflection of how errors get mainstreamed into Christianity through compromise.   Our culture makes an idol out of what it calls “identity” and demands a new form of equity.  It assumes that this idea of equity is the highest form of justice.  And, to avoid offending this justice, Christians must follow the path and accept a softened form of feminism and anti-racism.  

By contrast, God tells us we share a common brotherhood and sisterhood as descendents of Adam, and that our nations, tribes, or families are part of divine order.  In God’s word, “oppression” is a deliberate act, unrelated to identity.  Race is unspoken of in Scripture.  For example, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) is identified by his nationality– his race may be assumed but is not mentioned.  And, the biblical patriarchal system, including the authors of Scripture and the people it references, do not reflect “equity” in modern parlance.  Overt teaching about divinely ordered sexual roles in the church and family, now either ignored or heavily qualified in contemporary churches, are unambiguous in Scripture.  These biblical frames should be our starting point.  Instead, some follow the cultural whims of our day and justify them using Scripture as a proof text.

In my recent Federalist piece, “Wokeness Comes for Classical Christian Education”, I call out the ever subtle and widening acceptance emerging in otherwise conservative classical Christian circles.  These circles avoid or quickly condemn the most brazen claims of Critical Theory.  At the same time, they nuance their proposal to rework curriculum by calling it a “third way”– neither left nor right. 

Arians were “third way’ers.”  They compromised, with nuance.  They condemned heresies like Docetism, which taught that Christ was not really man at all.   Or Modalism, which taught that the logos problem could be solved by “modes” of the Godhead.  

So why did the Arian heresy become the most devastating historical heresy in the church?  Because its appeal was so nuanced as to seem, in fact, inoffensive and not really a heresy at all.  This caused it to spread like wildfire.

The Rest of the Story…

With the outer provinces largely unconvinced, Arius relocated to the cultural center of Rome with hope that his compromise would appeal to the well-connected elite.  He found his audience — Christians in Rome preferred an erudite compromise that made them appear to non-Christians less like fumblers and simpletons. 

Arius came to hold sway with the elite leaders and influencers from Emperor Constantine to many of the bishops in educated urban centers.  Thus, Arianism became a dominant belief system in the politically connected church.  During the debates between 323 and 381 over Arianism, the Bible was translated into Gothic by an Arian scribe in one of these elite urban centers.  This transported Arianism into northern Europe, where it divided the church for centuries.  The damage done is hard to overstate and was not foreseen early on as it rose to prominence.  It seems we are in this situation today.  

Somehow, despite its banished status and much ridicule from the elites, trinitarian Christianity eventually won the day.  A scrappy collection of trinitarian bishops from the outer provinces was led by an outspoken and unpopular bishop named Athanasius, who refused to accept the Arian narrative, its tenets, or even its small compromises.  He railed against this heresy with all of his force and might.  Contra Mundum — "against the world" — was attributed to Athanasius, the great champion of trinitarianism, as he stood rejected by the entire power-elite in Christendom.  It eventually became his title:  Athanasius Contra Mundum.  

Athanasius’s work was not without personal cost.  The Roman emperor was friendly to Arian ideas and Athanasius was repeatedly politically exiled, tried for false crimes, and shouted down. He was exiled 5 times (thankfully, today, we just get canceled) and was only granted peace during the last 8 years of his life.  

Trinitarians fought boldly and in ways that today would certainly have led pundits to say, "I agree with what they're saying, but not the way they say it." Or, “He shouldn’t be directly accusing Christian brothers of… .” Or, “This should be handled in a private conversation.” Athanasius’ tone would curdle the “Christian” sentiments of our day.  

Read his very public “Discourses Against the Arians” in which he does not hold back.  Here’s just a small sample: 

He goes on to use some bold terms, calling Arians the Antichrist, Satan, Judas, mad, and heretics, to name but a few.  Can we imagine a Christian leader today writing “Discourses Against Christian ‘Anti-Racists’ and Feminists”? 

 It does beg the question: Are we taking Truth seriously enough in our cultural moment?  

As with Arianism, some Christians today ask, “What’s wrong with righting past wrongs?  Don’t they have a point?  We just want to be welcoming to everyone!  Can we agree to disagree?” These “third way” sentiments accept the underlying premise of atheistic Marxism--and in turn make giving way to man’s authority more important than giving way to God’s truth.  The danger is hard to discern through our smeared cultural glasses.    What begins as a modest addition of a book here or there turns into removing even more, and before long, even some classical Christian schools will be “woke” schools.

We owe to Athanasius two of the church’s creeds and more.   On January 7, 367 AD, Athanasius wrote a letter listing the books that he suggested were “Canon,” thus giving us our Bibles today. He is considered a saint. History has treated well a man who was seen as a pariah in his time.  Arius, beloved in his time, is now credited with the most damaging heresy in the history of the church.

In his book Fault Lines, Voddie Baucham goes beyond predicting that Christian organizations will divide over “identity.”  He foretells division right at the sinew and bone level — within our communities.  I've seen much of this already over the past year.  How the church, and classical Christian education, aligns now may define the course of the church for centuries.  The question is not will the church divide over the cultural pressure of our time, but which side of the divide will each of us be on?  Divides have two sides.  There is no “third way” in this divide, just as Arianism was not a “third way” between monism and trinitarianism.  

On a final, but related note:  I’d like to invite everyone to Join me at Repairing the Ruins, the national conference on classical Christian education, this summer in Pittsburgh.  We will be celebrating Athanasius.

St. Nicholas (yes, THAT St. Nicholas) is reported to have slapped Arius during the debates at the counsel. 

1. Last week, I posted my article in The Federalist on wokeism in CCE. This week, Douglas Wilson responded to the same piece by Jessica Hooten Wilson that I responded to. I think he more deeply assessed the concern, so I commend it to you.
   A Woke Framing of the Classical Christian School Movement
   

2. Tomorrow, I will be on FOX Nation, the streaming service of FOX News, as a guest on a live event for the “Miseducation of America.” The program will air live tomorrow evening (Thursday, January 25 at 7:00 PM Eastern). It promotes season two of a series by the same name. Season one was a video version of Pete Hegseth’s and my book Battle for the American Mind. I was less involved in season two, but I am interviewed. Both seasons are worth watching — season one as an introduction to classical Christian education and season two as an indictment of public education.
   

   

3. My good friend, Dr. Scott Yenor, did a podcast that I think is worth a listen. He describes his experience being Cancelled at a large state university in a First Things article. This podcast addresses the issue of our call as Christians to be less than popular.
   Cultivating a spirit of Martyrdom