Reprinted with permission. Read original article here.
As Americans look towards the Heavens to see the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024, I wanted to share with you an excerpt from my book, American Phoenix, about a conversation between John Quincy Adams and the Czar of Russia over the report of two comets in the sky.
As I was writing this intro on April 5, the earthquake in New York took place. I was literally searching scripture for these terms: signs, such as signs in the heavens and earthquakes when the news broke about the New York earthquake.
Here are a couple of scriptures that I found.
âThere will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.â Luke 21:11 (NIV)
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.â Luke 25:21 (NIV)
Humans have often attributed meaning to eclipses, comets, and other celestial wonders. In addition to the solar eclipse visible in America on April 8, the devil comet will also make an appearance.
Space.com recently reported, âAn unusual âhorned’ comet is now visible in the night sky and may even make a rare appearance during the total solar eclipse on April 8, 2024. This particular comet, often called the devil comet, visits the inner solar system every 71 years.â
Hence, April 8 may include two heavenly wonders. Similarly, two signs in the sky were the topics of this excerpt from my book American Phoenixbelow.
When John Quincy Adams was America’s top diplomat to Russia in December 1811, he had a discussion with the Czar of Russia about the two signs in the sky, which were thought to be two comets. John Quincy and Emperor Alexander had grown accustomed to taking walks along the canals of St. Petersburg at the same time of day so they could meet and discuss politics and world events away from the pretension and formality of the Winter Palace.
Enjoy this excerpt from my favorite book that I have written, American Phoenix, which is now available on audible.
Comets
Comets have a bad reputation. They are known for letting their hair down and growing a brilliant train as they head for earth.
Over the years humans have had trouble making heads or tails of these celestial lights. Some welcome these eccentric stars as signs of hope. To the masses, however, these masses of gas and dust are omens of impending disaster. Many would prefer that a comet keep its distance and stay as close to the sun as possible. The reason? Fear. People have feared excessive tragedy following in the wake of these long-haired stars.
With so much woe over one comet, what would happen if two comets suddenly appeared in the sky? That was the question on Russian Emperor Alexanderâs mind as he took a walk in St. Petersburg, Russia, on December 9, 1811. When he saw his American friend, John Quincy Adams, the czar knew he would receive a thoughtful reply. Adams was the top diplomat representing America in Russia. By this time he had done something no one thought he could do: win the friendship of Russian Emperor Alexander.
âMonsieur Adams,â the emperor called enthusiastically in a good-humored tone. âI have the honor to pay my respect.â
John responded cordially. As usual the pair discussed the weather, which could not help leading to the mysterious lights in the sky.
âWe have two comets at once,â Alexander observed of the twin prediction.
Adams instantly knew what he meant. The comet of 1811 was becoming more and more unmistakable and brilliant. With its tail âwarming themâ for some months, the latest reports predicted that two comets, not merely one, would streak past St. Petersburg before the yearâs end. John doubted the newspaperâs prediction of double trouble.
âOh, that is certain,â Alexander said playfully.
He offered another cosmic puzzle for Adams to solve. âBut, furthermore, I hear that one of the fixed stars namely, Sirius, has sunk one degree in the firmament,â Alexander continued wryly.
Unlike his American friend, the emperorâs information came not from a newspaper but a person.
In a sarcastic tone, he revealed his source: âBut for this I will give you my authority, âsays the ambassador from France.ââ
âThis was extraordinary news indeed,â John responded with equal sarcasm over French Count Lauristonâs planetary predictions.
âBut as it is generally understood that one comet portends great disasters,â John observed, âit is to be hoped that two must signify some great happiness to the world.â
âOr at least that their mischief will operate mutually against each other and by reciprocal counteraction destroy the evil efficacy of both,â Alexander suggested.
âI congratulate His Majesty of his happy solution of the portentous knot.â
âIl y a moyen dâexpliquer toutes ces choses lĂ ,â he said with a laugh, that is, there are ways to explain all these things.
The czar added that the best way to respond to cosmic harbingers of calamity was to let the heavens take their own course without meddling in their management.
Indeed. The czar may have recently brought the Turkish Empire to a truce, freeing thousands of Russian soldiers to fight France, but even with all his power, he could not control a comet nor what happened the following year in 1812. Two wars took place when Napoleon invaded Russia and America went to war with Britain. Both forever changed both John Quincy Adams and Emperor Alexander.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Womenâs Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
Kutuzov inflicted several defeats on the Turks and on May 28, 1812, concluded a Russo-Turkish peace settlement favorable to Russia (Treaty of Bucharest).
It has become taboo today to mention anything relating to Christianity in the same sentence with anything regarding law or public policy. If you mention anything that even remotely sounds like Christian theology in a public policy context, you are immediately met with cries of âSeparation of church and state!â, âWe are a secular democracy!â, or âYou are trying to establish a theocracy!â
In such a climate, it is good to reflect on the proper use of Christian theology in law, governance, and public policy.
The Myth of Secular Public Policy
First of all, I should point out that, whether we want it to be or not, theology (whether good theology or bad theology) actually is at the core of all public policy, especially in the United States. The Declaration of Independence states this: âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . â
Now, let us ask ourselves, is this truth really self-evident?
Throughout the entire course of human history, people have wanted to divide people into classes. Whether it is through the caste system in India, through the nobility of Europe, or through simple racial preference, what has been self-evident to humans is that âweâ are better than âthey.â So how could the writers of the Declaration of Independence claim that it was a self-evident truth?
The answer is that they had been raised under Christian doctrine.
Christianity: The Source of American Rights
âThere is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesusâ (Galatians 3:28). âFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godâ (Romans 3:23). âSuppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, âHereâs a good seat for you,â but say to the poor man, âYou stand thereâ or âSit on the floor by my feet,â have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?â (James 2:2-4).
And there are many more. So, we can see that at the core of our country, at the Declaration of Independence, we have distinctively Christian doctrine. So, if someone says that using Christian doctrine violates the rights of other people who are not Christian, they are simply incorrectâit is specifically Christian doctrine that has created and enabled those rights to begin with.
The State and the Church: Working Together, But Not as One
However, it is very easy to get the wrong idea.
The goal of using Christian doctrine is not to make the state an arm of the church. Jesusâ commands were to a people who were not in control of the government, and therefore, care must be taken to properly apply Christian doctrine to the affairs of the state. The churchâs function is for believers, while the stateâs function is for all of the people in the community, no matter how large or small. The stateâs actions are, by nature, coercive. The community of God is, by nature, voluntary.
If we tried to use the stateâs power to force people to believe in Christianity, we would be misusing the power of the state and misunderstanding what Christianity is.
However, in order to properly govern, the state must presuppose knowledge about nature, reality, and humanity. If the state misunderstands human nature, its laws will be ineffective or even counterproductive. If the state misunderstands the source of evil and corruption, it will also fail to curb it and may wind up perpetuating it instead. Christianityâthrough the Bible, through church teaching, and through Christian reflection over thousands of yearsâhas quite a bit to say about the nature of reality and especially human nature. Christianity best serves law and governance by providing better perspectives on the nature of reality and then reflecting on how government can be most effective in the light of that reality.
Applying Christian Doctrine: A Case Study and A Warning
Let me present a case study from Reinhold Niebuhrâs The Irony of American History. In this book, he shows how the doctrine of sin has affected different governments. Niebuhr presents two incorrect doctrines of sin which have led many governments astray. Now, as with most theology, being an atheist does not prevent a person from having a theology. A âdoctrine of sinâ simply means âan explanation for what is wrong with the world and how it got that way.â
Communists, like everyone else, operated with a doctrine of sinâthey believed that property was the cause of sin. Therefore, they believed that by removing property from society they would remove sin. Communism failed because it operated on a false doctrine.
Modern Western democracies also have an equally erroneous concept of sinâthat ignorance is the cause of sin in the world. Therefore, if we can simply educate the unwashed masses, then our problems will be solved.
Modern libertarians often have their own errant doctrine of sin: that the government is the root of sin in the world, and if we get rid of government, we will have removed sin.
So, what is the Christian doctrine of sin?
The Christian doctrine of sin is that of âoriginal sin.â That is, sin comes with being humanâwe were born with it, and it cannot be removed. There is no âsolutionâ to sin other than Christ, but the negative impact of an individualâs sin can be mitigated within a larger population guided by Christ. John Adams said, âWe have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religionâŠOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â Though Adams was a Universalist, he recognized the truth of original sin and the role that Christianity played in maintaining the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.
This method of applying doctrine to public policy issues is not something that can be done quickly, lightly, or half-heartedly. It requires a commitment to deep thought and reflection. It requires looking deeply into the issues that affect us, not just their surface features. We have to look not just at the laws themselves but at their purposes and understandings of how reality works and then analyze whether those hold up under the truth of Christianity.
I will leave you with this illustration from G. K. Chestertonâs Heretics:
âSuppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, âLet us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself goodâ’ At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.â
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other founding feminists wrote disdain for men into the fabric of their radical movement by penning these words in the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments:
“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.”
Founding Premise of Feminism
Feminism was founded on the premise that all women are oppressed by all men in some way or another.
Of course, it is true that some women have been oppressed by some men in different waysâto argue otherwise is foolish. However, the ideology of feminism insists that the âtyranny of manâ is absolute. By viewing the relationship between men and women as a power struggle, feminism concluded that the freedom of all women can only be achieved through the fall of all men, and a revolution among the sexes is the means to this equitable end.
Does this idea ring a bell?
Simply switch out the word âwomanâ for âproletariatâ and âmanâ for âbourgeoisâ and you will get the picture.
Now, to clarify, when I speak of âfeminismâ I am referring to the ideology of feminismâthe ideas that formulate the movement. Whether or not each individual feminist embraces and expresses the extreme ideas of their movement is beside the point; the point is that this premise is foundational to the ideology of feminism.
We see the feminist disdain for men gain traction in 1963 when Betty Friedan claimed in her famous book TheFeminine Mystique that âthe old prejudicesâ which govern menâs thinking towards the opposite sex are that âwomen are animals, less than human, unable to think like men, born merely to serve men.â
What is Toxic Masculinity?
Today, this idea is neatly summarized in the popular term âtoxic masculinityâ meaning simply, âmasculinity is toxic.â
Feminists’ hatred of masculinity has caused many generations to tirelessly work to rid the world of all things that can be attributed to men. For years, we have been brainwashed into believing that menâs bent towards assertive and ambitious behavior is evil, and that their desire to fulfill the roles of protector and provider is oppressive. Hence, âtoxic masculinity.â
This dangerously vague and deeply corrupt term is frequently wielded by feminists as a weapon in debates and dialogues to justify hatred towards men and to spread indignation among their audience. Sadly, many men have fallen for this lie and bow prostrate at the altar of feminism.
The Truth About Toxic Masculinity
Our society has followed feminism’s example for many decades now. We’ve all come together to shame, demoralize, and castrate men in the name of eradicating toxicity with the hopeful expectation of a promised utopia. Examining our actions retrospectively, I think we can all agree that the results arenât pretty. Even the feminists, I believe, would admit that we are not living in a Barbie World.
So, what went wrong?
Interestingly, the historical meaning of the term âtoxic masculinityâ outright betrays feminist ideology and rightfully explains why we are not living in the promised anti-Ken doll utopia. In the late 20th century, âtoxic masculinityâ was used not to condemn the existence of masculinity, but to warn of a lack of it.
“A society of too few mature fathers ends up with what psychiatrist Dr. Frank Pittman calls ‘toxic masculinity,’ where essentially weak, insecure, and poorly fathered men chase after a socially destructive masculine mystique. Men who have not fully felt the love and approval of their fathers are men who live in masculine shame. Says Pittman, boys who want to become men have to ‘guess at what men are like’ which usually turns out being what he calls a ‘pathologically exaggerated masculinity’ that involves ‘a frantic tendency to compete over just about anything with just about anybody.ââ
According to this original definition, our society suffers from toxic masculinity because we have generations of boys who do not know how to be men.
The Solution to Toxic Masculinity
The irrefutable fact is that we need masculine men. The intrinsic characteristics of courage and ambition of masculinity are what drive men to stand up for good, fight against evil, establish prosperous economies, legislate and enforce justice, and raise their families. However, when feminism neuters men by stripping them of these attributes, evil runs rampant, poverty escalates, injustice surges, and families are abandoned.
So, the question becomes, how do we get good, masculine men back?
              “There is only one way out of this shame-filled masculinity,” says Pittman, and that is recovering the “lost profession of fatherhood… ‘we are not going to have a better class of men until we have a better class of fathers.ââ
Feminism identified a real problem: there are wicked and weak men in the world. Moreover, we have tried their method of shaming and ostracizing masculinity from society in a desperate attempt to correct the issue. Yet (again), it has not worked.
The solution to the problem of this is far from the feminist model. If we want to rid our society of toxic masculinity (in the true, original sense of the word), we must teach boys to be men, men to be fathers, and fathers to be models of the masculine nature given to them by God.
âYoung men badly need to see mature masculinity modeled out. Well-seasoned masculinity fundamentally transforms the aggression of young males by capturing their masculine energy and directing it toward socially constructive pursuits, toward self-restraint, and respect toward others.â
So, when âtoxic masculinityâ is thrown your way as a rhetorical arrow in the feminist quiver, be sure to rightly define your terms and share the real root of toxicity in our culture. And maybe then, we can finally solve the problem of toxic masculinity.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical ConversationsÂź graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
In 1857, in Historie Contemporaine, no. 79, Alexandre Ledru-Rollin is quoted as saying, âThere go my people. Ah well! I am their leader, I really ought to follow them.â
If there is one common trait in the American ethos, it is the universal belief in the fundamental right for rebellion. American history is filled with the philosophical and moral underpinnings to support the idea of independence, and to provide codified statements on the right of revolution. The inception of our nation is itself a providential outworking of throwing off authority in the name of a higher authority.
The teachings of Maximilien Robespierre, who headed the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror, are seen in the actions and reactions across the landscape of U.S. culture: âTerror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible. It is then an emanation of virtue.â âPity is treason.â
Defining Authority: A Governance of Relationships and Resources
Permit, then, this article to define authority, as a bulwark against the trend towards anarchy and the consequence of the chaos from mob rule. Authority, in its essence, is a governance of relationships and resources. It is not an abstract substance on its own but is a determination from a personal agent or agents with respect to each other.
The expression of authority requires at least two personal agents with potential determinations and resources in relation to each other. Functionally, authority is the right or power to rule, influence or reign over a sphere, gather and commit resources, command with an expectation of obedience, create, assign value, legislate, interpret, judge, and reward.
Authority, in its essence, is a governance of relationships and resources.
1) Authority is the Right and Power to Rule
First, authority is the right or power to rule. âTo have authorityâ is equivalent to âto have the right or power toâŠâ The right or power to rule is understood in the root of the Greek word for authority, exousia, which understands the right arising from the being or substance of the entity in question. With God, authority is natural, axiomatic, absolute, integral, and unconditional to Godâs being. With man, authority is derived, granted, limited in scope, manner, and duration, and conditional to manâs being and role.
2) Authority is the Influence or Reign Over a Sphere
Second, authority is the influence or reign over a sphere. This aspect of authority looks at authority over a domain, whether geographical, political, or economical. In one sense, the right to rule includes a realm over which that right is expressed. The basic understanding of kingdom or domain is in this outworking of authority.
Look at Luke 23:7, âWhen he learned that Jesus was under Herodâs jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.â When determining the place from which Jesus came (Galilee), he sent Jesus to the authority over that region. Authority has boundaries within a determined sphere or area or custom. Frequently, conflicts and covenants between the personal agents are due to these boundaries.
3) Authority Includes the Decisions to Gather and Commit Resources
Third, authority includes the decisions to gather and commit resources, which includes decisions to construct, conquer, tax, extract, gather labor, whether temporarily or in perpetuity. The Hebrew word mispath, which is normally the word translated as judgment, also means decision, a series of decisions, and thus a custom or manner.
Look at First Samuel 8:10-18. If one removes the calamitous warning in the passage and the fatal flaw in humanity for the love of self and the abuse of authority, one sees this attribute of authority here. What is being described is the manner that the king will have in relation to the ability to commit resources: build an army, with infantry (v.11b) and commanders (v. 12); gather food and have weapons made (v. 12); gather resources to his house for his own pleasure (v. 13); take resources and reappoint them to secure his own position (v.14); he will institute a tax on the economy to uphold the pay of his army and his household (v. 15); he will take additional possessions via a tax to enlarge his own work and his own possessions (vv. 16-17), including the very people who asked for him (v. 17b).
4) Authority Includes Commands or Laws with an Expectation of Obedience
Fourth, authority includes commands or laws with an expectation of obedience. Arguably, this is the most internally displeasing attribute of authority to human nature, but it is a real and substantive element between personal agents. Consider Numbers 27:20, at the appointment of Joshua in the place of Moses as the leader of the congregation of Israel, âYou shall put some of your authority on him, in order that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.â
The appointment of Joshua in the place of Moses as the leader of the congregation of Israel into a position of authority was to expect Israelâs obedience.
âYou shall put some of your authority on him, so that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.â (Numbers 27:20)Â
Notice, commissioning into a position of authority had the purpose (uses the preposition limaâan, meaning for the intent or to the end that) to expect Israelâs obedience. Also, look again at the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20. âThereforeâ links the commands of this verse to the preceding (âall authorityâ), and the central command is âmake disciples,â who will be taught âto observe all that I commanded you.â The Great Commission shows that authority includes the right to command and expect obedience.
Finally, Luke 17:7-10 is a parable on the obligation of the servant to perform his duty for his master. The principle that the master expects obedience is particularly driven home by the command of Jesus in what a disciple would think in v. 10 (use of opheiloâto be indebted, to have an obligation based on circumstance).
In short, the requirement of obedience to commands is the bedrock of authority.
5) Authority Includes the Creation and Assignment of Position, Role, and Goal
Fifth, authority includes the creation and assignment of position, role, and goal for the object or personal agent. The argument of Romans 9:21 rests upon the presupposition that the authority of a creator includes determining the design or use for whatever is created. âDoes not the potter have the right to makeâŠâ The lexical words and structure of the question assumes a âyesâ response.
Again, human nature rejects the idea that the moral agent of mankind has a particular design or use by a greater authority, which is the cor conflictus (heart of the problem). Philosophically, post-modernism posits a subjective, egalitarian solution: each person is oneâs own creator and designer, and no creator has any rights greater than another.
6) Authority Creates and Regulates Value
Sixth, value is created and regulated by an authority. The system of economics is derived from assigned standards. For example, the âgold standardâ was the assigned value for the dollar, by the U.S. government. However, value is not limited merely to financial expressions, but the idea of economics philosophically extends into metaphysics, such as life, liberty, happiness, and how such goals are achieved or protected.
To be able to assign value is the role of the personal agent(s) in authority. To recognize and submit to the determination of value or worth is the role of personal agent(s) under authority.
Consider Proverbs 16:11: âA just balance and scales belong to the LORD; all the weights of the bag are His work.â This is due to the command by the LORD in Leviticus 19:35-36, âYou shall do no wrong in judgment, in measurement of weight, or capacity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin; I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.â
The ending formula reminds the Israelites of the authoritative covenant that YHWH has over them and the result of that covenant for the one in authority (YHWH) to set the values. Economic value is set by the higher authority.
In contrast, the value of persons is set higher. The word for glory (Hebrew kavod ) overlaps with the concept weight, and glory at its heart is explicit to the nature of God as a value that God assigns to Himself. Personal agents seek value or that which is more valuable. The parable of the pearl of great price is an example of value, determined by the person, and comparing the value of two things in relation to each other, and seeking the higher value.
However, when there is subjective egalitarianism from post-modernism, value is meaningless, purposeless, and powerless.
To be able to assign value is the role of the personal agent(s) in authority.
To recognize and submit to the determination of value or worth is the role of personal agent(s) under authority.
7) Authority Includes the Right to Make Laws
Seventh, the right to make laws is also part of authority. Examine Exodus 19:8, with an oath that ratified the bilateral covenant in relation to the law of the Suzerain, which is codified in Exodus 20, and legal case examples beginning in chapter 21. Also, compare Acts 15 and the judgment of the Jerusalem church to legislate the Gentilesâ behavior (vv.19-21), which resulted in an official letter (v. 23) from the whole of the rulers (v.22) with commissioned men (vv, 22, 30).
Legislation is designed to define, declare, and regulate the means by which personal agents under the laws might know how to make decisions as moral agents for the greater value and merit of both the unity of the relationship of the whole and for the greater benefit of the self.
8) Authority Includes the Right to Divide and Discern Between Moral Good and Bad
Eighth, authority includes the right to divide and discern between good and bad, as moral categories. Righteousness and wickedness presuppose an authority that has defined the substance, the expression, the motives, and the conduct associated with categories of good and evil, noble and ignoble, and true and false. With man, this authority remains even when those in the position of authority are frequent betrayers in their own conduct of the interpretations they make.
Consider Matt 23:2-3, âThe scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds.â Marxism as a political system rejects the belief of objective righteousness through divine image and revelation, subjectively experienced by the conscience of the individual and necessarily expressed in the governance of those persons through the government itself under the objective definition. Instead, Marxism posits that the state itself is the highest authority that defines righteousness and bypasses the individual for the collective.
9) Authority Includes the Power to Enact Judgment
Ninth, authority includes the power to enact judgment. To judge includes the right to hear evidence, give judicial sentence, and mete out punishment according to penal standards designed by the same authority. Compare the attribute of judgment in authority with John 18:31: âPilate said to them, âTake him yourselves and judge him by your own law.â The Jews answered him, âIt is not legally granted to us to put anyone to death.ââ
Justice is the desired result of all stages of judgment. It is the state in which the persons under authority seek to find themselves in relation to authority and authority in relation to them. Logically then, the belief that one is a justice warrior in a mob executing justice is contradictory and accomplishes no justice at all.
Violent reactions of angry mobs do not, cannot, and will not accomplish justice nor the resultant contented public and private peace that comes from a state of justice. Mob justice specializes in three things: first, violence and the threat of violence as a motivation for fear; two, in manipulation of evidence; and three, a capitalization of victimization and grievance by appeal to a larger mob against the supposive tyranny of authority when the authority responds with punishment.
The requirement of obedience to commands is the bedrock of authority.
10) Authority has the Right to Recognize Merit on Its Own Determination
Finally, authority has the right to recognize merit or reward, based on its own determination. Consider Matt. 20:15, âIs it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?â in the context of giving ârewardâ and âearningsâ to the day laborers. The authority to give rewards to whatever degree is in relation to the one in authority.
Fairness and equity are words that exist in the linguistics of merit and rewards in relation to labor offered.
Grace, forgiveness, indebtedness, and pardon are words that also exist in the realm of reward but are often granted based on the freedom of the authority to release the other person from the merit required.
Rewards can be as tangible as property, inheritance, and money or as intangible as legal status or familial position.
Defining Authority
In the end, authority is multi-faceted in its functionality within and between persons. With a clear definition of authority and the functional rights clearly understood, the question is whether the personal agents who utilize authority in all its expressions can value together a greatest good.
Paul Bright currently works in the field of Biotechnology. He is a native of Evansville, IN, and an alumnus of Purdue University and The Masterâs Seminary. Paul was a Systematic Theology and Ancient Hebrew professor in Samara, Russia. He and his wife, Jennifer, homeschooled their daughter all the way through high school and currently reside in Covington, Louisiana.
It is that time of year again. Grills are lit, parades are attended, and picnics and fireworks have brought families and communities together. July 4th elicits my mixed sentiments. Inevitably, we are drawn into the topic of comparison. Side by side, we attend to the world leading up to 1776 and the world in which we now reside. How are they the same? How are they different?
In years prior, I had feelings of reluctance to celebrate the historic overthrow of tyranny when it seemed our own generationâs tides of tyranny were on the rise. My frustrations were aimed metaphorically far, far away at vague, distant targets of politicians, invasive policies, and oppressive enforcement agencies. Tyranny, freedom, independence; as I turn these ideas over and over in my mind, ideas and words take on different flavors. We all inherited the paradigm we live in, and sometimes, we do not realize the layers and connections to the foundation we stand on and live in. So, join me in this thought exercise.
Directly or Indirectly Opposed to Tyranny?
If the War for Independence truly was what it claimed to be, the war was in opposition to tyranny, but not directly. Tyranny is more directly the inverse of freedom. The word âfreedomâ is a math word. It is most similar to the idea of zero. The only way to define zero is to say what it is not. You can have zero money, zero time, and zero belongings, but without a unit of measurement, zero is an extremely abstract concept. Freedom is this same idea of zero. It is the articulation of zero chains, zero oppression, zero infringements, zero force, and zero fraud. Freedom is a big beautiful nothing!
What is Independence?
So then, what is independence? And how is it related? To understand and appreciate independence, we must also attend to its inverse as well. If independence is what we love, the inverse is the threat to that object of our love. Some have even postulated that we have an obligation to hate the thing that is a threat to what we love. And what is this imminent threat? Dependency.
The founding generation were students of historical patterns. They realized that these lines run parallel. To be free, one could not be dependent. Thus, they reluctantly resolved to pursue, teach, and propagate independence as their door to freedom.
The scary reality is that the path they walked has room for two-way traffic. If independence is the path toward freedom, dependency is the path back toward tyranny and totalitarianism. So, what does state dependency look like? In its simplest form, it is the publicâs tolerance of the use of collective, regulated resources to supply individual needs. Our generationâs oversight is that the threat of dependency is not fresh in our minds. We have grown ignorant, distracted, apathetic, and negligent in keeping our guard up against the threat of dependency. Ideas of entitlement, âschool choice,â âpublic-private partnership,â subsidies, and government grants are all modern manifestations of our collective, tacit-yet-obvious approval of state dependency.
The Cost of Independence
Being opposed to dependency does not carry the same exciting, unifying battle cry that âopposing the tyrantsâ offers. Why is that? It is easy to oppose some ugly dragon in a castle far, far away. It is much more difficult to come to terms with the tiny, toxic terrors living in our own hearts and communities. This breed of dragons pokes its little head out on Election Day when we vote for the most benevolent Caesars promising to open the coffers and fund the voter or the voterâs pet project with the collectiveâs treasury. With each locus in which we tolerate this level of state âpartnership,â we are actually surrendering more and more real estate from the domain of the free to the domain of the captured. Sure, the cost of independence is expensive, but what is the value of freedom? And what should we be willing to pay to expand and preserve it for generations to come?
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂź. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nationâs founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
Are we really called to homeschool? Do we really need to “hear from the Lord” about homeschooling, as if some parents are built for it and some aren’t? Or rather, could homeschooling really be the “default” on the dropdown menu of educational choices afforded to parents? Is Scripture clear on who is responsible for the education of children? Is it offensive to ponder such ideas?
Stay with me a minute and see if I don’t persuade you. If I don’t persuade, enlighten, or at the very least give you pause, then we can part friends.
Common Reasons to Homeschool
Let’s start with common reasons for homeschooling. These are in no particular order, and this list is not exhaustive. If history is any indicator of the future, this list will undoubtedly grow as the decades pass, as I’ve seen the list grow in the last two decades alone.
Here are a few common reasons to homeschool:
1. The Academic Reason
2. The Political Reason
3. The Social Reason
4. The Religious Reason
1. The Academic Reason: How do we know Our Children are Learning?
Sitting in an overcrowded, stuffy waiting room of a government building, the lady sitting next to me inquired as to whether I homeschooled our children. I don’t know if it was my ever-burgeoning purse with the “let’s take it with us, we don’t know if we’ll need it or not” items or if our two small children sitting quietly for several hours working on their schoolwork was the dead give-away. I smiled and affirmed her suspicions. She asked, “How do you know your children are learning?”
In my early years of homeschooling, I would’ve felt the need to defend my choice, prepared with statistics and proof I was indeed a qualified and successful homeschooling mother and that our children were brilliant (all mothers’ children are brilliant and special, don’t cha know!). I could tell this lady wasn’t challenging me. She was genuinely curious.
Cocking my head to the side, thinking of the multiple responses I could answerâŠ
“I used to be an expert, a professional teacher, teaching in both public and private schoolsâŠ
I test them on the materialâŠ
I require a level of 85% mastery before we move on to other materialâŠ
I assess where they are at and teach to their level, providing accountability and plenty of opportunity for practice and mastery.”
Instead, an alien thought popped into my mind… one I had never entertained before, and before I knew it, I spouted,
“I am a certified teacher, but I wouldn’t have stayed long in the classroom, nor has teacher training aided me in homeschooling. I would have quickly climbed the administrative ladder and become a superintendent of a district, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Over the course of, say, 20 years, I would have earned well over $6M in income, not counting retirement plans and investment opportunities.
I gave all that up to educate our children. Nobody has more vested interest in the education of our children than their father, and I do. You don’t think I will know if they are learning or not?”
She responded,
 âWell, when you put it that way, I guess you would!”
I suppose in her mind, a large salary, or rather a sacrifice of one, was a determining factor of success.
What I didn’t tell her is that:
on my worst day of homeschooling, I could accomplish infinitely more with two children than I could have with my class of 24-30 students on my best day of teaching in a brick-and-mortar school
I learned not to sweat the small stuff, like my son not learning to tie his shoes until he was nine years old. I was confident that by the time the boy was 18 and ready to leave the house, he would have learned to tie his shoes. I didn’t feel compelled to “keep up or get left behind.”
we were never “behind”âwhatever that meant
when I was completing my teacher preparation coursework, I was instructed to “teach to the middle.” Ignore the bright students; they will be fine. Don’t waste your time with the “slow learnersâ; you don’t have time for them. That was the thinking. I hadn’t yet learned what Andrew Kern, President of CiRCE, said: “Children are souls to be nurtured, not products to be measured.”
Yes, we ensured our children received the academics they needed, and the Lord blessed us with good friends to homeschool with that I could rely on.
When our young son asked the difference between nuclear fission and fusion, I asked him to read up on it and phone my friend, who was a rocket scientist. When our daughter took piano lessons from our church pianist, her teacher gave me incredible insights into our daughter I’d yet to discover.
âThe largest study comparing homeschool students to others amazingly revealed that homeschool 8th-grade students score the same as 12th-grade public school students.â
Newman wrote that Dr. Ray went on to say,
ââThere is no empirical evidence that a nation or society needs most or any of its children to attend state or government-run institutions called schools in order to be a civil and educated society⊠adding that the modern homeschool movement is proof positiveâ that the current government-education machine isnât necessary for children to do well.”[1][2]
Interestingly, the research was conducted and first reported by Dr. Lawrence Ruder, University of Maryland, a public university, who administered academic tests for more than 20,000 homeschooled students.
The bottom line is that we didn’t homeschool alone; the Lord provided the support we needed, and nobody was more invested in their academic success than their father and I. Many parents homeschool for academic reasons. Some want to accelerate the curriculum; others want to scale the scope and sequence. Still, others want to eliminate the socialist and woke ideology that is pervasive in their current curriculum. Whatever the reason, some families choose to homeschool for academic reasons alone.
2. The Political Reason: Voting with Our Pocketbook
We voted at the ballot box and voted with our pocketbooks when we chose not to enroll our children in the civil government educational system. Approximately $10-16K is spent on each child in public school, a system that doesn’t align with our core Christian values nor encourages us to take responsibility for the education and rearing of our children. By not enrolling in government schools, we deprived the civil school an average of $312,000, but we have just two childrenâmultiply that number by two for four children, by three for six children. You get the point.
One homeschool compadre said she was verbally berated by a stranger in a store. The lady had accused her of stealing from the public school! Yes, stealing because my friend had the audacity to remove her children from the bloated indoctrination camps. Stealing, because you know, the government is entitled to your money.
Much more could be said about the politics of the government school system, and many have already said it. I will refer you back to the book by Alex Newman; it’s a fantastic read.
For those who would endeavor to expand their understanding of the biblical jurisdiction and authority of education, Abolition: Overcoming the Christian Establishment on Education, by Kevin Novak, helps establish legal and biblical guardrails in the three spheres of government: family, church, and civil.
The bottom line is that when you opt out of government-funded education, you are making a statement bigger than you realize.
3. The Social Reason: What about Socialization?
Insert eye roll and an audible groan here. Some readers may even wonder if the debate about homeschooling and socialization is still an issue. I would tend to agree.
There seems to be a long-held idea among many that socialization connotes “âŠlearning how to get along in this world by getting along with thirty other children of the same age in a small [and mostly the same socio-economic demographic] classroom.”[3]
When homeschoolers are asked the age-old dreaded question, “What about socialization?” the inquirer usually refers to activities and relationship building, things usually related to positive socialization. They neglect to acknowledge that socialization comes in two forms: negative and positive.
Our sweet daughter had a lazy eye, and she wore a patch over an eye for a whole year before her surgery. Her eyes necessitated thick “Coke bottleâ glasses. She was plagued with eczema to the point that even her brother called her a leper when out of our earshot, and she had severe asthma. Oh, let’s not forget she was frail, labeled as a “failure to thrive” child by doctors until she was six years old. I know what kind of socialization our daughter would have received in a public or private school setting.
Drs. James Dobson and the late Raymond Moore had much to say about early exposure to socialization and young children. A simple search engine query will reveal the many interviews, books, research, and articles they produced.
While at the dentist, a high schooler told me that the hygienist was a bit saddened to learn she was a homeschooler. She asked my gregarious friend, “How do you have any friends?” Without skipping a beat, the student replied, “Do you go to school?” to which the hygienist replied, “No.” The student quickly asked, “Then how do you have any friends?” Point made.
If youâve stayed with me thus far, covering academic, political, and social reasons for homeschooling but are still wondering how homeschooling is the default and not a calling, I offer the following.
4. The Religious Reason: Why Homeschooling is the Default and Not a Calling?
Although other people of faith choose to homeschool for religious grounds, Christians offer these compelling reasons. They are generally broken down into three main categories, all of which are clearly supported in the Scriptures:
Curriculum
Discipleship
Authority
Christian homeschooling parents want complete control over the curriculum to add devotions, Bible lessons, prayer, catechism, Scripture memory work, or other religious training to their day. They desire to remove a curriculum that does not align with their Christian values and add one that aligns with their Christ-centered worldview.
Some parents intuit this need, while others point to Proverbs 22:6, âTrain up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.â
Homeschooling parents understand education does not happen in a vacuum; it is not value or moral-neutral. It always has a bias, and they understand how crucial it is to inculcate their children with values that lead to freedom, from the heart of God, rather than bondage and slavery that Marxism offers.
Shaping the hearts and minds of their children is the cornerstone of good stewardship and child-rearing. They know that handing their children over to the indoctrination centers of the nanny state is not helping them to âtrain up their child in the way they should goâŠâ They desire more time with their children to guard, form, and protect their children’s hearts. To pour into them. To model for them. To tend and cultivate, to rightful steward the soul, the image-bearer, entrusted to them by the Almighty. This is discipleship.
This leads us to the realm of authority in homeschooling and the “Deuteronomy Mandate.” So named from these passages in Deuteronomy 6:1-2, 6-7, and 11:18-19.
“Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the LORD your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged.
And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”         Â
How can Christian parents accomplish this when their children are at a public or private school eight hours a day, come home to eat dinner, do homework, bathe, and then go to bed? Rinse and repeat five days a week.
Over the years, several parents bemoaned this schedule hijacking to this writer and confessed that they felt like they were regulated to only weekend parenting. They felt the rubâlittle time to fulfill the Deuteronomy Mandate.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines default as “âŠa selection automatically used by a program in the absence of a choice made by the user.”[4] In other words, it is the presumed course of action. The default assumes the answer.
This is why homeschooling is not a calling or gifting but rather the default for educating one’s children. Nowhere in Scripture do we find instruction that tells us to abdicate our authority and stewardship of our childrenâtheir educationâto the state or even the church. The exception, of course, would be if, like Hannah, we were raising a child for the Levitical priesthood.
Of the reasons to homeschool shared here, the religious basis is the strongest and perhaps the least popular rationale today, for it gives homeschooling and education its purpose and foundation.
I applaud parents who choose the default to educate their children. This isn’t to say that they isolate themselves and nobody else can help them. It is to say that there is biblical corroboration that children are educated by their parents and not the state.
Perhaps you are heartbroken because your choices, lifeâs circumstances, or something else will not permit you to withdraw your children from the socialistic, communistic, woke ideological indoctrination centers and homeschool.
There is help for you. It wonât come without cost or sacrifice. Remember, I sacrificed millions to homeschool our children. It may require you to operate your household on a budget and/or adjust your lifestyle to a single income. It may require you to research individuals or organizations to assist you.
Let me offer you a few resources to get you started:
Public School Exit is an incredible resource that provides more reasons to homeschool and steps to leave the public school system.
Classical ConversationsÂź can help you connect with other homeschooling families in your area.
Truth & Lies Documentary can better help you understand the hidden agendas of the civil government school system.
Cut out a circle of paper for each child you have. Equally, divide the circle into 18 wedges and display it where you will see it daily. Each year, color one wedge in the circle on your child’s birthday. This will serve as a daily reminder that the window of opportunity to mentor and disciple (educate) your children is quickly closing.
It was not my aim to âbind your conscience,â to pilfer a phrase from a friend who cares about you and me enough to challenge my thoughts and ideas. It was my intention to point out that the Lord has given our children to us as a stewardship.
We know that ââŠto whom much is given, much is required.â (Luke 12:48) Perhaps this case will solidify your resolve to homeschool. Perhaps these words have given you pause. In the end, if you reject the whole idea of homeschooling as the default option, let us shake hands, wish one another the best, and part friends.
Sadie Aldaya is the Research & Quality Assurance Specialist for Classical Conversations Special Projects & Policy Research Department. Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadie’s passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.
[2] Alex Newman, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. Government Schoolsâ War on Faith, Family, & FreedomâAnd How to Stop It. (Florida: Liberty Sentinel Press, 2024), 102.
“Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you! Let the nations be glad and sing for you, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth. Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you!” Psalm 67:3-5 (ESV)
“One generation shall commend your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts.” Psalm 145:4 (ESV)
Although the foundational message of scripture is redemption through the work of Christ, GlobalRedemption is the historical conduit that ties together the Bible’s narrative from creation to consummation. Moreover, take a thorough reading of the Old Testament and two themes will stand out:
Global redemption has always been a part of God’s restorative plan.
Time and time again, God’s people failed to commend the Lord’s instruction to the next generation.
For Christian parents, these two principles are foundational imperatives for discipling children. We aim to create worshipers who worship by spreading the worship of God to the globe. As John Piper points out, the essential drive of missions is worship.
“Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesnât. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity.
But worship abides forever. Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions. In missions, we simply aim to bring the nations into the white-hot enjoyment of God’s glory. The goal of missions is the gladness of the peoples in the greatness of God.“1
Given this, it is our task as parents to commend this instruction to the next generation. After 42 years of pastoring a delightfully mission-minded church, Iâm aware of how Satan tempts us to stifle missions interest in our children (we have four grown kids). With apologies to C.S. Lewis and huge admiration for his Screwtape Letters, I offer the following to illustrate some of the Adversary’s strategies for hindering our parental great commission.
Dear Nephew,
I hear you have access to some well-intentioned but delusional parents. Not only have they bought into the enemyâs lie, they want to rear their children to join his cause. I believe the term they use is âmissions-minded.’ Might I suggest you plant the following ideas in the heads of these parents? Fortunately for our side, these wonât seem out of step with most of their peers, even the churched ones.
1. Donât let your child catch wind of the fact that religion of all stripes is booming around the globe. Let him assume that the secularization he sees around him in the U.S. is the norm globally. No one is listening or responding to the gospel, so why go? Why waste his life?
2. Donât expose her to a church that thinks missions is normative for all growing disciples. Burn a book like Parkinsonâs analysis of 2 Peter 1:3-8 in The Peter Principlethat makes missions-minded love for all peoples in all the world the very pinnacle of discipleship. Donât let her get close enough to adults who find joy in living sacrificially for the gospel, it will do strange things to her mind and heart. Guide them to a church that has decided to do local missions instead of global missions. Dichotomous thinking: Once adopted, itâs a helpful mindset for our cause.
3. Donât let him realize that the Bible is a book about missions; it is written by people on mission to a people supposed to be on mission. Its central theme is Godâs mission to reclaim His kingdom. Let him settle for the Bible as a book designed to keep him happy and comfort him when things are down. Extol the Hallmark card value of the Bible. Keep the Great Commission as an isolated text to be brought out annually at a missions conference or offering. Train him to feel good about that annual demonstration of “commitment to Godâs agenda.”
4. Donât let her hear about Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, a ludicrous college-level course too many of the enemyâs fans have taken. Its ideas are dangerous to our cause. You want the words Missions and Missionary to stay in the rather mindless realm of “God, bless the missionaries” prayers. Word has it there are even kid versions of this course.
5. Donât let him meet kids his own age who come from a different culture or land. The enemy has planted a chip in him that will, unfortunately, make him aware of how like he is to this ‘other.’ As long as the ‘other’ is ‘other,’ we have a chance to make ‘other’ mean ‘not as valuable as I am.’ This is, perhaps, our greatest advantage.
6. Model insularity. You are the most significant influence in his life. Donât ever let him see you spend yourself for the ‘other.’ Donât let him see you honor someone your church has sent into the world with what they call ‘good news.’ Be nice, but donât get so close to your neighbors that you find yourself caring about them. It’s okay to invite them to a church service but donât go further. Your child may get the impression that ‘good news’ is something every churched person experiences and actually shares.
7. Expose her to the right kind of missionary. One who obviously couldnât get a job in the real world. One who knows his place as a bottom feeder in the minds of your peers at church, who deserves the leftovers but thatâs all. Even if you catch wind of the anthropological, linguistic, and apologetic skills his work requires, donât let your child hear it. Itâs important that your child maintain a low view of the enemyâs workforce. Whatever you do, donât allow the wrong kind of missionary into your home. That kind of honor sends all the wrong messages to your child.
8. Find a circle of friends for him who are mildly religious, but their religion has ‘do not offend’ as its top priority. Fortunately for us, the ‘good news’ is offensive toâleast until the enemy works his magic (which Iâll never understand). Find ‘nice’ kids for him to hang out with. Not too wild but not too religious. You know, ‘balanced.’ If your church hires a youth pastor who wants to turn your son into a voice for the enemy, start a gossip campaign and get him fired. The average stay of a youth pastor is 6 months, so it shouldnât be hard.
9. In general, we recommend avoiding international travel as a family. While we have done all we can to squelch it, religion is booming around the globe. But there have been sightings of enemy fans in unexpected places we thought we had purged: Paris, Dubai, Nairobi, and Cancun. Itâs an uphill struggle, but weâre on it. Meanwhile, stay home where the plausibility structure for the other side is weak. Your child will conclude no one anywhere in the world is interested in spiritual things if all he sees around him is spiritual apathy.
10. Coddle her. Donât expose her to ideas, let alone experiences, that might make her have to trust in something or someone greater than herself. Thank badness for the ‘be safe at all cost’ phenomenon circulating today! You have many partners on your side. The enemyâs call is a risky one. Healthy risk-taking is addictive. She may find such behavior adds energy to life. So, avoid risky situations. Even ropes courses, seemingly innocuous, can start something we find hard to reverse. Remember, her self-image and safety are the most important things in life. Donât let her try that in which she might fail and, as the enemy puts it, learn from her mistakes. What an outdated notion!
Good luck and let me hear from you.
Tom Kenney is Pastor Emeritus of Peninsula Community Chapel, Yorktown, VA. He graduated from Virginia Tech in 1975 with a BA in Business Administration. While there, he was nurtured by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and joined their staff upon graduation, serving the Vanderbilt University campus from 1975-1978. Having benefited from the works of men like J.I. Packer and John Stott, Tom earned a Masters of Divinity at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. In 1982, the Tabernacle Church of Norfolk called him to pastor the church planting effort. Tom stepped down as Lead Pastor of Peninsula Community Chapel in May 2020, after 38 years in that position and now serves at the Global Ministry Pastor. Tom enjoys Fridays off with his wife Mabel, reading The Economist and historical fiction, visiting the Chapel’s global partners around the world and working out at the YMCA. Tom and Mabel have four grown children.
What is one thing public education and home education have in common? The obvious answer would beâŠeducation. However, as we see in Vladimir Leninâs ominous promise to, âGive me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world,â perhaps transformation is the true common denominator, as transformation is always the goal of education. Therefore, at the heart of the question of whom we trust to educate our children lies the bigger question of whom we trust to transform our world.
Education in America is Eroding
Four decades ago, Former President Ronald Reagan illuminated the outcome of trusting the declining public school systems in his 1983 report titled A Nation at Risk:
âOur Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a peopleâŠ
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselvesâŠ.
Our concern, however, goes well beyond matters such as industry and commerce [i.e., STEM & College and Career Ready]. It also includes the intellectual, moral, and spiritual strengths of our people which knit together the very fabric of our society.â
Are We Embracing Socialism?
Marion Smith, Executive Director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, states, âWhen one in four Americans want to eliminate capitalism and embrace socialism, we know that we have failed to educate about the historical and moral failings of these ideologies.â This startling statistic is widely evident in the government-controlled school systemsâ promotion of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Social Emotional Learning (SEL), Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), and LGBTQ++ coercion, where children are deceitfully maneuvered from parental teaching to State indoctrination.
At the heart of the question of whom we trust to educate our children lies the bigger question of whom we trust to transform our world.
Undeniably, a parent is charged to âTrain up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.â(Proverbs 22:6 NKJV) However, in an act of calculated division, totalitarians such as Hitler, Lenin, and Mao have used this Proverb in their attempts to eradicate the family and shape the minds of the upcoming generation with the intent to, in those infamous words of Lenin, â…transform the whole world.â This exceedingly conspicuous tactic is front and center throughout America today. It has been clearly spelled out in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #4of the United Nations Agenda 2030, with which the United States has cooperated:
âOur vision is to transform lives through education, recognizing the important role of education as a main driver of development and in achieving the other proposed SDGs. We commit with a sense of urgency to a single, renewed education agenda that is holistic, ambitious, and aspirational, leaving no one behind. This new vision is fully captured by the proposed SDG 4 ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ and its corresponding targets. It is transformative and universal, attends to the âunfinished businessâ of the EFA [Education For All] agenda and the education-related MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], and addresses global and national education challenges. It is inspired by a humanistic vision of education and development based on human rights and dignity; social justice; inclusion; protection; cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity; and shared responsibility and accountability.â1
Is the intent of this agenda not clearly statedââto transform livesâ through global state control of education and the Marxist indoctrination of children?
The Family is The Solution
This agenda is in stark contrast to American parents’ unique success in cultivating a firm foundation of freedom in our nation, even before the development of our Constitution. Historically, American families have worked, worshiped, and educated while being undergirded with the self-evident truth that sacrifice over self-service and self-governance over government restraint cultivates freedom, yet our modern families continue to succumb to the subtle and consistent conditioning toward the UNâs divisive preference to bring all schools under government control.
Now, more than any time in our Nation’s history, is the time for parents to boldly and courageously assert our inherent responsibility to direct the upbringing and education of our children and vehemently reject the UN reportâs claim that âthe State remains the duty bearer of education as a public good.â2
Now is the time for families to awaken from their self-imposed financial slumber, revive atrophied personal civic responsibilities, recalibrate family priorities, and recapture their God-given right to educate, by exiting the institutions of indoctrinationâthe government-controlled K-12 schooling systems.
Now is the time for families to cultivate and practice ownership and discipline with the honorable motive of self-governance and freedom.
âThe family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.â
President Ronald Reagan
Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, states, âIf a nation takes on the character of its people, then our classrooms are ultimately about the formation of citizens and souls.ââ Family is the best classroomânot government, entitlements, or vouchers.
Family necessitates devotion to one another, to our work, and to our inheritance.
Family promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, and is the most trustworthy institution in civilization.
Family teaches that work is worship, and you must pay your own wayâfreedomâs prerequisites.
Ronald Reagan once said, âThe family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms.â
Through devotion, sacrifice, and commitment, the family establishes, inculcates, and maintains freedom. Families, therefore, are incomparable educators and the trustworthy remnant to guarantee that enduring transformation occurs in the world.
Check out these other blogs on family and education.
Regina Piazza is a 13-year home educator with Classical ConversationsÂź and has held multiple roles including Tutor, Director, and Support Representative. She is a former Air Force veteran and two-time business owner who ran for Florida State Senate for the first time in 2022. She is currently working to preserve education and religious freedom as the Florida State Advocate for Classical Conversations.
Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. (2016). Accessed 5/9/2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
Zancajo, AdriĂĄn & Fontdevila, Clara & Verger, Antoni & Bonal, Xavier. (2021). Regulating Public-Private Partnerships, governing non-state schools: An equity perspective. 10.13140/RG.2.2.16374.93760. Accessed 5/9/2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356915329_Regulating_Public-Private_Partnerships_governing_non-state_schools_An_equity_perspective
At some point, youâve probably heard the question asked (or maybe youâve asked the question): why homeschool when your child can go to a public school funded by the government?
But perhaps we should flip that question around. Homeschooling has grown in popularity with families throughout the United States. Several studies suggest that between 5 and 6 percent of school-age children are homeschooled (thatâs about three million kids), and this number increases year by year. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many parents found themselves homeschooling either outright or de factoâand that only increased the popularity of homeschooling!
So what is it that makes homeschooling increasingly attractive and public schools so unattractive?
Why Homeschool?
There are more reasons to homeschool than ever.
Religious Freedom
Religious freedom is one of the most repeated answers offered by parents when making the decision to homeschool their child. Public schools donât incorporate religious studies into the classroom. Public school curricula may teach a different set of values and beliefs than what parents believe and want to instill in their child.
Homeschooling, on the other hand, affords parents the opportunity to incorporate Bible studies, prayers, and values throughout the lesson plan.
Safety and Security
Concern over a childâs safety is another reason why parents choose to homeschool. Some children are subjected to negative influences such as bullying and the presence of drugs and alcohol in public schools. These negative influences can affect a childâs academic performance in the classroom.
However, in a homeschool environment, parents are able to watch over their child and help them develop without those stressors and dangers.
Personalized Learning
In a homeschool setting, parents are able to offer more personalized learning for their child. Public school teachers have a classroom of students with different abilities and levels of learning. The lesson plans wonât be tailored for each individual student.
Homeschool allows for the parents to assess their childâs strengths and weaknesses and help build lessons around their needs. This type of teaching provides flexibility to give the child what they need to learn and skip ahead if they grasp the subject.
Family
Homeschooling is a family effort. There is collaboration between siblings and parents to come together and share knowledge and experiences. This level of connectedness goes beyond what can be provided in public schools.
The opportunity to reinforce family values and beliefs while developing a stronger sense of self is why many families choose homeschooling over public schooling.
These are a few reasons why homeschool parents often decide to homeschool their children rather than send them to public school. Here are two such reasons:
Lower Academic Outcomes
Studies have revealed that homeschool students typically score higher than public school students on standardized tests. Parentsâ level of education does not change the studentâs success.1
Homeschool students also typically do better in college. Homeschool students have a higher rate of graduating college than students who attended public school. One study revealed that homeschooled students graduated with an average GPA of 3.46 while their public school peers graduated with an average of 3.16. The same study also showed that homeschooled students graduated from college at a higher rate (66.7%) than their peers (57.5%).23
Poorer Social Environments
Contrary to the popular misconception, homeschool students are often better socialized than their public school counterparts. They are more likely to participate in political drives, sports teams, church ministries, and community work.4
Public schools, meanwhile, often present challenges for social development, such as bullying, discouragement, and negative peer influences. For example, according to one study, 5% of students between the ages of twelve and eighteen reported that they had been afraid of attack or harm at school in 2019.5
Thatâs 1 out of 20 students, and the average class size in the USA is 20.3.6
The evidence is abundant and the collective experience of homeschoolers shows that homeschooling works. Public schools, on the other hand, afford poorer outcomes all around.
Why send your child to public school when you can homeschool?
Many people in America own timeshares or at least have been to one of those awful presentations. The concept is simple. Merriam-Webster defines a timeshare as “an agreement or arrangement in which parties share the ownership of or right to use property (as a resort condominium), and that provides for occupation by each party, especially for periods of less than a year.”
The concept at hand regards how investors share ownership and rights to property. For many Americans, this is a tolerable relationship where all parties get pages of fine print and give their informed consent.
Does Joint Ownership Actually Exist?
Here is my question, though: Does joint ownership actually exist? In 1828, in the first edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, ownership was defined as “property; exclusive right of possession; legal or just claim or title.”
The difference here is collective ownership vs. individual ownership. They sound similar, but they are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Once a collective owns something, the individual does not. And once an individual owns something, the collective does not have ownership.
Culturally, we like the concept of collective ownership. Why? Vacations are both valuable and expensive. They are genuinely beneficial to relationships, mental health, and stepping away from life to gain perspective, see new places, and gain education.
So many good things come from vacations. If time and money allow, one could say vacations are essential. For most families, the friction comes not from whether we should take a vacation but from the question: “How are we going to pay for a vacation?”
Enter the timeshare industry, which has capitalized on the strain between the value of vacation vs. the expense. The presentations capitalize on this tension and propose a solution: shared ownership. This proposal stems from the relationship between investing and ownership. (I don’t know of any timeshare holder who actually thinks they have exclusive right of possession.)
A Multiplicity of Ownership Means No Individual Ownership
This leads me to my point: a multiplicity of ownership means no individual ownership. Collective owners or investors are merely stakeholders. They each have a vote and a voice but are still subject to the collective’s will.
The unfortunate consequence with outside investors is thatâby definitionâyou have forfeited exclusive ownership. Individual ownership and collective ownership are mutually exclusive.
The stakeholder relationship works in many common relationships where responsible parties can tolerate giving up individual ownership. Roads, city ordinances, and vacation abodes are some of our collectively shared possessions.
But what about those central responsibilities we possess? When is deferring to the stakeholder option an abdication of responsibility? For instance, scripture indirectly warns about having outside stakeholders in a marriage (Gen. 2:24). No outsider should have a vote in your marriage. The couple answers to God alone; therefore, it is imperative that they do not sell out to other investors who do not share in their unique and personal responsibility.
This same idea can apply to very private matters of the human experience. As James Madison said,
“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.”
To summarize, there should be no stakeholders in someone’s religion or conscience. Madison repeatedly warned against trampling the private property (exclusive, individual ownership) of someone’s conscience.
How Do We Categorize Our Family’s Education?
Here is our closing question. How do we categorize our family’s education? Is it common or sacred? Is it public or private? Referring back to the vacation dilemma, education is also an essential commodity. It is more essential than a vacation, and given our budget limitations, the appeal to invest with multiple investors is strong.
The unfortunate consequence with outside investors is thatâby definitionâyou have forfeited exclusive ownership. Individual ownership and collective ownership are mutually exclusive. Moreover, stewardship of your family’s education belongs to you at the end of the day; it cannot be outsourced. Our ownership in this field is sacred, and we all bear personal responsibility. This is the message we should aim to communicate to future generations.
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me, I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. (Romans 12:1-2 ESV)
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsŸ. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship I.Q. on U.S. founding documents. She and her husband homeschool their seven children on their small acreage, where they are enjoying their new adventures in homesteading.
