Author: Jennifer Bright

Authority

Authority: A Definition

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Paul Bright

In 1857, in Historie Contemporaine, no. 79, Alexandre Ledru-Rollin is quoted as saying, “There go my people. Ah well! I am their leader, I really ought to follow them.”  

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: “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible. It is then an emanation of virtue.” “Pity is treason.”

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. “To have authority” is equivalent to “to have the right or power to…” 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 God’s being. With man, authority is derived, granted, limited in scope, manner, and duration, and conditional to man’s 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, “When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.” 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, “You shall put some of your authority on him, in order that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.” 

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 Israel’s obedience.

“You shall put some of your authority on him, so that all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him.” (Numbers 27:20) 

Notice, commissioning into a position of authority had the purpose (uses the preposition lima’an, meaning for the intent or to the end that) to expect Israel’s obedience. Also, look again at the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20. “Therefore” links the commands of this verse to the preceding (“all authority”), and the central command is ‘make disciples,’ who will be taught ‘to observe all that I commanded you.’ 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 opheilo—to 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. “Does not the potter have the right to make…” The lexical words and structure of the question assumes a ‘yes’ 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 one’s 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 ‘gold standard’ 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: “A just balance and scales belong to the LORD; all the weights of the bag are His work.” This is due to the command by the LORD in Leviticus 19:35-36, “You 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.”

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 Gentiles’ 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, “The 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.” 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: “Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.’ The Jews answered him, ‘It is not legally granted to us to put anyone to death.’”   

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, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” in the context of giving ‘reward’ and ‘earnings’ 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 profile headshot

Paul Bright currently works in the field of Biotechnology. He is a native of Evansville, IN, and an alumnus of Purdue University and The Master’s 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.

You can read Paul’s other contributions here.

Independence

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Lauren Gideon

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 generation’s 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 “freedom” 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 public’s tolerance of the use of collective, regulated resources to supply individual needs. Our generation’s 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, “school choice,” “public-private partnership,” 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 “opposing the tyrants” 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 voter’s pet project with the collective’s treasury. With each locus in which we tolerate this level of state “partnership,” 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 Conversations®.  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 nation’s 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?

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright | 1 Comment on Are We Really Called to Homeschool?

By Sadie Aldaya

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 answer…

“I used to be an expert, a professional teacher, teaching in both public and private schools…

I test them on the material…

I require a level of 85% mastery before we move on to other material…

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,

  “Well, 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”—whatever 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 learners”; 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.

Our decision to homeschool for academic reasons was well-founded, as it turns out. In his new book, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death: Government Schools’ War on Faith, Family, & Freedom – And How to Stop It, Alex Newman quoted research posited by Dr. Brian Ray, President and co-founder of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI).

“The largest study comparing homeschool students to others amazingly revealed that homeschool 8th-grade students score the same as 12th-grade public school students.”

Newman wrote that Dr. Ray went on to say,  

“‘There 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 positive’ that the current government-education machine isn’t 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 children—multiply 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 “…learning 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 bottle” 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 you’ve 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, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

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 “train up their child in the way they should go…” 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.”                  

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 rub—little time to fulfill the Deuteronomy Mandate.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines default as “…a 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 children—their education—to 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, life’s 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 won’t 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:

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 “bind your conscience,” 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 “…to whom much is given, much is required.” (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.

You may enjoy Joint Ownership and Your Child’s Education to explore the idea of truly owning your child’s education.

Sadie Aldaya profile headshot

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.

[1] Ray, Brian D. 2017. “A Systematic Review of the Empirical Research on Selected Aspects of Homeschooling as a School Choice.” Journal of School Choice 11 (4): 604–21. doi:10.1080/15582159.2017.1395638. https://www.nheri.org/a-systematic-review-of-the-empirical-research-on-selected-aspects-of-homeschooling-as-a-school-choice/ (19 May 2024)

[2] Alex Newman, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. Government Schools’ War on Faith, Family, & Freedom—And How to Stop It. (Florida: Liberty Sentinel Press, 2024), 102.

[3] Mary Gardner, “What About Socialization,” Homeschooling Adventures. https://www.homeschoolingadventures.com/socialization/ (19 May 2024)

[4] “default.” Merriam-Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/default. (19 May 2024)

mission-minded children

Screwtape Letters: Preventing Missionally-Minded Children

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

by Tom Kenney

“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, Global Redemption 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:

  1. Global redemption has always been a part of God’s restorative plan.
  2. 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 doesn’t. 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, I’m 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 enemy’s lie, they want to rear their children to join his cause. I believe the term they use is ‘missions-minded.’ Might I suggest you plant the following ideas in the heads of these parents? Fortunately for our side, these won’t seem out of step with most of their peers, even the churched ones.

1. Don’t 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. Don’t expose her to a church that thinks missions is normative for all growing disciples. Burn a book like Parkinson’s analysis of 2 Peter 1:3-8 in The Peter Principle that makes missions-minded love for all peoples in all the world the very pinnacle of discipleship. Don’t 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, it’s a helpful mindset for our cause.

3. Don’t 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 God’s 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 God’s agenda.”

4. Don’t let her hear about Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, a ludicrous college-level course too many of the enemy’s 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. Don’t 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. Don’t ever let him see you spend yourself for the ‘other.’ Don’t let him see you honor someone your church has sent into the world with what they call ‘good news.’ Be nice, but don’t get so close to your neighbors that you find yourself caring about them. It’s okay to invite them to a church service but don’t 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 couldn’t 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 that’s all. Even if you catch wind of the anthropological, linguistic, and apologetic skills his work requires, don’t let your child hear it. It’s important that your child maintain a low view of the enemy’s workforce. Whatever you do, don’t 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 to—least until the enemy works his magic (which I’ll 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 shouldn’t 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. It’s an uphill struggle, but we’re 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. Don’t 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 enemy’s 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. Don’t 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.

Other Homeschool Freedom Action Center blogs about discipling our children.

  1. John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions. 30th Anniversary Edition. (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2022), p. 3 ↩︎
State Capitol

Transformation is Always the Goal of Education

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Regina Piazza

What is one thing public education and home education have in common? The obvious answer would be…education. However, as we see in Vladimir Lenin’s ominous promise to, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world,” 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:

“Our 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 people…

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 ourselves….

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.”

Are We Embracing Socialism?

Marion Smith, Executive Director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, states, “When 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.”  This startling statistic is widely evident in the government-controlled school systems’ 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 “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”(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, “…transform the whole world.” This exceedingly conspicuous tactic is front and center throughout America today. It has been clearly spelled out in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) #4 of the United Nations Agenda 2030, with which the United States has cooperated:

“Our 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 ‘unfinished business’ 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.”1

Is the intent of this agenda not clearly stated—“to transform lives” 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 UN’s 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 report’s claim that “the State remains the duty bearer of education as a public good.”2

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 indoctrination—the 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.

“The 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.”

President Ronald Reagan

Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, states, “If a nation takes on the character of its people, then our classrooms are ultimately about the formation of citizens and souls.’’ Family is the best classroom—not 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 way—freedom’s prerequisites.

Ronald Reagan once said, “The 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.”

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 profile headshot

Regina Piazza is a 13-year home educator with Classical Conversations® 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.

To hear more from Regina, check out Episode 24 of our podcast, Refining Rhetoric, “Why a Homeschool Mom Ran for Senate with Regina Piazza.”

  1. 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
  2. Zancajo, Adrián & 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
Homeschool vs. Public School

Homeschool vs. Public School

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

At some point, you’ve probably heard the question asked (or maybe you’ve 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 (that’s 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 facto—and 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 don’t 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 child’s 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 child’s 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 won’t be tailored for each individual student.

Homeschool allows for the parents to assess their child’s 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.

Want more reasons to homeschool?
Read: “The Benefits of Homeschooling: A Graduate’s Perspective”

Why Not Public School?

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. Parents’ level of education does not change the student’s 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%).2 3

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

That’s 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?

Written By: Classical Conversations®

Joint Ownership and Your Child’s Education

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Lauren Gideon

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 that—by definition—you 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 that—by definition—you 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)

Read other articles written by Lauren here.

Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical Conversations®. 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.

looking through a magnifying glass lens at the first words of the Declaration of Independence, "We the People"

9 Resources for Learning About the U.S. Constitution

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Lauren Gideon

There has been a revival among conservatives to improve our functional U.S. Constitutional literacy. It’s only natural when things devolve into disorder and chaos to wonder, 

“What happened?” 

“How did we get here?”

“Where did we get off course?” 

To answer these questions, one would have to learn what the course was and where the course came from before one could assess the deviation from that course. This curiosity to rediscover the “course” is a good thing. The human experience is full of good things, and like all good things, achieving or acquiring them requires of us the same weighty virtues of ownership and discipline that Classical Conversations® highlights for students in the Challenge programs. 

Thus, before proceeding to the following list, heed this disclaimer: 

If you want a “quick fix” for improving your U.S. Constitutional literacy…. this is NOT the list for you. 

The U.S. Constitution

When learning about something, one should always start with the thing itself. It’s interesting that when you finally meet someone that you have heard much about ahead of time, you can’t ever really unhear those things or unknow them. 

For better or for worse, you will (at least initially) always see that new person through the lens of what you heard about them. The same is true of ideas and documents. This is one of the reasons why classical educators are so passionate about reading source texts before we turn to functional summaries or commentaries. 

Webster’s Dictionary 1828

Inevitably, you will run into words that are outside our modern vernacular. Look them up! And look them up in a dictionary completed in close chronological proximity to the document itself. 

While you are at it, pick up a good biography of Noah Webster for a fascinating window into how unique and essential this dictionary was for the formation of American culture.

The Declaration of Independence

After reading the U.S. Constitution thoroughly, you might be disappointed. Let me explain. No one gets through reading the rules of Monopoly and says to themselves, “Wow, that was profoundly inspiring!” Rule books, by nature, are quite dry and boring. The point of the rule book is not the rule book itself, but the rules allow you to play the game! The game of Monopoly is enjoyed by many families for something other than the excitement of the rule book. 

The U.S. Constitution is merely the rule book. The Declaration of Independence articulates so beautifully the “why.” These documents are so intertwined that they ought never to be divorced. The U.S. Constitution is the manifestation, the conduit, and the protection of the truth claims spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

The Articles of Confederation

It is important to remember that the U.S. Constitution was a “do-over.” It was not the first attempt to make manifest the principles of the Declaration of Independence. However, there was enough unfavorable public sentiment surrounding the Articles of Confederation and the perception that they had missed the mark, to tolerate what was called the Second American Revolution. 

The new form of government created was literally illegal under the Articles of Confederation. 

While this may cause internal conflict for those with warm affection for the rule of law under the U.S. Constitution, it is something worthwhile to wrestle with. It’s important to remember that things haven’t always been the way they are, nor is there any assurance that they will stay this way if the public perception and sentiment wills otherwise.

Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

In modern America, there is debate on whether we can know what the Constitutional Convention meant by the words and phrases they used. This question is only tolerated by those ignorant of James Madison’s exhaustive notes on every conversation that transpired. 

What was included, what wasn’t included, why did they choose the words they chose; all this and much more give us the conversational context to every element debated. The fewer the debates, the more unanimously certain positions were held by the convention. 

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers

Beyond the internal debate, a national debate transpired as well. The Federalist Papers argued for the U.S. Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification. More important than the sides men took are the ideas they unpacked. Often, these papers hospitably acknowledge the weakness of their positions while confessing the limitations of a free society.  

By reading these papers, we can deeply dive into the comparison, circumstance, relationship, and testimony of these ideas.

Discourses Concerning Government—Algernon Sidney

Like people, ideas have family trees and ancestors. While the ideas that shaped the U.S. Constitution are as old as time itself, curious observers have done their part to articulate what previously lived outside of the body of human discovery. 

Algernon Sidney was one of those discoverers. His thoughts ultimately cost him his very life when his own unpublished writing was used against him as a second witness to convict him of treason. Sidney’s writings, though written about 100 years before the American Revolution, were so influential that Thomas Jefferson had this to say about them in a letter to Henry Lee:

“But with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. The historical documents which you mention as in your possession, ought all to be found, and I am persuaded you will find, to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced in that Declaration.“

Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration—John Locke 

The other modern author named by Jefferson was John Locke. His Two Treatises of Government was published around the same time that Sidney was alive. These two men pioneered ideas such as “just power being derived through the consent of the governed,” which flew in the face of the Divine Rights Theory. So, it is plain to see how the Declaration of Independence did not invent any new ideas. The Declaration merely served as an inventory of collective sentiment shaped by the ideas discovered and shared by brave men who gave their lives for the transcendental ideals enumerated in our Declaration and consequently informed and transformed our form of government, the U.S. Constitution.

The Bible

It cannot go without saying that the U.S. Constitution is not divinely inspired. Only one text can make that claim. So, when looking at anything else in the created order, we must consider the authority of Scripture. 

We began this conversation considering “the course” or “how things ought to be.” While the Scriptures may not explicitly say how humans ought to form a good human state, it does teach us about spheres of authority, the principle of justice, the idea of having multiple witnesses, the image-bearing nature of humanity, and other building blocks. 

While we may often wish for a cookie-cutter example that we could cut and paste, there is no quick fix for searching out the mysteries of Scripture either. Let us remember Proverbs 25:2 (ESV), “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.” 

It is our joy and responsibility to bring everything under the dominion of Christ’s authority: to discover, to name, to identify, to compare, to understand, to inform, to discern. In this discernment of revelation through Scripture and the created order, we, too, can wisely participate in this enduring classical conversation. 

Read other articles by Lauren here.

Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical Conversations.  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 nation’s 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.

How to be an American Citizen

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Lauren Gideon

The original article, “How to be an American Citizen: The Relationship between the Represented and the Representative,” was published in The Cultivated Patriot.

There is a lot of confusion these days (and dare I make us all nauseous and use the word “misinformation”), drowning the American citizen. We don’t always know what is going on, but even more than that, we haven’t been trained in what to do about it. The battle cry of our generation is “Just DO something!” If that doesn’t make you snicker a wee bit, this installment might be for you.

Republic or Democracy—What is the difference?

As American citizens, we live in a republic, meaning we have a representative government. Most often, though, the United States is falsely described as a democracy. This distinction could fill up this entire paper, so instead, I will summarize. In both systems, the ultimate power is held in the hands of the voter.

Direct Democracy

In a direct democracy, however, the voter would literally vote on every issue. There is no assurance that what the voter votes for is moral or just. It is truly an expedient representation of the will of the people. Thomas Jefferson, who was initially endeared to this style of governance, was disenchanted by it over the course of his service as Governor of Virginia. While unverified, he is credited with saying, “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.” So, while mob rule is expedient and gives ALL the “power to the people” ALL of the time, it can potentially be very dangerous. Consider the unbridled mob-like mentality of the past several years on ALL sides of the political arena.

“Democracy is nothing more than mob rule,
where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.“

Republic—Representative Government

A republic is still organized with the citizen as the highest authority. However, a republic is less efficient and expedient. Our power as citizens is vested in those we choose to represent us. We vet, we interrogate, we debate, and then we select. Our selection is our seal that the individual we’ve chosen is the best person for the job that we could find within the population for that office. This process is THE exercise of the citizen’s authority in the framework of a republic. This description is by no means a marginalization of the citizen’s role. In the “Just DO something” age, it’s essential first to define what we should be doing.

The exercise of this role is much more complex than scribbling in an oval with ink a few times a year (much less every four years!).

Who are our Representatives?

Our representatives represent us in the office and exercise authority on our behalf.

Ideally, how should you select a representative?

Find someone with sufficient knowledge, who understands that knowledge, and has wisdom in applying that knowledge. Another way of articulating the qualifications: do they possess true principles? Building on those principles, can they reason well? Lastly, could they strategically apply those principles to any potential circumstance? That is how we ought to select our representative.

Two Seasons of a Representative

This process has two seasons: first, the selection (a primary and general election), and then the term in which they do the representing.

During the representative’s term, we should support and encourage the candidate the majority thought was best suited for the role.

Support means we consider the principles we base our decisions on. These become the mechanisms of conversation and sometimes persuasion. We winsomely advocate for applying these principles on issues based on the merits of goodness, justice, and wisdom (or lack thereof). We thereby partner with those representing us.

Terms have different lengths, but they all have limits. Like all healthy assignments, there are seasons of assessing, or “performance reviews,” if you will.

Who performs the reviews, you ask? The voters. Can we all agree that there are qualifications for the heavy responsibility of giving performance reviews? You would need to know the standard or “ideal,” and you would need to know the merits on which the representative was selected in the first place. And you would also need to be engaged enough to know what transpired during the term and WHY. The assessment is a layered puzzle that will take more than a yard sign, a piece of literature, or a social media post to perform. But as the sovereign in this great nation, “We, the people,” have this high calling and responsibility to rule our country well. We need to hold ourselves individually accountable to the measure this office deserves.

“We, the people,” have this high calling and responsibility to rule our country well.

Our Responsibility as an American Citizen

Juxtapose the calm, calculated, time-consuming, discipline-requiring paradigm as stated above with the suggested playbook of our age. Verbs enlisted to the cause include yell, scream, e-blast, force, fight, rally, bully, protest, and “make your voices heard.”

If you don’t join the mob, this will mean to others that you aren’t yet awake enough. If the wicked have succeeded in this vein, isn’t it time we “borrow a page from their playbook”? And if your representative doesn’t bow to your beck and call, he’s “forgotten who he works for.” After all, “We the people” make our demands. If enough people want something, a representative should be bound to give it to them. And if our representative doesn’t, we choose vindication over virtue.

Which Playbook do we use?

If the stakes are high (as the last commentator I listened to told me they were), ought we use the most effective playbook for the task? Yes and no. I am not confident we have a modern example of a diligent, virtuous approach to politics by which to form a fair comparison. Perhaps there still is wisdom in the path of diligence, and, to a degree, we can generally anticipate that we will reap the seeds we sow.

Additionally, the wicked have always prospered, and they will until the end of this age. So, to take a page from the wicked’s playbook to achieve a moral end is inconsistent and incompatible. Also, is it just those “other” people who are tempted to be tiny tyrants?

Tyranny is All Around Us

If dominance is how the team moves the football down the field, would they give up their tyrannical ways once they reach the end zone? Victory would mean nothing less than a regime change where one tribe steals the scepter to wield how they see fit. To quote my colleague, “Tyranny is awful except for my tyranny… which is ok.“

To get back on track, I am not assuming that we will always see eye-to-eye with those who represent us, especially if we are “on-ramped” into this cycle somewhere in the middle. It would be imperative that we identify what season we are currently in with each individual representative.

Do our Research!

As an American citizen, we need to do our research, and then enter into a relationship with these civil servants who represent us. We can get to know them, their background, and their priorities. Like any new relationship, we ought to find what principles we have in common. Then, when we meet a division of opinion, we appeal on the merits of goodness, justice, and wisdom. We build our reasoning on something timeless, outside of mere opinion, on some truth that both can identify. Provide authoritative sources. And then be professional!

When this fails, it will, at some point—we need to evaluate. What level of division is it? Is it a deal-breaking disagreement? Should it be? Or is it an area of minor consequence? Review season is coming, and you will take your role more seriously this time. After you have made your appeal to your representative, and once primary season is at hand, it’s time for the community to reevaluate if they (and, more importantly, truth) are best represented by the current representative. This can not happen in a vacuum.

The constituents must compare notes, events, circumstances, choices, and actions. They must focus on winsomely persuading their neighbors to vote based on what is good, just, and wise. They must consolidate their voting power to find the best representative for their community.

We will Reap what we Sow

As American citizens, we vet, we interrogate, we debate, and then we select our representative. We remember that our selection is our seal that the individual we’ve chosen is the best person for the job we could find within the population that is being represented by this office. And from the last term, we realize we will reap what we sow.

When the primary season is over, what’s done is done. And it’s back to the season of civil relationships.

Read other articles written by Lauren here.

Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical Conversations. 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.

Feminism: The First Wave

Feminism: The Radical First Wave

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Elise DeYoung

“What began as a movement with the principled intention of equality for women has turned into an abstract ideology that is seeking to overthrow all traditional structures under the guise of women empowerment.”

I wrote this over a year ago for a thesis project, which I titled “Behind the Veil of Feminism.” My goal for the assignment was to look beyond the boss babe propaganda and the gender pay gap debate to answer the deeper question, “What is the ideology of feminism?”

After researching its ideology and those who have historically promoted it, I firmly concluded, and still believe, that feminism is, in fact, “an abstract ideology that is seeking to overthrow all traditional structures under the guise of women empowerment.”

However, I excused first-wave feminism, arguing that feminism fell short of its original, righteous design during the third and fourth waves. It wasn’t until recently when I revisited the first wave, that I became convinced that feminism has never been “a movement with principled intentions.”

Feminism, from its conception, has always been a dangerous ideology, designed to destroy all traditional structures and ways of life.

The Origin of Feminism

The ideology of feminism was born out of the minds of women like Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. These women were discontented with the status of women in 19th century America. They worked to revolutionize the relationship between women and the broader society.

The movement was officially conceived in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention with the signing of the Declaration of Sentiments. The first wave ended in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

This period of feminism is largely looked upon with approval by both conservatives and progressives because it resulted in a woman’s right to vote, which in turn led to educational, vocational, and political equality between the sexes. Surely, with these results, we must conclude that first-wave feminism was principled and beneficial. Before we come to this conclusion, we must challenge ourselves with the question, why didn’t feminism dissolve after these political wins? Why have we continued to see a second, third, and fourth wave (each more radical than the last)?

Because the feminist mission was not complete after the ratification of the 19th Amendment. The amendment was only a means to an end to the early feminists. So, what then, is their end? Thankfully, we do not have to ponder this question long because the early feminists clearly laid out their radical intentions in the Declaration of Sentiments. After examining exactly what the first feminists wrote, I believe it will become clear that the end of feminism has always been social revolution through the reproach and replacement of men and the rejection of the family.

Social Revolution

Leftist movements always have a shared value of revolution. Whether it is climate change, critical race theory, or the LGBTQIA+ movement, all progressive movements call for the dismantling of the past to prepare for the restructuring of the future. Feminism is no exception to this rule.

In the Declaration of Sentiments, Elizabeth Stanton makes the case that in order for women to have the rights they deserve and the positions in society that they desire, a political and social revolution is required. Stanton writes that such a revolution “Has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.”

Stanton wrote revolution into the fabric of feminism. The ideology itself demands the overthrowing of systems, ideas, and traditions which constrain it. Revolution—the foundation of the philosophy—has manifested itself largely in feminism’s insistence on the reproach and replacement of men in society and the rejection of marriage.

All progressive movements call for the dismantling of the past to prepare for the restructuring of the future.

The Reproach and Replacement of Men

We are never surprised today when we hear feminists complaining about the so-called “patriarchy” and expressing their disdain for men. However, this argument has been made since the founding of the ideology.

Stanton wrote, “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.” She continues by saying, “He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.”

The brash claim that all men have “an absolute tyranny” over all women is not new. From the beginning, feminists have implanted a disdain for men into their followers. They have done this largely by convincing women of a long list of grievances that men have committed against them. Stanton included such a list in her declaration and used it to justify the destructive nature of the ideology of feminism against men. In short, she argued that men have conducted the government, conditioned society, and instituted religion in order to oppress women. You may be more familiar with this concept as it is known today—the patriarchy.

The feminist solution to this alleged problem is for women to stand up and overthrow men’s tyranny over them. Or as we hear it today, “women need to be empowered to rise up and overthrow the patriarchy.” The effects of this thinking have been women replacing men in almost all spheres of life. Husbands and fathers have been replaced by single mothers or unconventional family units, the universities have been dominated by women, the military has manipulated its standards to uphold women over men, and the workplace has been radically reworked to value women workers over men. The list goes on.

Whether you support these social trends is irrelevant. The fact that cannot be denied is we are seeing the replacement of men in society, and this is all by the first feminists’ design.

The Rejection of Marriage

The most destructive war that feminism has waged since its founding is the war against the traditional family. Some may be tempted to believe that the feminist attack on the family began in 1963 when Betty Friedan published her book Feminine Mystique. In it, Friedan argued that the station of a wife and homemaker is equivalent to that of a slave—where the home is a prison, children the chains, and the husband the jailer. Sadly, this flawed thinking dates back much farther than the 20th century.

The most destructive war that feminism has waged since its founding is the war against the traditional family.

The Declaration of Sentiments reads, “In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.” From its beginning, feminism has ruthlessly attacked the institution of marriage by degrading and misrepresenting it.

Not only this, but the early feminists have always fought to loosen divorce laws to favor wives over their husbands. “He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; …the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.”

A world in which men “lose” and women “win” in a divorce was the world that the early feminists were seeking to create. Thanks to legislation like no-fault divorce, we are living in the first feminists’ imagined utopia where marriage vows are easily broken, and families are routinely torn apart.

The Results of Feminism

Feminism is arguably one of the most powerful leftist movements in history. This is partially because it has had over two centuries to do its damage and also because it has wrongly been accepted as a societal good.

Feminism is arguably one of the most powerful leftist movements in history.

Whether you consider the decline of masculinity, the rise of “boss babe” culture, the acceptance of abortion as a “Constitutional right”, the rejection of marriage, and the rise of divorce—it cannot be denied that we live in a society today that has been gravely affected by the ideology of feminism.

While we cannot attribute all these civil illnesses to feminism alone, we must recognize that this was the future that the first feminists envisioned. Elizabeth Stanton closes her feminist declaration with the words, “We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.”

Congratulations, Elizabeth, you got your wish.

It should not surprise us when we see modern feminism bent on destruction. The first feminists planted these seeds of destruction and revolution from the beginning. They only needed time to grow.

We need to stop excusing first-wave feminism as a “principled movement” because once we accept that premise, we lose the fight. Feminism has always used corruption and destruction as its means to its end—and that end has always been a revolution of society, the reproach and replacement of men, and the rejection of marriage.

Read other articles by Elise here.

Elisa DeYoung headshot smiling at the camera

Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations® 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!