Dispute, Deny, Distort, Discard: The Constitution in the Crosshairs

Posted on December 10, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya | Leave a Comment

By Brian Tonnell

Satan tried it first. Dispute: “Did God really say?” Deny: He didn’t really say that. “You will not certainly die.” Distort: Here’s the real truth. “God knows that when you eat from it … you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” And the final result? Adam and Eve discarded God’s words. Dispute, deny, distort, discard.

Once Adam and Eve were no longer grounded in God’s ideas, what did they have to fall back on? Their own wisdom. They did what was right in their own eyes. And history continually reminds us that this is a recipe for disaster.

Surely, we would never fall into that trap!

The Erosion: From Biblical Principles to Moral Relativism

Even the casual observer will recognize that our culture is losing—more likely, has lost—its basis for Truth. There can be no doubt that our country was founded on biblical principles. During the early days of our country, the preponderance of America was Christian. Even if not all were religious, there was at least a pervading belief in the rightness of biblical principles. This foundation in biblical principles helped steer our culture down the morally right path, whether in government, the courts, the public square, business, or private homes.

While our descent from biblical principles to human wisdom could take up volumes, suffice it to say that we have lost our founding principles. We have lost our basis for Truth. If so, what indicators might we see of this loss? We would expect to see laws and court decisions that fly in the face of biblical principles.

Did God really say that we should not murder? He did not. What he really meant was that we should not execute criminals. The real truth is that this mandate does not apply to the unborn. After all, the unborn are not human. Dispute, deny, distort. Hence, God’s principle that protects unborn children has been discarded.

Did God really say that homosexuality is a sin? He did not. What he really meant was that homosexual acts of lust are sinful. The real truth is that monogamous, loving, homosexual relationships are pleasing to God. Dispute, deny, distort. Hence, God’s mandate against sexual immorality has been discarded.

So, our biblical foundations have been discarded. What now? What do we fall back on to guide us through life? Perhaps our founding documents? Yes, those will guide us in our decision making! The founding documents will be our final authority and all will be well.

The Slippery Slope Is Real

The insidious, slippery departure from biblical principles has brought with it an unintended consequence. When we discarded God’s Word, not only did we eliminate His precepts, but we also abandoned the idea that man answers to a higher authority. The idea that there is a Truth higher than our own, that man is not the final authority was thrown under the bus.

If we can discard the standard upon which our Constitution was written, what is the next logical step? What will stop us from discarding the standard that remains, in order to live by our own wisdom? We have discarded the Bible, so why not also discard the Constitution? After all, the latter was built on the former. Of course, we would not expect to hear anyone advocating the abandonment of our Constitution. Then again, we would not have expected to hear anyone advocating the abandonment of the Bible. The process of discarding our Constitution is occurring in the same manner that Adam and Eve discarded God’s words.

Do our founding documents really acknowledge a right to life, the free exercise of religion, the right to pursue happiness, the freedom of speech? They do not. Hence, we can legalize abortion because “right to life” really means that biological parents have the right to responsibility-free life.

When Elane Photography in Albuquerque refuses to photograph a gay dedication ceremony, thereby exercising their religion, they should be forced to photograph these events in the future or face jail time. This suppression of religious freedom is the “price of citizenship” (says the New Mexico Supreme Court Justice). And when North Carolina’s Love Wins Ministries is distributing food to the homeless in a public park, they should be forced to cease and desist or face jail time. After all, “religious freedom” really only applies in the church building, not in the public square.

If a child in California or New Jersey struggles with gender confusion issues, the government now says it is illegal for a professional counselor to attempt to restore peace in that child’s soul. After all, pursuing happiness is really only valid if your definition of happiness agrees with the one outlined by the government.

The Department of Justice can distribute an internal memo directing employees to verbally acknowledge homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, because “silence” on the matter “will be interpreted as disapproval.” And an Army Chaplain’s Aid, as well as an Air Force Senior Master Sergeant can be threatened with discharge because they made the unconstitutional mistake of speaking their opinion on the gay marriage issue. After all, free speech really only applies if it conforms to cultural norms.

Dispute, Deny, Distort

Dispute, deny, distort. And now, even our Constitution is in the crosshairs, ready to be discarded.

The recipe is tried, tested, and successful. Unfortunately, the success of this recipe spells disaster.

We have abandoned our biblical foundations by disputing, denying, distorting, and finally discarding God’s principles. We have fallen back on our own founding documents as the yardstick by which to measure right and wrong. In the interim, we have also succumbed to the attractive idea that man is the ultimate authority, autonomously knowing good and evil. Hence, we are now disputing, denying, distorting, and finally discarding our own founding documents. What is left for us to fall back on now? Our own wisdom? Unfortunately, yes. But how many times throughout history has man done what was right in his own eyes?

The Fight for Truth: Can America Be Saved?

Can we reverse this trend? Yes. My theory is this: at some point in the near future, the increasingly outrageous anti-biblical and anti-constitutional incidents occurring in our country will force Christians out of their complacent woodwork and into the spotlight. When the number of blatantly blasphemous events (laws, court decisions, and so on) reaches its climax, the content citizenry will become discontent. Then, the public outcry will drown out the immoral minority. In addition to this, I firmly believe homeschoolers will be a significant influencing factor in the reversal of this trend. Our children will be the ones on the front lines, standing for Truth, for biblical principle, and for constitutional adherence.

We must continue teaching God’s principles to our students day and night, when we sit at home and when we walk along the road, when we lie down, and when we get up. We must persevere so they will be girded with the belt of truth, the shield of faith, and the sword of the Spirit. The battle they will face is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces of evil. Fortunately, we know our enemy, and his tactics have not changed since the beginning of time. Our biblical foundation has already been discarded, and the sooner we recognize that our Constitution is now in the crosshairs, the more ready we will be for this next battle. Battle by battle and with God’s help, we will regain the ground we have lost and win the war!

Enjoy “9 Resources for Learning About the U.S. Constitution” and other blogs on the Constitution.

This article was previously published by Classical Conversations^®.

How Homeschoolers Celebrate Christmas All Year

Posted on December 5, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya | Leave a Comment

By Arron Hebbard

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”
Isaiah 9:6-7.

It is that time of year, a blessed time of year, when we celebrate the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Christmas season, of course, celebrates His birth, while the Advent season, which precedes Christmas, looks forward to His second coming. He is born, a Son given to us, who will rule and reign in peace and health.

Over what, however, does He rule? Our answers may not always match our actions when we answer this question theologically or philosophically. Coincidentally, the idiom, “Actions speak louder than words,” may reveal more of what we actually believe as an answer to this question.

The Meaning of Christmas and How Homeschoolers Celebrate It Year Round

Christian homeschool families reveal something of this by their choice to homeschool. Keep in mind, of course, that this is not to say others do not. But Christian homeschool families reveal, by their choice to homeschool, their acknowledgment that Christ’s government extends to history, science, math, literature, language, theology, philosophy, and logic.

We choose to educate the way we do, with the content and methodology we use, precisely because we want to understand each of these subjects in light of Christ’s Lordship of them. We can read pagan authors, mathematicians, and scientists precisely because we recognize that Christ is Lord—King—of the subjects they write about. Whatever their opinions, Christ is King, and studying them under His rule helps us, as my pastor would say, “Chew up the hay and spit out the sticks.” We are learning to judge, as our King does, the truth in their words and the falsehood.

Christian homeschool families also recognize that Christ’s rule as King is not a temporary one. He is not the Lord of math today and not tomorrow. He is established on His throne from that time (the time of His birth, Isaiah 9:6) forward and unto ages of ages.

We, therefore, communicate to our children the multigenerational aspect of His Lordship by our choice to homeschool. Mom and Dad lead the learning and pass that on to their children. Their children become learners who will lead others in learning. The task of education and of to know God and to make Him known is not one that begins and ends with me as a homeschool parent but is one that is modeled and passed down to my children and their children and their children’s children. The task of education and of to know God and to make Him known is to bend the knee and confess that Jesus is King from this time forward and unto ages of ages.

As a parent and as a Christian, I love having the opportunity to celebrate the birth of my Lord during this season, as well as the giving of gifts that accompany it. I love the connection between Christmas and what Jesus teaches us in Matthew 25:35-40, “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in.” When asked when they saw Him thirsty and gave Him a drink or hungry and gave Him food, He answered, when they gave these things to the least of them, they gave them to Him. Just as the wise men gave Him gifts, I too am giving Him gifts when I give to those around me.

I love, even more perhaps, having the opportunity to celebrate the Kingship of Jesus year round as my wife and I homeschool our children. As we teach them under the authority of Jesus, the King, and as we teach them, by our own modeling, that this authority is an everlasting authority unto ages of ages.

I love, too, that there are so many others—all of you—out there on this journey with us. We are not alone in this endeavor, and it is comforting and encouraging to know there are others striving to serve the Lord and raise up a generation of children who will do the same. It is especially comforting to know that we are all praying for one another, as well. I offer my prayers on behalf of you and your families this Christmas season! Merry Christmas, and may God bless you all!

Enjoy other Christmas blogs here.

This article was originally written by Aaron Hebbard in 2013 and last published by Classical Conversations® in 2022.

Kentucky Amendment 2 Compromises the Independence of Private Education

Posted on October 4, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya | 1 Comment

By Sadie Aldaya

The purpose of education is to know God and to make Him known; therefore, we believe education, like religion, is a sacred pursuit outside the jurisdiction of the state.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2 would allow state funding for non-public education.

The Kentucky legislature passed Amendment 2 earlier this year. It will be on your ballot this fall. Amendment 2 will change the fabric of the state government by changing the Kentucky Constitution.

In a Nutshell

Amendment 2 can potentially compromise Education Independence. The language of the amendment and the existing authority by law could give taxpayer money to independent homeschoolers, leading to possible government oversight and regulation of their homeschools or legally changing the definition of the homeschooler in the state.

Below is a summary of the amendment’s language, concerns, and possible implications for Kentuckians. At the bottom of this news bulletin, you will find background information on government-funded homeschooling and resources.

Summary & Details

Section II of the amendment reads as follows:

“Section 2. IT IS PROPOSED THAT A NEW SECTION BE ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools. The General Assembly may exercise this authority by law, Sections 59, 60, 171, 183, 184, 186, and 189 of this Constitution notwithstanding.”

Concerns & Possible Implications

Section 186: “All funds accruing to the school fund shall be used for the maintenance of the public schools of the Commonwealth, and for no other purpose.“

Would Section 186 Necessitate Private and Homeschools to Become Public Schools?

We have seen instances in other states where homeschoolers opt in for a program, and they are no longer legally classified (with its protections) as homeschoolers.

In Arizona, for example, the student is legally referred to as an “ESA student” and no longer qualifies as a homeschool student by law, as stated by the Arizona Department of Education. “ESA students…are not considered “homeschool” students by state law.”

Section 189: “No portion of any fund or tax now existing … shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school.”

Would Amendment 2 Contradict Section 189?

Section 189’s language seems to be very clear on this matter.

The South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) (Act) was unconstitutional for this reason.

Watch Out for Policy Creep

Although the amendment does not pass School Choice law, we must acknowledge that it provides the opportunity for such legislation and the opportunity for policy creep in Kentucky. To aid your understanding of Education Independence and School Choice, here is an article to help you. In Addition, investigate the resources below before you vote on Amendment 2.

Protect the Constitution & Education Independence on Election Day

Kentuckians can protect the state constitution and Kentucky from future bad policy.

Before election day, explore the resources below and share this urgent information. Protect Education Independence in your state and vote against the public capture of private education.

You Are Invited!

Classical Conversations cordially invites members of the community to an open forum to discuss Amendment 2. This important event will occur on October 9, 2024, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Warren County Public Library, 175 Iron Skillet Ct., Bowling Green, KY 42104.

Join us for an engaging discussion led by Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations. This event serves as a conservative Christian rally for education independence.

Resources

Sadie Aldaya is the Manager of Research & Policy for Classical Conversations^® . 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.

Enjoy Your Free Speech

Posted on September 25, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya | Leave a Comment

By Amy Jones

“Enjoy Your Free Speech.”

—Mike Johnson

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

In December of 1860, Frederick Douglas was slated to lead a discussion on the abolition of slavery for a Boston audience of fellow abolitionists. An angry mob opposing abolition took over the stage and shouted down the discussion. Six days later, in a gathering at Boston’s Music Hall, Douglass ended his lecture with a brief address criticizing how the earlier event was handled—by the protestors, Boston’s mayor, and even supporters of Douglass who expressed reluctance to criticize the mob’s clear violation of free speech. Douglass described the earlier meeting as having been “captured by a mob of gentlemen and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it…”¹

Douglass went on to note the irony. These men who shouted him down were not rowdy, uneducated drunkards but “men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.” But as gentlemen proclaimed their “law of slavery,” he noted, the “law of free speech . . . [was] trampled under foot . . .” Douglass described this incident as “instructive.”²

How so? What can we, the citizens of the same nation, learn from this seemingly minor historical event, which happened 164 years ago? Surely, we have grown to understand and appreciate our right to freedom of speech.

Enjoy Your Free Speech

Maybe not. On April 25, 2024, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, addressed the students and faculty at Columbia University, an institution he defines as “one of America’s preeminent academic institutions.”^³ The purpose of his speech was to condemn the violent pro-Palestinian protests that had exploded on campus and to call for the resignation of Columbia’s president, Minouche Shafik, for her failure to protect freedom of speech on Columbia’s campus and enforce school policies protecting all students.

The same students, who had sought to silence and intimidate Jewish and pro-Israel students on campus, jeered and shouted, “We can’t hear you,” attempting to end Johnson’s speech just as the mob of gentlemen attempted to shout down Douglass. Undaunted, Johnson responded, “Enjoy your free speech,” and, in a similar spirit to that of Douglass, continued his address.⁴

Three Lessons From Douglas on Free Speech

These two incidents of lawless attacks on freedom of speech are startlingly similar regarding both the words and actions involved and the supposedly enlightened, privileged status of the perpetrators. It seems, after all, we should revisit the instructive lessons from our past. In Douglass’ closing comments at the Music Hall, he outlined three lessons he drew from his experience of having that freedom attacked.

Every person, regardless of race, gender, social, economic, or educational status, has the same right to speak. No one is to be excluded. The freedom of speech is the common right of all men. Douglass stated, “No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government.”⁵

It is the responsibility of governmental and institutional authorities to lawfully uphold, protect, and defend all citizens’ freedom to speak. The equal enforcement of the law is critical. After chastising Boston’s mayor for capitulating to the angry mob, Douglass emphasized, “There can be no right of speech where any man, however, lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.”⁶

Freedom of speech provides opportunities to hear as well as to speak. Douglass wisely understood that it is as important to hear other people express their ideas freely as it is for us to freely speak our own. Our right to freedom of speech offers us a double blessing. Douglass concluded his speech with this reflection: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”⁷

Each of Douglass’s assertions have not only been confirmed and defended throughout America’s history, but policies protecting freedom of speech have been confirmed in liberal intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International.

A Universal Right That’s Not So Universal

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to set “a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations . . . fundamental human rights to be universally protected…”^⁸Article 19, in particular, addresses freedom of speech and states that the individual must have the right to freely express their opinions and ideas “without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”^⁹Amnesty International, an independent, international, non-governmental organization, states that its mission includes the commitment to help fight abuses of human rights worldwide and to free people jailed just for voicing their opinion.

Both international organizations support freedom of speech for all people echoing America’s First Amendment right which was ratified in 1791. The First Amendment was written well before both the writing of United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the founding of Amnesty International in 1961 emphasizing America’s earlier declaration of our sacred right to freedom of speech.

The importance of Douglass’s second point that it is the responsibility of governmental and institutional authorities to lawfully defend a citizen’s freedom to speak has been exemplified by the widespread suppression of speech affirming conservative values, or in Columbia’s case, pro-Israel values in university classrooms and on campuses across the country in recent months. The failure of university administrators to defend this freedom and the rationalizations used to justify their actions is symptomatic of our country’s breakdown in protecting its citizens. This type of institutional cowardice and negligence has become blatantly obvious.

Douglass’ own response to this type of negligence was to strongly urge his Boston audience that “…the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied.”^¹⁰

If We Are Brave, We’ll Win the Fight

Free speech requires a courageous defense not only from citizens but, most importantly, from the institutions responsible for upholding this freedom through equal application of the law, even in the face of threats and opposition. In an address to his organization, American Cornerstone Institute, Dr. Ben Carson states, “…if we are persistent…if we are courageous, if we are brave, we’ll win that fight.”^¹¹— the fight to avoid America’s movement toward being a totalitarian state where free speech is unsupported, or worse, opposed by law.

Douglass’s third point that freedom of speech provides opportunities for a citizen to hear as well as to speak, was articulated earlier in 1859 in the famous treatise, On Liberty, by the 19^th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill. He makes this point incisively.

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. “^¹²

This doctrine has come to be defined as the doctrine of counterspeech—”…is one of the most important free-expression principles in First Amendment jurisprudence.”^¹³It derives from the theory that audiences, or recipients of the expression, can weigh for themselves the values of competing ideas and, hopefully, follow the better approach.”^¹⁴

Freedom of Speech Only Matters When You Don’t Like What Someone Has to Say

The danger of silencing speech has also been tested in our Supreme Court system. In the case of Whitney v. California (1927), Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s concurring opinion advanced the protection of the freedom of speech and has become a “…critical justifications for safeguarding freedom of speech even under the most challenging conditions.”^¹⁵ He wrote: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”¹⁶

The closing instructive comments by Douglass in December 1860 are as applicable today as they were 164 years ago. Our fight to protect and defend our freedom of speech for every citizen in our nation is crucial.

Douglass concluded his final remarks with the statement, “The principle [freedom of speech] must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston [and the United States of America] is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery.

A man’s right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right—and there let it rest forever.”^¹⁷

Enjoy your free speech.

Amy Jones is an Instructional Designer for Classical Conversations^®. She and her husband of 36 years raised four children in the beautiful foothills of the Tennessee Appalachian Mountains. Amy and Whit thoroughly enjoyed homeschooling their children through high school. During this journey, the Jones’ were blessed to participate in a Classical Conversations^®community, even tutoring and directing several programs. Now blessed with nine grandchildren, Amy enjoys writing Classical Conversations^®materials for young learners in the Scribblers tier.

Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. ↩︎
Allen, Hugh. “Mike Johnson Columbia Palestine Protest.” Rev, 2024, www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mike-johnson-speaks-at-columbia-university ↩︎
Allen, Hugh. “Mike Johnson Columbia Palestine Protest.” Rev, 2024, www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mike-johnson-speaks-at-columbia-university ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860 ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. ↩︎
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,media%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024. ↩︎
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. ↩︎
Carson, Ben. “Dr. Ben Carson’s Most Important Speech.” Rick Walker Podcast, YouTube, 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1Tj-Q6MxU&t=818s. ↩︎
Mill, John Stuart. “John Stuart Mill.” Oxford Reference, 2024, www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00007298. ↩︎
“Counterspeech Doctrine Archives.” The Free Speech Center, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/encyclopedia/case/counterspeech-doctrine/#:~:text=The%20counterspeech%20doctrine%20posits%20that,hopefully%2C%20follow%20the%20better%20approach. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024. ↩︎
“Counterspeech Doctrine Archives.” ↩︎
Serafin, Tatiana. “Brandeis Concurring with Holmes in Whitney v. California, 1927.” First Amendment Watch, 30 Sept. 2022, firstamendmentwatch.org/history-speaks-brandeis-concurring-holmes-whitney-v-california-1927/. ↩︎
Serafin, Tatiana. ↩︎
Douglass, Frederick. “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. ↩︎

Homeschool Days at the Capitol—October! Get Ready!

Posted on September 23, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya | 2 Comments

Homeschool Days at the Capitol, Legislative Days, Capitol Days, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. Seize this excellent opportunity to teach your children the importance of the legislative process. Help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.

The chart below lists October Homeschool Days at the Capitol. Check your state’s dates here if it’s not listed below.

Michigan	October 2, 2024
Ohio	October 24, 2024
Virginia	October 24, 2024

Reflections on September 11

Posted on September 11, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya

By Jennifer Bright

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord…” Jeremiah 29:11(ESV)

Where were you on September 11, 2001?

We all remember where we were when we first heard the news of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001; the first pictures we saw that day of the destruction and devastation as nearly three thousand lives were lost.

These types of events (terrorist attacks, pandemics, recessions, assassination attempts on a president, etc.) change us. The world around us changes.

We see the wickedness of sin; the heinous acts against others bring sorrow to our souls. Where was I that fateful morning? What lasting impacts did that day have on my family?

Packing for a New Home

We were boxing up all our earthly belongings and moving halfway around the world to serve the Lord in Samara, Russia. The movers were at our house packing and loading the truck with our many boxes to be shipped to our new home. We were waiting for a friend to pick up our daughter that morning to watch her for the day. She called us to let us know she was running late because of the breaking news events of that day. What news? What events of the day? We rushed to unpack a small radio to listen to what had happened that morning.

The Heinous Act of Terror

Seeing pictures on the news that night of the destruction in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania was overwhelming! How could such a heinous act happen? Why?

“‘Islamists’ see Islam as a guiding ideology for politics and the organization of society. That is, they believe that strict adherence to religious law should be the sole basis for a country’s law, as well as its cultural and social life…Islamist extremists believe violence is acceptable to achieve these ends.”¹

These Islamist terrorists planned this attack for some time. Using violence to fulfill their mission, to cripple the US.

Trusting God with Our Future

What would we do now? Would we still be moving to Russia? Would we be able to leave the US? Our flight was scheduled for September 17. All the airports were shut down, and no planes were allowed to fly over US airspace. Our friends were set to see us off at the airport, but was that still an option?

As we continued to prepare to fly out the following Monday morning, we prayed and trusted God for our future. We were in a waiting pattern. We finally heard on Saturday that the airports would open on Monday, and our flight was one of the first to depart from Los Angeles. We said our goodbyes in the church parking lot and headed to the airport twelve hours before our flight was set to leave. Only ticketed passengers were allowed at the airport with all the extra security measures. So, the farewell we had hoped for at the airport did not happen. Since 9/11, only ticketed passengers can go to the gate; there are many new security measures at the airports for “our protection” due to 9/11.

God’s Plan is Best

Before we left for Russia, there were many questions and uncertainties about the future. But God knew and still knows what is best for us today; He is conforming us into the image of His Son, Jesus, and sanctifying us each day through His word, other people, and circumstances in our lives (Romans 8:28). We are reminded in James 1:2 that we will have trials; it is not ‘if’ we will have trials, but ‘when.’

God opened the door for many years of ministry in Russia, allowing us to link arms with the Russian believers to share the gospel, train pastors, and support the churches. What Satan may have tried to thwart through sinful men, God’s plan is never thwarted! He is always victorious!

Continue reading an uplifting spiritual blog. This one was written by Jennifer’s husband, Paul.

Jennifer Bright is the Communication Manager for Research and Quality Assurance for Classical Conversations®. Jennifer’s passions are classical Christian education and discipling the next generation to live for Christ. She supports homeschool families by tutoring their students with the classical tools of learning. Jennifer and her husband began their homeschool journey almost 20 years ago in Russia while serving as missionaries, and currently, they reside in Covington, Louisiana.

“9/11 FAQS.” 9/11 Memorial & Museum. Accessed on 8/25/2024. https://www.911memorial.org/911-faqs ↩︎

Global Utopia and Government Schools

Posted on September 2, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya | 1 Comment

By Elise DeYoung

“Society may be formed so as to exist without crime, without poverty, with health greatly improved, with little, if any misery, and with intelligence and happiness increased a hundredfold, and no obstacle whatsoever intervenes at this moment except ignorance to prevent such a state of society from becoming universal.”

This utopian prediction was made by the world’s first true socialist—Robert Owen.

Born in Wales on May 14, 1771, Robert Owen’s childhood was rather uneventful according to the standard upbringing of children in the 18^th century. His hard-working father worked multiple jobs to support his wife and seven children, and like his peers, Owen was sent to a school that emphasized moral instruction above the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Owning largely to his knack for entrepreneurship, Owen became the manager of New Lanark, his father-in-law’s factory, at age 28. During his time in management, he became widely known for improving work conditions, providing opportunities for his employees, and increasing the productivity of his factory. His official slogan became “8 hours labor, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest.” This was a stark comparison to the 10–16 hours of work that children and adults alike were accustomed to.

With this reputation and list of accomplishments, Robert Owen’s future looked bright and promising. Such a background does not commonly lead a person to become a utopian, spiritualist, communist—but as the Scriptures say, “Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” 1 Corinthians 15:33

The Idea

In 1793, a bright-eyed and progressive Robert Owen joined the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society. Known today as Manchester Lit & Phil, this group of thinkers and theorists gathered together with the goal of attaining the end of progressivism, which is a globalized utopia. Far from being a casual attendee of these meetings, Robert was one of its leaders. Today, he is still recognized on the Manchester Lit & Phil website as “The father of the co-operative movement.”^[1]

Briefly put, the Co-operative Movement was birthed out of the progressive movement and was the first infant school that emphasized character over moral instruction. This is the complete inverse of the schooling Owen had experienced as a child. His school even went as far as dismissing all moral teaching in favor of the instruction of dance and music. It was during this time that Owen adopted the views that he would hold for the majority of his life.

Robert Owen believed that all religion, specifically Christianity, was the stumbling block of social utopia and therefore, must be destroyed. He rejected individualism and worked to uphold social collectivism. He renounced the right to private property and was the first to call for free, public education as a means to establish a global utopia. Simply put, Owen was a good communist and a loyal atheist.

Interestingly, he would not have called himself a “communist” simply because the renowned Communist Manifesto had not yet been published. But regardless of the title, Owen had adopted the very ideas that would kill almost 100 million people in the 20^th century alone.

He had one other idea that must be understood in order to grasp the “why” and “how” of his later actions.

Even more importantly than understanding his communist views or anti-religious beliefs, we must recognize that Robert Owen was a utopian. Utopians have one simple premise that undergirds all of their reasoning: human beings are shaped purely by their environments, not by nature. Or, as Owen put it, “Man is a creature of circumstances.”

This premise leads to the following argument:

All humans are products of their environment.

Utopias are concerned with perfecting humanity.

Therefore, Utopians are responsible for perfecting the environment of humans.

To Christians who acknowledge the reality of sin nature, there is a clear problem with this thinking. The utopian argument puts the responsibility of perfecting humanity into the hands of imperfect men. Regardless, Owen, who rejected the Christian worldview, applied himself to perfecting the human race by attempting to perfect their environment.

New Harmony

By 1825, Robert Owen had left Europe and arrived in the United States of America with the aim of creating the perfect communist society. He purchased a piece of land in Indiana and named it New Harmony.

Though this image of New Harmony looks beautiful, I cannot help drawing a comparison between its great red walls and the cold, deadly red walls of the Kremlin in Communist Russia.

It was here that Robert applied his theories to the lives of other people. Consequently, the socialist motto “You will own nothing and be happy” was universally applied at New Harmony. There was no organized religion (though the citizens were able to personally practice whatever religion they chose), and there was no centralized authority in the government; rather, decisions were made in committee. Throughout its brief existence, 500–1,200 people lived in this radically progressive society.

Owen also established many social “firsts” in his communist commune, including the first public library, the first public civil drama club, and the first public school system.

In this supposed utopia, children were kept with their families until age three, when they would be handed over to the populous to be raised, educated, cared for, and trained to be productive members of society.

Tasks and jobs were divided up by age, not skill set or ambition. Children, along with adults, worked the whole day long and only saw their families at mealtimes.

Is this a Utopia?

Owen had successfully disjointed the traditional structure of civilization. No family, no private education, no private property, no organized religion, no accountable government structure—in other words, utopia, right?

Wrong—very wrong. The problem with Owen’s theory is that it can only work in the mind of a madman.

Within two years, New Harmony collapsed. The capitalists say it was because people are not happy when they own nothing; the liberals say it was because New Harmony just needed more money so the committee could care for the populace; the conservatives say it was because the family unit was dissolved; the Christians say it was because of a lack of religious fervor.

Each of these factors may have played a part in the downfall of utopia, but Robert Owen rationalized his failures in a different way.

Because he was a loyal communist, New Harmony did not cause his convictions to sway. Rather than admitting that New Harmony was a destructive idea from the start, he reasoned that it must have failed because the members of his communist society had not been properly conditioned and educated to live in a utopia. He truly took his own advice when he said, “Never argue. Repeat your assertion.” That is exactly what he did.

“The thinking was that the commune failed not because of anything wrong with communism or collectivism, but because the people living there had not been properly socialized and ‘educated’ to be collectivists from childhood.”
Alex Newman, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death

From then on, Robert Owen applied himself to convincing his fellow theorists that if utopia is to be established, the population must be educated to accept communism. Therefore, all efforts should be made to design, establish, and control a public school system.

“To train and educate the rising generation will at all times be the first object of society, to which every other will be subordinate.”—Robert Owen.

Suddenly, the public schools were born.

The Prussian Public Schools

“According to Owen’s account, the Prussian ruler had “so much approved” of these ideas that he ordered his own government to create a national education system based upon them. And thus, the Prussian system of education—schooling of the state, by the state, and for the state—was officially born.”
Alex Newman, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death

In 1843, a man named Horace Mann traveled to Prussia and observed the public school system—which had been directly inspired by Owen. He instantly recognized the potential of the government overseeing the instruction of all future generations, so he instantly began working in the United States to see this very system implemented in the West.

Ultimately, thanks to the work of men like Horace Mann, John Dewey, and Herbert Marcuse, the schemes of Robert Owen were quickly and eagerly implemented in the freest country on earth.

The Legacies

After his failed American experiment, Robert Owen returned to England as a disgraced and broke man. Having sunk 80% of his wealth in New Harmony, he relied on his children for support until he died in 1858.

Before then, however, Owen also founded the National Equitable Labor Exchange in 1832. This was a union that sought not only to reform the working system but to upend and remake it all together through social transition. Does this sound at all familiar?

Also, before his death, Owen, who had been a staunch atheist all his life, converted to spiritualism in 1854 after meeting with Maria B. Hayden, the first witch to visit England after the awakening of spiritualism in the United States. Later on, he claimed to have communicated with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin via spiritual mediums. He believed they urged him “to prepare the world for universal peace and to infuse into all the spirit of charity, forbearance, and love.”

Interestingly, 13 years after his death in 1871, Robert’s son, Robert Dale Owen, claimed to have been visited by his father, who said he would share a set of “spiritual commandments” through a woman named Emma Hardings Britten, who was a supposed “spiritual medium.” These “spiritual commandments” were written down and are to this day are taught as the Seven Principles of Spiritualism.

His legacy also continued in the life of his son, Robert Dale Owen, who stayed in New Harmony after his father left. He later became a US Representative and helped found the Smithsonian Institute.

When reflecting on his life, Robert Owen said this: “My life was not useless; I gave important truths to the world, and it was only for want of understanding that they were disregarded. I have been ahead of my time.”

Happily for Owen and regretfully for mankind, time would catch up rapidly. Today, Americans are blissfully ignorant of the deceptive and unsuccessful roots of the public school system and send children off to the yellow school bus, completely unaware that the bus is there to advance the ends of a loyal communist and committed spiritualist.

As Alex Newman said, “History would gradually be forgotten as the rotten fruit of this system began to undermine traditional American values and ideas.”

The question that demands to be asked is, have we seen the utopian world promised to us by Robert Owen? The honest answer is absolutely not. So, rather than trying to revive New Harmony, I suggest that we check our premises before our society too collapses.

Other blog contributions by Elise.

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!

[1] Manchester Lit and Phil (n.d.). Our History. Manchester Lit & Phil. Retrieved August 2, 2024, from https://www.manlitphil.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/

John Bower A View of The Bombardment of Fort McHenry.

The True Story of Francis Scott Key from The Burning of the White House

Posted on August 19, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya

By Jane Hampton Cook

Adapted from Key’s correspondence, the story behind the Star-Spangled Banner

The collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key bridge has opened discussions about its namesake. Adapting original sources and letters, I wrote about Francis Scott Key and how he came to write “The Star-Spangled Banner” in my book, The Burning of the White House: James and Dolley Madison and the War of 1812. At the end of this article, I’ve included a notation to give you the historical context surrounding the controversy over two lines in the third verse.

Editor’s note: This blog is published in short. Read the full blog here.

Francis Scott Key, a lawyer who seemed to ponder his place in this world and author of The Star-Spangled Banner, was not pro-war. He was pro-emancipation. Key is credited with writing the Star-Spangled Banner after the 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, which he watched from a British ship with a spyglass.

A series of events led Key and Mr. Skinner to board the British admiral’s ship to secure Dr. Beanes’ release. As it turns out, Key was left out of the discussion that would result in Dr. Beanes’ release. History notes how well the American Army treated the British prisoners of war, and this was a key bargaining chip for Dr. Beanes’ freedom. Interestingly, Key was unimpressed with the British officers.

Key was unimpressed, as he later wrote: “Never was a man more disappointed in his expectations than I have been as to the character of British officers. With some exceptions they appeared to be illiberal, ignorant, and vulgar, and seem filled with a spirit of malignity against everything American. Perhaps, however, I saw them in unfavorable circumstances.” Indeed, he did.

During the attack on Fort McHenry, Key anxiously waited.

“What colors would he see as he placed his eye behind the spyglass and pointed it toward the fort? He didn’t know which was worse, beholding the British Union Jack flag above Fort McHenry or the white flag of surrender. Both would mean victory for the British and capitulation once again from his countrymen.

Suddenly he noticed it. Gone was the American battle flag measuring 17 by 24 feet that had flown over the fort. Instead, he saw the most beautiful colors cast against a canvas of a multi-hue sunrise. The stars and stripes, fifteen of them to represent that nation’s fifteen states that had grown to eighteen by this time, flapped briskly from the fort that morning. The sight could only mean one thing. The Americans still held Fort McHenry.

The flag that Key saw that morning measured 42 feet by 30 feet. It was the largest flag ever flown at a U.S. fort.
On that morning Key saw the larger flag, whose bright stars measured 24 inches from point to point. What he couldn’t have heard that morning was the music at the fort. Because America lacked an official national anthem, the band played the popular Yankee Doodle.”

As he was set from the British ship and sailed back to land, “…his emotion gave way to words, poetic words …”

“O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?”
“Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight” as did the sight of the bombs and rockets. “O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming! And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air.”

“Suddenly Fort McHenry didn’t just represent Baltimore. It symbolized America, as did the 1,000 men who defended it. Suddenly the flag didn’t just soar over Baltimore, it unfurled over the entire United States.”

“O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

The verses poured from Key’s pen, including lesser-known flourishes that reflected faith:

“O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand, between their loved homes and the war’s desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land. Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.” Some were surprising for a man who seemed to oppose the war: “Then conquer we must when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’” Each verse ended with the refrain “and the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”

“Whether the words flowed easily for Key that day or came to him in bits and pieces to organize into a poetic pattern, one thing is for sure. The result spoke of the emotion that he and so many other Americans felt to learn that they had indeed once again defeated the British.

After the darkness of the burning of the U.S. Capitol and the White House came the dawn brought by the soaring multitude of phoenixes that awakened and defended Baltimore. Hope was brighter than ever. Maybe, just maybe, the Royal Navy would soon abandon America’s shores.”

“Historical context behind the third verse: In recent years, Americans have questioned the meaning of Key’s reference to slavery in the third verse: “No refuge could save the hireling and slave, From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave.”

Most of Key’s lyrics are universal, especially in the first verse. The relief of an American victory can apply to Fort McHenry in 1814 and many subsequent victories in American history. The third verse, however, requires historical context to understand what Key meant.

Just a few months before Key wrote these lyrics, the British military had issued a proclamation promising freedom to slaves who would run away. There was a catch, however. The male slaves had to first fight as soldiers in the British army before they could receive their freedom in Canada or the Caribbean.

Key did not think the British army was a suitable place of refuge for slaves or hired mercenaries. By fighting in the British army, they risked both the “terror of flight” and the “gloom of the grave.” Hence, these lyrics are not Key’s opinion justifying slavery but a reflection of the stakes of being forced to fight in the British army.

It also helps, too, to understand why America and Britain were at war in the first place. The primary moral issue behind the War of 1812 was impressment. British sea captains were kidnapping American sailors and “impressing” or forcing them to serve in the British Navy against their will.”

Jane Hampton Cook is a guest contributor to Homeschool Freedom Action Center’s blogs.

Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.

Indoctrination Center. Public school classroom. State Education Social Engineering.

Social Engineering in State Education

Posted on August 7, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya

By Elise DeYoung

Social engineering is hardly novel. Whether in totalitarian states like North Korea or dystopian novels such as George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, this method of mass manipulation is widely recognized and feared throughout the free world as the silent killer of civilizations.

In his book, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis articulates the aim of social engineering: “Traditional values are to be debunked,” he wrote, “and mankind cut out into some fresh shape at the will of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it.”

Borrowing Lewis’s language, we can conclude that the aim of social engineering is to debunk traditional values in order to cut mankind into “some fresh shape” according to the will of the powerful. The frightening fact is that we are one of those “lucky generations” that has learned how to do it.

There are many plausible methods of social engineering that our generation has at its disposal. To name a few: the creation of a mass social contagion through the internet, fostering a forgetfulness of history, and state infiltration into education. An argument could be made that those “lucky people” with the power to engineer society are not allowing any of these methods to go to waste.

However, by examining the purpose of state education and the methods of academic manipulation used on children today, it will become clear which practice is most prominent in our modern age—social engineering through state education.

The Purpose of State Education

There is a looming debate over public education. What is its purpose? Is it to effectively educate America’s youth or to indoctrinate upcoming generations? We do not have to wonder for long because the proponents of public education have told us exactly what their intentions are.

“The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client of the public school is not the parent, but the entire community, the public.”
The Michigan Democratic Party Facebook page

This quote might as well have been pulled from the dystopian novel The Giver. There can be no doubt—the purpose of state education is, and always has been, to create an institution where “some few lucky people” can cut the minds of the youngest generation “into some fresh shape” on the largest scale mankind has ever known.

The only question that remains is a practical one—how?

The Methods of Academic Manipulation

There are three practical methods of manipulation that are employed in our schools:

Mass indoctrination
Data mining
Installation of Father Government

Mass Indoctrination

Cambridge Dictionary defines indoctrination as “the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question.” It also involves banning certain ideas—those that are contradictory to the ideology of the indoctrinator—from the public square.

These two ideas combined—the forceful instillation of ideas and the banning of contrary thought and expression—make up the most essential tool of social engineering. To put it another way: in order to control a population, you must first control their thoughts.

In the 1963 case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp,^[1] the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and prayer in public schools would be unconstitutional. By banning scripture and the expression of religion from schools (ideas that contradict progressive thought), the Court seemed to say, “Let the indoctrination begin.”

Since then, the religion of the Left has been unleashed and forcefully taught in all public schools around the country. DEI initiatives, books like Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, and Critical Race Theory have all been introduced to the K-12 curriculum. This is what schools are really teaching our children.

What’s more, Students who reject these ideas are demonized, teachers who refuse to comply are fired, and parents who object are ignored or condemned as “domestic terrorists.”

Society, through state education, insists on indoctrinating children with the idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys, white people are evil and black people oppressed, the weather is going to end the world, religion is bigoted and intolerant, capitalism is wicked and communism benevolent, America is systemically racist, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a Christian nationalist, MAGA, fascist extremist.

Our state schools are not places of wonder and free thought. Rather, they are prison cells designed to keep both truth and the will of parents locked away so that the minds of children will remain captive and submissive to what “society needs them to know.”

Data Mining

Commonly used to predict investment planning and to track internet analytics, data mining uses technology to sort through large quantities of data on a subject in order to determine patterns and characteristics. Although it seems like basic computer interaction, it is being used for much more than simply organizing numbers and symbols.

This powerful technology has been unleashed on every child in the public school system by the state to collect, organize, analyze, and micromanage their academic performance and personal information.

If your child is in the public schools, their grades, academic history, confidential information, address, family members, personal beliefs, strengths and weaknesses, social tendencies, extracurricular activities, and more are deeply known by the state.

Alex Newman, author of Indoctrinating Our Children to Death and co-author of Crimes of the Educators, details the depth of this dangerous method of child monitoring and explains how other countries, such as China and Sweden, have used this technology to exponentially advance social engineering and further corrupt education.

With this information, the powerful few who are pulling the strings of education will know exactly who your child is and how to shape them into a “creature of the state.”^[2]

Father Government

In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce vs Society Sisters that it is both the right and the duty of parents to direct the education and “destiny” of their children independent of the state.

“The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”^[3]

This fundamental right of parents should be self-evident. However, in recent decades there has been a drastic shift in western civilization away from parent-controlled education towards state-controlled education.

The Michigan Democratic Party said, “Not sure where this ‘parents-should-control-what-is-taught-in-schools-because-they-are-our-kids’ is originating… The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught.”^[4]

James Dwyer, a professor at the William & Mary School of Law, stated in an interview, “The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a child’s wellbeing.”

Even President Joe Biden said in a speech to public school teachers, “They aren’t someone else’s, they are all our children.”^[5]

According to those with the power to engineer society, parents are no longer welcome to participate in their children’s upbringing, well-being, or education—that is the role of Father Government.

When powerful people tell you they intend to take your parental rights away, it is best to believe them.

This philosophy is the policy of the political Left in America. We see this in the way that homeschooling, which is the enemy of Father Government, has been heavily restricted and aggressively regulated across the states; teachers have begun to take the place of parents as the mentor and confidant of their students; and schools have shamelessly implemented teachings that contradict the beliefs of the majority of American parents.

Gradually, parents have been conditioned to believe that their job is simply to drop their children off at school. By accepting this lie, they invite Father Government to mold their children into “some fresh shape” until they are “a mere creature of the state.”

The Solution

The purpose of state education has always been to divorce parents from the upbringing and education of their children so that the state can “teach [children] what society needs them to know.” As parents or simply lovers of liberty, it is our duty to strongly oppose the dangerous methods of mass manipulations that millions of children in our country are subjected to daily.

Social engineering requires power and influence to manifest in a society. Currently, it has both. In order to evade the effects of engineering, we must recognize its deeply dangerous influence in state schools and, once again, educate ourselves and our children independently of Father Government. By doing this, those powerful few with the aim of controlling society will lose their power, and this lucky generation will remain free.

Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and Classical Conversations^® graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. Elise is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. Elise continues her journey towards the Celestial City with a determined resolve to gain wisdom and understanding. Soli Deo gloria!

[1] US Supreme Court (1963, June 17). Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/203/

[2] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/

[3] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/

[4] Renk. “Michigan Democratic Party Questions Why Parents Think They Should Have a Say in Their Childs Education.” 95.3 WBCKFM, January 18, 2022. https://wbckfm.com/michigan-democratic-party-questions-why-parents-think-they-should-have-a-say-in-their-childs-education/.

[5] (2023, July 4). Biden. X. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1676284124527755266

“Christian”—What Does it Mean?

Posted on August 5, 2024 | by Sadie Aldaya

By Lauren Gideon

“Christian”—what does it mean? The use of the word “Christian” in modern vernacular is quite perplexing to me. It functions as both an adjective and a noun, but at its inception, it was solely used to describe or rename people. Christianity.com published this piece that speaks to the term’s origin, “Scholars say ‘Christian’ comes from the Greek word christianos, meaning ‘little Christ.'” Stories say the term was used as a jeer, as their enemies would poke fun at them by calling them diminutive versions of their Savior, as in, “Look at those little Christs.”

The adjective is first used in Acts 11:26

“And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year, they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch, the disciples were first called Christians.”

The term is used two more times in Scripture:

“And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.'” Acts 26:28

“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” 1 Peter 4:16

Defining “Christian”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Christian as:

adjective: Christian

relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. “the Christian Church”

noun: Christian; plural noun: Christians

a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity. “a born again Christian”

At some point, the term went from describing and renaming just people to other things and ideas.

Why did this happen?

How can inanimate and abstract nouns be “Christian?”

Is this conversation even worth anyone’s time?

How and why we use the word “Christian” matters

How and why we use the word “Christian” matters because our usage has the potential to be ambiguous, misleading, counterproductive, and perhaps tyrannical and abusive. That is assuredly raising eyebrows. If we don’t view everything through the lens of this one adjective, surely I must be a secularist, and my argument will serve to disparage the gospel! Or will it?

I often hear talk about a thing being called “Christian.” You could call anything Christian, whether it pertains to justice, punishment, civil government, individual sovereignty, parental rights, foreign policy, benevolence, responsibility, or even gravity, trigonometry, music, or art. I am not sure what this means when you describe a thing this way. It could mean the idea was communicated by someone who claims to be a Christian. It also could mean that the assigner of this attribute believes the object to be true.

Additionally, “Christian” could mean that the speaker believes the topic should rest within the church’s jurisdiction. This is what I mean when I say the term has the potential to be ambiguous. I am left to wonder, what about this thing is “Christian”; its origin, its jurisdiction, or its nature? If I am unclear about what aspect is being described, there is plenty of room to be misled or to mislead.

If the modifier “Christian” simply means that a thing is true (Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6), any true idea would be a Christian idea. Consequently, any time a truth is spoken, it would be “Christian,” whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor. Conversely, any untruth would be an anti-Christian idea, whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor.

Since this word is ambiguous, and it is unclear if we are modifying content or context, we frequently miss out on truths from unexpected places and accept lies from places in which we have let our guard down—all because of this “Christian” label.

My last point is that using the name of Christ in the word Christian has the potential to be tyrannical or abusive. Why do I say this? Well, for those who recognize Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, this type of adjective is authoritative. It implicates and obligates us if the nature of the idea does flow from Christ and reflects his nature, expectations, and authority. If you choose to label something as “Christian,” you are using the name of Christ to prop up your argument. If you have the grounds to do so, proceed with extreme caution. If you do not have the grounds to do so, could you not be found guilty of using the Lord’s name in vain? Exodus 20:7

Why would anyone take this risk?

We do it all the time!

We are all born into contexts that rub off on us. I think the Holman Christian Standard Bible version says it best when it warns us in Romans 12, “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.” For some of us, the “age” we were born into was full of religious-sounding power-grabbing language, and it is incumbent upon us not to be pressed into that mold. Furthermore, we must all confess that our culture has not embraced the beauty of flexing our rational faculties. Many of us are not equipped to defend and argue how we should be, so we subconsciously default to authoritative trump cards.

Last, and most dangerous, are those who would purposely leverage the authority of Christ where they shouldn’t because of the pervasive fallen nature that plagues all of humanity. Abigail Adams, in her typical direct manner, said, “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” While she may have spoken specifically of males, I think we could agree that this proclivity also affects women.

This is what Augustine (The City of God) so aptly named the lust for dominance, and we all have it— all politicians, pastors, podcasters, Sunday school teachers, lawyers, doctors, plumbers and teachers! So when we speak of that which is Christian or hear someone else leverage that term, it is our obligation to say, “But is it? And why is it?”

There is an alternative

Philippians 4:8 gives us some practical objective adjectives to use instead.

^“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

Choose to use objective merit-based adjectives and defend them well. In the classical tradition, we argue for what is true, good, and beautiful, and we can be confident that when we find these things, we will also find Christ! But beware of those who will skip the work of reason to persuade you in other ways.

Let us beg God for discernment in what we hear and what we say.

“Discernment is not the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right.” Charles Spurgeon

“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” 1 Peter 5:8

Read Lauren’s other blog contributions.

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.