Let me first say that no number of rules, or “dad sermons” (as my kids call them), will have much effect in planting the Gospel in our sons’ hearts if we ourselves are not first drinking from the wellspring of Christ.
There are many tools for developing manhood in your son’s life, but let me emphasize the power of one in particular—ceremonies.
Put Away Childish Things
I did not grow up in a family that intentionally put my brothers and me through any official ceremonies to celebrate becoming men. However, I did experience the value of a thriving Boy Scout community.
Looking back, I recall the many lessons instilled in me through tent camping, hiking, backpacking, and cooking over fires in the freezing Michigan winters alongside other boys and young men with their fathers. Together, we watched these fathers and leaders guide, sacrifice, and teach us. In our cohort, we also watched them debate Christian principles and biblical ideas around the campfire. Boy Scouts used ceremonies to mark the growth in leadership as scouts matured from boys to men.
NOTE: All readers should be aware of the significant cultural, ethical, and moral changes the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have implemented throughout the years. Be advised that these shifts are significant rejections of Christian morals and a Christian worldview. In response, Trail Life has provided a better alternative to BSA. For more information, please see this response article to BSA’s recent name change.
Fast-forward to adulthood, and now I have two sons. I want to give them a similar chance to step through different “levels” of maturity. As a young father, I was exposed to the book Raising a Modern Day Knight by Robert Lewis. Lewis discusses an intentional multi-ceremonial process of escorting your boy into manhood by giving him goals, a masculine vision of godly leadership, an uncompromising code of conduct, and a noble cause. This was precisely what I wanted for my boys.
1 Corinthians 13:11 tells us that children speak and think as children, yet when they become men, they should put away childish things. If this is true, how can we do this aptly and at the appropriate time?
Today’s culture is filled with young men who have not been taught to take responsibility for their actions, inactions, or passivity. Just the other day, I witnessed just such passivity and immaturity. A young man in his early 20s pulled up to the gas pump beside me but stayed in the driver’s seat on his phone. A minute later, an older woman, presumably his mother, pulled into the pump in front of him and proceeded to pay for his gas and pump it for him. Of course, all the while, he sat selfishly on his phone.
Modern society grieves me quite a bit. I am saddened by today’s young men as we are fighting a battle for their souls. As fathers and father figures, it is our job to teach boys to lead courageously, sacrifice boldly, seek truth, and submit to the Lordship of Jesus.
“Our objective as moms and dads is to transform our sons from immature and flighty youngsters into honest, caring men who will be respectful of women, loyal and faithful in marriage, keepers of commitments, strong and decisive leaders, good workers, and men who are secure in their masculinity.” ― James C. Dobson,Bringing Up Boys
Commemorate and Commission with Ceremony
Ceremonies are a way of commemorating clearly to our sons when and how to step from boyhood into manhood. A boy must know what it means to act and speak like a man. He needs to have a picture of how a man walks in faith, how he is exhorted by the word of God, and how to humble himself and give his life for his family and friends. Having a clear vision of manhood helps godly men hold their sons accountable for carrying out that vision.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of including other godly men in the ceremony with your sons. Having other men speak truth to your boy reinforces what we, as parents, are teaching. I have had many opportunities to remind my son that his uncles, grandfathers, youth pastors, and other men in his life are pointing him to the same truth that his father is.
Grasping this, I organized a manhood ceremony with my son when he turned 14. There is no “right age,” but Robert Lewis does suggest a handful of ceremonies at specific ages. Ceremonies in the 11-13 years help point your boy to a vision of manhood, while ceremonies in the mid-to-upper teens help him live out his God-given vision.
Since my oldest son matured physically and spiritually quicker than many, I planned a ceremony for when he turned 14 years old, with the purpose of marking God’s calling on his life. 1 Thessalonians 5:14-24 provided the foundation of the ceremony and the commission to him as a young man.
These verses include:
A man’s responsibility toward fellow Christians is to warn the unruly, comfort the fainthearted, help the weak, show patience with all, enforce justice, and pursue what is good.
A man’s responsibility toward God is to rejoice always, pray without ceasing, and give thanks in all circumstances as he seeks to know God’s will through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Lastly, it reminds men that they are not on a manhood journey alone; God Himself is the One who is sanctifying them and preserving them until Jesus returns.
We root our vision of manhood to our sons in Scripture because it is not “dad’s idea” but truths from God’s word.
Ceremonies Can be Powerful Reminders
God routinely commanded His people to remember His mighty works through ceremonies. Today, such ceremonies are used in the church similarly (e.g., we have powerful reminders today of our redemption in Christ through baptism and communion).
Placing a memorable ceremony in our sons’ lives helps us remind them of the commitment they made to live as godly men. May God give you a vision for your sons that can be firmly cemented in ceremony. May He also use these ceremonies to build them up as men who trust Christ’s finished work and become confident in their responsibility to Him.
The more we allow God’s word to permeate our hearts, the more our sons will see and emulate our behavior. The old saying that “more is caught than taught” is true in my family. Often, the negative aspects of my children’s character are manifestations of my own shortcomings. However, by God’s grace and through His patient work, we can become the kind of fathers our sons should emulate.
Let me say a quick word to fatherless families wondering how to raise boys to be men without a dad in the home. Although an in-home figure is absent, God has likely provided father figures to influence your boys. Neighbors, men at church, uncles, and friends are there to help. You are not alone on this journey, so be bold and ask them for support. And yes, it may take more than one influence to assist with this void, but integrating your boys into a community of men who can show them how godly men live is crucial.
Jonathan Ashmore is the father of two boys, 17 and 11, and two girls, 14 and 10, and has been faithfully married for 21 years. He has a BS in Computational Mathematics from Hillsdale College and is working on a graduate degree in Apologetics and Evangelism from Dallas Theological Seminary. During his 20-year USMC career as a pilot, he and his wife have been passionate about raising godly children and helping families with marriages and child-rearing. There is no higher calling than raising boys and girls to be faithful Christian men and women. Raising strong men who reject passivity and lead courageously following Christ’s example is crucial to a thriving Christian community.
Reprinted with permission. Read original article here.
As Americans look towards the Heavens to see the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024, I wanted to share with you an excerpt from my book, American Phoenix, about a conversation between John Quincy Adams and the Czar of Russia over the report of two comets in the sky.
As I was writing this intro on April 5, the earthquake in New York took place. I was literally searching scripture for these terms: signs, such as signs in the heavens and earthquakes when the news broke about the New York earthquake.
Here are a couple of scriptures that I found.
“There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.” Luke 21:11 (NIV)
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.” Luke 25:21 (NIV)
Humans have often attributed meaning to eclipses, comets, and other celestial wonders. In addition to the solar eclipse visible in America on April 8, the devil comet will also make an appearance.
Space.com recently reported, “An unusual ‘horned’ comet is now visible in the night sky and may even make a rare appearance during the total solar eclipse on April 8, 2024. This particular comet, often called the devil comet, visits the inner solar system every 71 years.”
Hence, April 8 may include two heavenly wonders. Similarly, two signs in the sky were the topics of this excerpt from my book American Phoenixbelow.
When John Quincy Adams was America’s top diplomat to Russia in December 1811, he had a discussion with the Czar of Russia about the two signs in the sky, which were thought to be two comets. John Quincy and Emperor Alexander had grown accustomed to taking walks along the canals of St. Petersburg at the same time of day so they could meet and discuss politics and world events away from the pretension and formality of the Winter Palace.
Enjoy this excerpt from my favorite book that I have written, American Phoenix, which is now available on audible.
Comets
Comets have a bad reputation. They are known for letting their hair down and growing a brilliant train as they head for earth.
Over the years humans have had trouble making heads or tails of these celestial lights. Some welcome these eccentric stars as signs of hope. To the masses, however, these masses of gas and dust are omens of impending disaster. Many would prefer that a comet keep its distance and stay as close to the sun as possible. The reason? Fear. People have feared excessive tragedy following in the wake of these long-haired stars.
With so much woe over one comet, what would happen if two comets suddenly appeared in the sky? That was the question on Russian Emperor Alexander’s mind as he took a walk in St. Petersburg, Russia, on December 9, 1811. When he saw his American friend, John Quincy Adams, the czar knew he would receive a thoughtful reply. Adams was the top diplomat representing America in Russia. By this time he had done something no one thought he could do: win the friendship of Russian Emperor Alexander.
“Monsieur Adams,” the emperor called enthusiastically in a good-humored tone. “I have the honor to pay my respect.”
John responded cordially. As usual the pair discussed the weather, which could not help leading to the mysterious lights in the sky.
“We have two comets at once,” Alexander observed of the twin prediction.
Adams instantly knew what he meant. The comet of 1811 was becoming more and more unmistakable and brilliant. With its tail “warming them” for some months, the latest reports predicted that two comets, not merely one, would streak past St. Petersburg before the year’s end. John doubted the newspaper’s prediction of double trouble.
“Oh, that is certain,” Alexander said playfully.
He offered another cosmic puzzle for Adams to solve. “But, furthermore, I hear that one of the fixed stars namely, Sirius, has sunk one degree in the firmament,” Alexander continued wryly.
Unlike his American friend, the emperor’s information came not from a newspaper but a person.
In a sarcastic tone, he revealed his source: “But for this I will give you my authority, ‘says the ambassador from France.’”
“This was extraordinary news indeed,” John responded with equal sarcasm over French Count Lauriston’s planetary predictions.
“C’est un bouleversement général du ciel,” Alexander replied in French of the “general upheaval of the sky.”
“But as it is generally understood that one comet portends great disasters,” John observed, “it is to be hoped that two must signify some great happiness to the world.”
“Or at least that their mischief will operate mutually against each other and by reciprocal counteraction destroy the evil efficacy of both,” Alexander suggested.
“I congratulate His Majesty of his happy solution of the portentous knot.”
“Il y a moyen d’expliquer toutes ces choses là,” he said with a laugh, that is, there are ways to explain all these things.
The czar added that the best way to respond to cosmic harbingers of calamity was to let the heavens take their own course without meddling in their management.
Indeed. The czar may have recently brought the Turkish Empire to a truce, freeing thousands of Russian soldiers to fight France, but even with all his power, he could not control a comet nor what happened the following year in 1812. Two wars took place when Napoleon invaded Russia and America went to war with Britain. Both forever changed both John Quincy Adams and Emperor Alexander.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
Kutuzov inflicted several defeats on the Turks and on May 28, 1812, concluded a Russo-Turkish peace settlement favorable to Russia (Treaty of Bucharest).
Adapted from Resilience on Parade: Short Stories of Suffragists and Women’s Battle for the Vote.
February 12, 2024, was Abraham Lincoln’s 215th birthday. Although I’ve not written a book featuring Lincoln in the leading role, I have touched on his story through the stories of others, including the excerpt below.
In 2020, I released a book on women’s right to vote for the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. InResilience on Parade, I shared the stories of several suffragists, such as Abigail Adams in 1776 and Susan B. Anthony in the 1800s. Below is a portion of the chapter on Sojourner Truth. Although the book covers her emancipation from slavery, this excerpt starts with her famous suffrage speech and ends with her meeting with Abraham Lincoln. Enjoy!
The fifty-four-year-old black woman, who often wore a turban woven with brightly colored threads, entered the convention in Akron, Ohio, that spring day in May 1851. Isabella Van Wagener no longer existed.
When she left her former master’s house of bondage, she left everything behind. Years later, she went to the Lord and asked Him to give her a new name after her conversion to Christianity in 1848. The Lord gave her Sojourner, because she was to travel up and down the land to show the people the sin of slavery and to be a sign unto them. Later, she wanted a last name, because everyone had two names, and God gave her Truth because she was to proclaim truth to the people.
As the attendees of the women’s rights conference in Akron on May 29, 1851, would soon discover, Sojourner Truth may have entered that conference known as an abolitionist, but she left it known by another name, too—suffragist.
“May I say a few words? I want to say a few words about this matter,” she began, saying that she was an example of women’s rights.
“I have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that?” Indeed, as her autobiography declared, she’d endured the toil of slavery and had the lashes to prove it.
“I have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.
“As for intellect, all I can say is, if women have a pint and man a quart – why can’t she have her little pint full?” Her pint had recently been full. This woman who could not read had become a published author the previous year. How was that possible?
She’d shared with abolitionist Oliver Gilbert her story of perseverance and how she’d transformed from a slave into a free person, and he had written it down and published it. Called Narrative of Sojourner Truth by Sojourner Truth, her story shed light on the cruelties of slavery and launched her into the role of an activist. It was time to stand up for African women.
“You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much, for we can’t take more than our pint’ll hold. The poor men seem to be all in confusion, and don’t know what to do,” she continued.
“Why children, if you have woman’s rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they won’t be so much trouble,” she said in her own version of remember the ladies.
“I can’t read, but I can hear. I have heard the Bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again,” Sojourner proclaimed, turning her talk into a mini sermon of sorts.
“The lady has spoken about Jesus, how he never spurned woman from him, and she was right. When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha came to him with faith and love and besought him to raise their brother. And Jesus wept—and Lazarus came forth. And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and woman who bore him.”
Then she ended with a zinger, recognizing the dual reform movements facing the nation: abolition and women’s rights. She represented both.
“Man, where is your part? But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, and he is surely between-a hawk and a buzzard.”
The most memorable speech of that convention, her remarks as presented here were published a few weeks after her speech by Marius Robinson in the Anti‐Slavery Bugle of New Lisbon, Ohio, on June 21, 1851. The event’s organizer, Frances Dana Gage, published another version in 1863 in the New York Independent. Hailed by suffragists, it was branded as Ar’n’t I a Woman? The accuracy of Gage’s version is doubtful because it was published twelve years after she first delivered it. Regardless, the speech brought Sojourner notoriety.
Around this time, Sojourner traveled to Massachusetts, where she met Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book Uncle Tom’s Cabin was the Common Sense of the Civil War. Harriet wrote about their meeting in the Atlanta Monthly.
Sojourner believed that if God could help her do such big things as speaking at the women’s conference or meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, then he would help her meet the man she most wanted to meet in the world. Heaven’s Great Emancipator would help her meet the emancipator of her people.
In October 1864, Truth’s ultimate sojourn led her to the great white house where he lived. As she stared at the pillars flanking the president’s house, her mind may have flashed back to the island of the willow trees, her kneeling pillars of prayer under the stars above. She had never seen such a grand house before, whose columns reached to the sky as if to proclaim something special, such as justice or freedom. Then she walked into the house as freely as anyone else.
A dozen or so guests waited in the president’s reception area. Sojourner noticed that two of the women were also black. A gentleman escorted the guests one by one to the president, who was seated in an adjacent room. One observation made her smile.
He showed as much kindness and consideration to the colored persons as to the whites, in her opinion. It was hard to hold back a tear or two. If there was any difference, he showed more pleasantries to the emancipated. Then her moment came. The gentlemen escorted her to the president’s desk.
“This is Sojourner Truth, who has come all the way from Michigan to see you,” the host said, introducing her to the president.
Abraham Lincoln stood, extending his hand to her. She responded by taking his hand and shaking it. Then he bowed.
“I am pleased to see you,” he said.
As many people did before meeting a president, she had rehearsed a thousand times what she planned to say.
“Mr. President, when you first took your seat I feared you would be torn to pieces, for I likened you unto Daniel, who was thrown into the lions’ den. And if the lions did not tear you into pieces, I knew that it would be God that had saved you; and I said if He spared me I would see you before the four years expired, and He has done so, and now I am here to see you for myself.”
Tapping his wit, Lincoln congratulated her on being spared.
“I appreciate you, for you are the best president who has ever taken the seat.”
Lincoln paused, perhaps crossing his long arms as if thinking.
“I expect you have reference to my having emancipated the slaves in my proclamation,” he said, naming many of his predecessors, especially Washington. “They were all just as good, and would have done just as I have done if the time had come,” he said, pausing again.
“If the people over the river,” he said, pointing across the Potomac, “had behaved themselves, I could not have done which gave me the opportunity to do these things.”
“I thank God that you were the instrument selected by Him and the people to do it,” Sojourner replied, acknowledging that she hadn’t heard of him before he became president. He upped the compliment, noting that he’d heard of her many times before.
Lincoln then turned toward his desk, sat down, and picked up a large elegant book. He told her it had been given to him by the colored people of Baltimore.
Sojourner was speechless as she stared at the Bible. She glanced at the president. He nodded, as if giving her permission to open it and look through it.
“This is beautiful indeed; the colored people have given this to the head of the government, and that government once sanctioned laws that would not permit its people to learn enough to enable them to read this book. And for what? Let them answer who can.”
Then Sojourner pulled a small book from her skirt pocket and handed it to the president.
He picked up a pen from his desk and wrote, “For Aunty Sojourner Truth, Oct. 29, 1864. A. Lincoln.”
Lincoln stood and took her hand with his large bony hand, the same one that had signed the Emancipation Proclamation. He told her he would be pleased to have her call upon him again.
Sojourner smiled. As she exited through the door and passed through the pillars of the president’s house, she wanted to shout to God and thank him for Abraham Lincoln, but she didn’t have to shout to be heard by the Almighty anymore. God knew her heart.
“I felt that I was in the presence of a friend, and I now thank God from the bottom of my heart that I always have advocated his cause, and have done it openly and boldly. I shall feel still more in duty bound to do so in time to come. May God assist me.”
Now more than ever, she would advocate for her people, her now free people. She longed to return home, to make Michigan a place where the emancipated could come and pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Perhaps one day she could vote. As she began her journey home, she believed that the Greatest Emancipator would help her.
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.
It has become taboo today to mention anything relating to Christianity in the same sentence with anything regarding law or public policy. If you mention anything that even remotely sounds like Christian theology in a public policy context, you are immediately met with cries of “Separation of church and state!”, “We are a secular democracy!”, or “You are trying to establish a theocracy!”
In such a climate, it is good to reflect on the proper use of Christian theology in law, governance, and public policy.
The Myth of Secular Public Policy
First of all, I should point out that, whether we want it to be or not, theology (whether good theology or bad theology) actually is at the core of all public policy, especially in the United States. The Declaration of Independence states this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . ”
Now, let us ask ourselves, is this truth really self-evident?
Throughout the entire course of human history, people have wanted to divide people into classes. Whether it is through the caste system in India, through the nobility of Europe, or through simple racial preference, what has been self-evident to humans is that “we” are better than “they.” So how could the writers of the Declaration of Independence claim that it was a self-evident truth?
The answer is that they had been raised under Christian doctrine.
Christianity: The Source of American Rights
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:2-4).
And there are many more. So, we can see that at the core of our country, at the Declaration of Independence, we have distinctively Christian doctrine. So, if someone says that using Christian doctrine violates the rights of other people who are not Christian, they are simply incorrect—it is specifically Christian doctrine that has created and enabled those rights to begin with.
The State and the Church: Working Together, But Not as One
However, it is very easy to get the wrong idea.
The goal of using Christian doctrine is not to make the state an arm of the church. Jesus’ commands were to a people who were not in control of the government, and therefore, care must be taken to properly apply Christian doctrine to the affairs of the state. The church’s function is for believers, while the state’s function is for all of the people in the community, no matter how large or small. The state’s actions are, by nature, coercive. The community of God is, by nature, voluntary.
If we tried to use the state’s power to force people to believe in Christianity, we would be misusing the power of the state and misunderstanding what Christianity is.
However, in order to properly govern, the state must presuppose knowledge about nature, reality, and humanity. If the state misunderstands human nature, its laws will be ineffective or even counterproductive. If the state misunderstands the source of evil and corruption, it will also fail to curb it and may wind up perpetuating it instead. Christianity—through the Bible, through church teaching, and through Christian reflection over thousands of years—has quite a bit to say about the nature of reality and especially human nature. Christianity best serves law and governance by providing better perspectives on the nature of reality and then reflecting on how government can be most effective in the light of that reality.
Applying Christian Doctrine: A Case Study and A Warning
Let me present a case study from Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Irony of American History. In this book, he shows how the doctrine of sin has affected different governments. Niebuhr presents two incorrect doctrines of sin which have led many governments astray. Now, as with most theology, being an atheist does not prevent a person from having a theology. A “doctrine of sin” simply means “an explanation for what is wrong with the world and how it got that way.”
Communists, like everyone else, operated with a doctrine of sin—they believed that property was the cause of sin. Therefore, they believed that by removing property from society they would remove sin. Communism failed because it operated on a false doctrine.
Modern Western democracies also have an equally erroneous concept of sin—that ignorance is the cause of sin in the world. Therefore, if we can simply educate the unwashed masses, then our problems will be solved.
Modern libertarians often have their own errant doctrine of sin: that the government is the root of sin in the world, and if we get rid of government, we will have removed sin.
So, what is the Christian doctrine of sin?
The Christian doctrine of sin is that of “original sin.” That is, sin comes with being human—we were born with it, and it cannot be removed. There is no “solution” to sin other than Christ, but the negative impact of an individual’s sin can be mitigated within a larger population guided by Christ. John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Though Adams was a Universalist, he recognized the truth of original sin and the role that Christianity played in maintaining the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.
This method of applying doctrine to public policy issues is not something that can be done quickly, lightly, or half-heartedly. It requires a commitment to deep thought and reflection. It requires looking deeply into the issues that affect us, not just their surface features. We have to look not just at the laws themselves but at their purposes and understandings of how reality works and then analyze whether those hold up under the truth of Christianity.
I will leave you with this illustration from G. K. Chesterton’s Heretics:
“Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, ‘Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—’ At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.”
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other founding feminists wrote disdain for men into the fabric of their radical movement by penning these words in the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments:
“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.”
Founding Premise of Feminism
Feminism was founded on the premise that all women are oppressed by all men in some way or another.
Of course, it is true that some women have been oppressed by some men in different ways—to argue otherwise is foolish. However, the ideology of feminism insists that the “tyranny of man” is absolute. By viewing the relationship between men and women as a power struggle, feminism concluded that the freedom of all women can only be achieved through the fall of all men, and a revolution among the sexes is the means to this equitable end.
Does this idea ring a bell?
Simply switch out the word “woman” for “proletariat” and “man” for “bourgeois” and you will get the picture.
Now, to clarify, when I speak of “feminism” I am referring to the ideology of feminism—the ideas that formulate the movement. Whether or not each individual feminist embraces and expresses the extreme ideas of their movement is beside the point; the point is that this premise is foundational to the ideology of feminism.
We see the feminist disdain for men gain traction in 1963 when Betty Friedan claimed in her famous book TheFeminine Mystique that “the old prejudices” which govern men’s thinking towards the opposite sex are that “women are animals, less than human, unable to think like men, born merely to serve men.”
What is Toxic Masculinity?
Today, this idea is neatly summarized in the popular term “toxic masculinity” meaning simply, “masculinity is toxic.”
Feminists’ hatred of masculinity has caused many generations to tirelessly work to rid the world of all things that can be attributed to men. For years, we have been brainwashed into believing that men’s bent towards assertive and ambitious behavior is evil, and that their desire to fulfill the roles of protector and provider is oppressive. Hence, “toxic masculinity.”
This dangerously vague and deeply corrupt term is frequently wielded by feminists as a weapon in debates and dialogues to justify hatred towards men and to spread indignation among their audience. Sadly, many men have fallen for this lie and bow prostrate at the altar of feminism.
The Truth About Toxic Masculinity
Our society has followed feminism’s example for many decades now. We’ve all come together to shame, demoralize, and castrate men in the name of eradicating toxicity with the hopeful expectation of a promised utopia. Examining our actions retrospectively, I think we can all agree that the results aren’t pretty. Even the feminists, I believe, would admit that we are not living in a Barbie World.
So, what went wrong?
Interestingly, the historical meaning of the term “toxic masculinity” outright betrays feminist ideology and rightfully explains why we are not living in the promised anti-Ken doll utopia. In the late 20th century, “toxic masculinity” was used not to condemn the existence of masculinity, but to warn of a lack of it.
“A society of too few mature fathers ends up with what psychiatrist Dr. Frank Pittman calls ‘toxic masculinity,’ where essentially weak, insecure, and poorly fathered men chase after a socially destructive masculine mystique. Men who have not fully felt the love and approval of their fathers are men who live in masculine shame. Says Pittman, boys who want to become men have to ‘guess at what men are like’ which usually turns out being what he calls a ‘pathologically exaggerated masculinity’ that involves ‘a frantic tendency to compete over just about anything with just about anybody.’”
According to this original definition, our society suffers from toxic masculinity because we have generations of boys who do not know how to be men.
The Solution to Toxic Masculinity
The irrefutable fact is that we need masculine men. The intrinsic characteristics of courage and ambition of masculinity are what drive men to stand up for good, fight against evil, establish prosperous economies, legislate and enforce justice, and raise their families. However, when feminism neuters men by stripping them of these attributes, evil runs rampant, poverty escalates, injustice surges, and families are abandoned.
So, the question becomes, how do we get good, masculine men back?
“There is only one way out of this shame-filled masculinity,” says Pittman, and that is recovering the “lost profession of fatherhood… ‘we are not going to have a better class of men until we have a better class of fathers.’”
Feminism identified a real problem: there are wicked and weak men in the world. Moreover, we have tried their method of shaming and ostracizing masculinity from society in a desperate attempt to correct the issue. Yet (again), it has not worked.
The solution to the problem of this is far from the feminist model. If we want to rid our society of toxic masculinity (in the true, original sense of the word), we must teach boys to be men, men to be fathers, and fathers to be models of the masculine nature given to them by God.
“Young men badly need to see mature masculinity modeled out. Well-seasoned masculinity fundamentally transforms the aggression of young males by capturing their masculine energy and directing it toward socially constructive pursuits, toward self-restraint, and respect toward others.”
So, when “toxic masculinity” is thrown your way as a rhetorical arrow in the feminist quiver, be sure to rightly define your terms and share the real root of toxicity in our culture. And maybe then, we can finally solve the problem of toxic masculinity.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical 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!
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 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.
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.
You come up on a mother and her child at the grocery store. The child demands an item that the mother has chosen not to purchase. Maybe this child objects with a dramatic tantrum, grabs the item, and defiantly places it in the cart, or perhaps he rips open the package, dumps the contents on the floor, and calls his mother some variation of a “stupid-head-poopy-face.”
At first, you may be tempted to laugh or say a prayer of thanksgiving that you were not in that parent’s humiliating position, but despite various philosophies of discipline, every onlooker thinks to himself, “That behavior was wrong, and it ought to be addressed. That kid needs a significant consequence.”
We know the child ought to be corrected; the child corrected is good. However, what happens if you, the stranger, see what ought to be done, act, and do the thing that ought to be done? There is no way of knowing what might happen next, but you, the well-intended, astute stranger, are going to rightly find yourself in some trouble, maybe even in jail, depending on the course of correction you saw fit to apply.
We all know there is a moral weight in the events happening all around us, but how often do we pause to consider the moral weight of who ought to address them?
The right thing done by the wrong person is immoral despite the intentions or “the heart” of the person or entity taking the action.
Observing the Ideas of Jurisdiction or Purview
We are observing the ideas of “jurisdiction” or “purview,” which communicate both the natural laws of authority and responsibility. While my illustration is both simple and obviously egregious, now, maybe more than ever, we are inundated with awareness of immoral actions, activities, and events happening all around us.
In addition to this constant awareness, we have this righteous craving for justice, truth, and for things to be set right. Could we admit that we are often seeking the right actions from the wrong authority? Could we admit that when we see the immorality happening around us, often we don’t take time to consider jurisdiction?
Who Gives Authority and Responsibility?
Before I bog down all the “go-getters” with these inconvenient inefficiencies of the separation of powers, we must first consider who gives both authority and responsibility. When we consider the Author of the universe and that He has a plan and a purpose for how we humans interact with each other, we must also remember that we will give an account for the jurisdictions we trespass, abdicate, appeal to, or steward righteously.
Thus, it is imperative to apply the tools of the Trivium to the concept of jurisdiction for these three reasons. We need:
The Foundation of Grammar
The Structure of Dialectic
The Practice of Rhetoric to Live in Harmony with the Creator and the Creation
In a series of upcoming blogs, we will explore the following questions and others:
We Need the Foundation of Grammar
What are the human institutions commissioned with authority and responsibility?
What things are within their jurisdiction to govern?
What things are not? How should they govern?
Where should they govern?
Where is the revelation for God’s plan for jurisdictions found?
We Need the Structure of the Dialectic
Where are the boundaries of jurisdiction?
What happens when you cross boundaries?
How do spheres of jurisdiction interact with one another?
What happens when an entity abdicates its responsibilities to its jurisdiction?
Who are “the responsible” responsible too?
What happens when there is a disruption to the spheres of responsibility?
We Need the Practice of Rhetoric
Once we know the principles of jurisdiction and understand them in context with the whole, we have an obligation to move from the “knowing” to the “doing.” How should one appropriately execute and steward their responsibilities? An equally difficult question is how does one not trespass into a sphere he does not have jurisdiction over? How does one properly seek solutions in the appropriate sphere over the sphere he finds more expedient?
As I mentioned above, there will be action-minded allies (or even ourselves some days) who want to make excuses for sidestepping the consideration of jurisdiction.
“Time is running out!”
“The details aren’t that important!”
“The situation is dire, and we have an obligation to ‘just do something’!”
“If we don’t take matters into our own hands, who will?”
“Did I mention this current crisis is the worst crisis!”
and my personal favorite;
“It’s for the children!”
Even my initial form of asking tedious questions instead of offering answers will irritate some. However, might I remind us:
Psalms 24:1-2
The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof,a the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.
Proverbs 25:2
“It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.”
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Matthew 6:33-34
but seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
It is imperative to apply the trivium to the concept of jurisdiction because we need the foundation of grammar, the structure of dialectic, and the practice of rhetoric to live in harmony with the Creator and the creation. Every human being, by merit of the breath in their lungs, has been given something to govern.
As Christians and heirs to a kingdom yet to come, we have the highest calling, purpose, and joy to seek out the will of our Father and walk it out in faith. Let us be good students and stewards of the revelation that has been entrusted to us.
Lauren is a regular contributor. You can find Lauren’s other blogs 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.
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.
“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:
Public School Exit is an incredible resource that provides more reasons to homeschool and steps to leave the public school system.
Classical Conversations® can help you connect with other homeschooling families in your area.
Truth & Lies Documentary can better help you understand the hidden agendas of the civil government school system.
Cut out a circle of paper for each child you have. Equally, divide the circle into 18 wedges and display it where you will see it daily. Each year, color one wedge in the circle on your child’s birthday. This will serve as a daily reminder that the window of opportunity to mentor and disciple (educate) your children is quickly closing.
It was not my aim to “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.
Sadie Aldaya is the Research & Quality Assurance Specialist for Classical Conversations Special Projects & Policy Research Department. Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadie’s passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.
[2] Alex Newman, Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. Government Schools’ War on Faith, Family, & Freedom—And How to Stop It. (Florida: Liberty Sentinel Press, 2024), 102.
“Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights.”
Benjamin Rush
Don’t Take Liberty for Granted
Civil liberty and air travel have something in common. They are both widely taken for granted.
Have you ever considered what the advent of air travel was like? No longer were people bound by the limitations that accompanied ground and water travel. Moreover, for this to be possible, there required a great deal of compounded disciplines. Consider geology and meteorology, as well as the laws of gravity and motion all have great authority in this sphere. This type of freedom didn’t spontaneously develop itself, and it isn’t independent from the laws that govern it nor the responsibility to know and apply those laws.
Civil liberty isn’t much different. In some regards, modern Americans were born into this freedom in the same way that they were born into the age of air travel. We can easily take for granted all the education and application that liberated humanity in both manifestations of “freedom,” but just as there will be consequences if our society neglects the laws of nature as it pertains to air travel, there are consequences when free people neglect the laws that govern freedom and civil society.
Not only is this a civil and ethical issue; it is also a moral one. We know the laws written in nature come from the ultimate Law Giver. We know humans are blessed with dignity by merit of their imago Dei. To deny the laws of liberty, which require us to respect individual dignity, is to deny the authority of The Law Giver.
Consider the Creator’s Acknowledgment in our Declaration of Independence
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Don’t take your freedom for granted. Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat (“Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse”). At the end of the day, we, too, want to be good stewards and benevolent citizens to our neighbors and our posterity. How well do we each understand and take responsibility for spreading this knowledge?
“Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more”.
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.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
