Tag: Philosophy

Dewey Headshot

Who Was John Dewey?

Posted on | by Elise DeYoung | Leave a Comment on Who Was John Dewey?

By Elise DeYoung

If history teaches us anything at all, it is that ideas have consequences. Socrates’s ideas prompted his execution, the American ideas freed a nation, and Marx’s ideas killed 100 million people. Indeed, ideas have a cost. Perhaps this is why Scripture consistently warns of corrupt philosophies, bad company, and false teachers. A nation’s teachers have the power to mold its civilization, so some of the most consequential ideas are those believed and taught by educators. Thus, it is our responsibility as free people to keep our educators accountable for the ideas they teach.

Generally, we have failed to do this, and today, our education system is overrun with bad ideas. The consequence of education should be the creation of literate, well-rounded, educated citizens, and the American public school system has failed to do this. This is reflected in the numbers found by The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP):

  • 26% of students are proficient in mathematics
  • 32% of students are proficient in reading
  • 24% of students are proficient in writing

Clearly, we are watching a bad idea unfold before our very eyes. But who promoted this bad idea? What inspired them to do so? Briefly put, government schools were first proposed by a communist utopian named Robert Owens (1771-1858). He believed that, through government-run education, he could condition the masses to accept communism, thereby creating a utopia. The Prussian elites were the first to implement this idea nationwide, and in the early 19th century, they established a harsh education system that outlawed all alternative forms of education. Only a few years later, Horace Mann (1796-1859), inspired by the Prussian government, became the chief advocate of government schools in the United States and established the first Board of Education.

Shortly after Mann’s death, John Dewey entered the government school system. As Dewey grew older and formed his philosophy, he began to view public schools as impractical and oppressive, so he sought to reform the system that had educated him.

Because of his work in philosophy and education reform, John Dewey is a household name in academic circles. His disciples and critics hold two opposite views of him: Advocates of government schools laud John Dewey as a benevolent hero, while public school abolitionists slander him as a bad actor. Whether you believe he was a saint or a Soviet, because of his influence on education reform, we ought to soberly educate ourselves on John Dewey’s life and what he desired to accomplish through education reform. Dewey became known through his own education credentials, academic pedigree, and reform policies.

Early Life and Education

John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont on October 20, 1859. Even at a young age, Dewey was an excellent student and naturally born teacher. Here is a timeline of Dewey’s college accomplishments and university professorships:

  • 1859-1874: Student; Burlington Highschool, Vermont 
  • 1874-1878: Philosophy Student; University of Vermont 
  • 1882-1884: Philosophy Doctoral Student; John Hopkins University  
  • 1884: Assistant Professor; University of Michigan 
  • 1888: Professor of Philosophy; University of Minnesota 
  • 1889-1894: Philosophy Department Chair; Michigan University 
  • 1894: Founder; University of Elementary School at the University of Chicago 
  • 1894-1904: Philosophy Department Chair; University of Chicago 
  • 1902-1904: Director of the School of Education, Chicago 
  • 1904-1930: Professor of Philosophy; Teachers College at Columbia University 
  • 1930: Retired, Professor Emeritus; Columbia University

With such an impressive resume, it is unsurprising that the Dewey name still carries weight in philosophical circles.

Philosophical Influences

While Dewey was rising in academia, a new scientific discipline was developing overseas. In 1879, psychology emerged when Wilhelm Wundt founded the Laboratory in Leipzig, Germany. Here, Wundt first practiced psychology and taught other educators to do the same. One such disciple was an American named G. Stanley Hall. While Wundt worked to establish the broad practice of experimental psychology, Hall focused his efforts on exploring the development of children. Following his time in Germany, Hall took up a professorship at Johns Hopkins University, where he established the first American psychological laboratory; remarkably, one of his first pupils was John Dewey.

The Premise of Psychology

As Samuel Blumenfeld wrote in his book Crimes of the Educators, the simple premise of Wundt’s psychology was that “Human beings could be studied like animals and could be conditioned to behave as society wanted. Man, in other words, was nothing more than a stimulus-response organism.” This premise sounds outrageous to Christian ears because Scripture tells us that God created man in imago Dei. However, this premise seemed self-evident to secularist thinkers living in the era of Darwinism. Consequently, this idea was at the center of Dewey’s theories. In his book Democracy and Education, Dewey writes extensively about how human behavior is caused by basic biological instinct and that a function of education is to harness that instinct and channel it toward productive social action.

The Tenets of Humanism

Psychology alone did not influence Dewey. Along with the title philosopher, psychologist, and professor, Dewey was a self-proclaimed humanist and one of the first signers of the Humanist Manifesto. A religion with the proud slogan “Good without God,” Dewey quite literally worshipped the idea of perfecting humanity. For example, in the second tenet of Humanism, we read, “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.” Once more, progressive evolution is at the center of Dewey’s worldview and belief system.

By understanding Dewey’s view on humanity, we can understand why he focused on reforming education. Like Robert Owen before him, he believed that man was a “creature of circumstance” who needed to be trained like an animal. So, in an effort to further man’s progress toward perfection, Dewey captured the classroom and applied his theories to it.

Education Reform, Human Reform

Robert Owen once said, “To train and educate the rising generation will at all times be the first object of society, to which every other will be subordinate.” John Dewey, it seems, took this mandate as seriously as Robert Owen had meant it. Because he was born into a world that had accepted Owen’s public school, Dewey focused on perfecting the system that was laid out before him.

In his writing, Dewey explored the questions, “What is the purpose of education?” and “How is that purpose best fulfilled?” In Democracy in Education, Dewey considered the former question:

“There is more than a verbal tie between the words common, community, and communication. Men live in a community in virtue of the things which they have in common; and communication is the way in which they come to possess things in common. What they must have in common in order to form a community or society are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge—a common understanding—like-mindedness as the sociologists say.”

He claimed that, in order to last, a society must transfer its shared values and beliefs to the next generation through education.

“The subject matter of education consists of bodies of information and of skills that have been worked out in the past; therefore, the chief business of the school is to transmit them to the new generation. In the past, there have also been developed standards and rules of conducts; moral training consists in forming habits of action in conformity with these rules and standards.”

To put it briefly, Dewey believed education’s purpose is to transmit past generations’ values, information, and skills, and he aimed to discover and establish a method of teaching that would fulfill this mandate. In Experience and Education, Dewey considers the two prominent education methods during his lifetime: traditional and progressive schooling.

Traditional Schools, Progressive Schools

He writes that the purpose of traditional school is “to prepare the young for future responsibilities and for success in life, by means of acquisition of the organized bodies of information and prepared forms of skill which comprehend the material of instruction.” He took issue with “traditional schooling” because he believed it imposed itself on unprepared youth, destroyed the desire to learn, and failed to emphasize practical learning. It must be understood that Dewey was not referring to homeschooling or independent education methods when he referred to “traditional schooling.” Rather, this was his classification of the public school system he had been raised in.

As an alternative to the “traditional schooling” he had experienced, Dewey promoted the benefits of progressive schooling:

“If one attempts to formulate the philosophy of education implicit in the practices of the new education, we may, I think, discover certain common principles amid the variety of progressive schools now existing. To imposition from above is opposed expression and cultivation of individuality; to external discipline is opposed free activity; to learning from texts and teachers, learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by drill, is opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote future is opposed making the most of the opportunities of present life; to static aims of materials is opposed acquaintance with a changing world.”

Dewey wanted to create a system of schooling where learning was subjective, experience was valued above lecturing, and practical skills were cultivated. He believed that through education reform, humanity could be reformed to be well-equipped, useful citizens ready to fulfill social duties.

The Consequences of Dewey

John Dewey believed his ideas would create the best future for American education, but have they? A nation is shaped by its educators, and for over one hundred years, millions of Americans have given up their children as test subjects in the largest education experiment in history. It is time to seriously consider the real consequences of Dewey’s education reform. In this series, we will consider John Dewey’s role in creating the literacy crisis in our nation, introducing humanist teaching in the classroom, and redefining the purpose of education.

It is time for Americans to take a serious and sober look at the ideas of the man known as the father of progressive education. Only through a proper understanding of John Dewey and his ideas can we correct the consequences in every public school classroom around the United States.

Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical ConversationsŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and to 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!

Against the Secular Humanism of Progressive Education

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright | Leave a Comment on Against the Secular Humanism of Progressive Education

By Brian Tonnell

Originally published as a Classical Conversations blog.

After speaking at a Practicum in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, I was listening to the radio on my way back to the hotel. American Family Radio was airing a program called “Crane Durham’s Nothing But Truth.” On this program, the speaker discussed the importance of philosophy, describing worldview as “the water in which we swim.”

If true, would we not expect to be engulfed in that water? To become a fish comfortable swimming in that water? Would not this philosophical ocean affect our children as well? And if those murky waters repulse us, what can we do about it?

Swimming in a Sea of Worldview

Indeed, we all swim in a philosophical ocean.

Our culture’s worldview surrounds us like water surrounds a fish. In the car, secular radio bombards us with the philosophies of Macklemore, Bruno Mars, Pink, Miley Cyrus, and Lady Gaga (look up their lyrics and you will instantly understand).

In our homes, the barrage continues on television. It is nearly impossible to watch more than five minutes without encountering a blatant disregard for Biblical principles. In the grocery store, magazine covers promote our culture’s prevailing philosophy of humanism, naturalism, existentialism, and so on. Video games, advertising, and even billboards round out the philosophical waters of our culture.

However, there is one more philosophical aquarium that so many children swim—the classroom.

The Philosophy of Public Education

As homeschoolers, we spend much effort decrying public education by pointing to statistics that indicate a broken system, but all we are really doing is pointing to the symptoms.

Perhaps a better understanding of the philosophy underlying public education will help us see the root cause of its brokenness. What kind of water fills the public education aquarium?

In order to understand the problems of our modern education system, we must look to the philosophy which undergirds it. To do so, we must go back in time to the late 1800s.

G. Stanley Hall: The Voice for Child-Centered Education

G. Stanley Hall had an overwhelming impact on our modern educational philosophy.

Hall was a psychologist, educator, and philosopher who founded and served as the first president of the American Psychological Association. He believed that educating children based on a core of required subjects was detrimental to their development.

Largely influenced by Darwin’s evolution theory and by Freud’s ideas on the human psyche, Hall theorized that emphasizing intellectual attainment was disadvantageous and that the child’s needs should be placed at the center of the educational system.

As a result, “Hall’s findings ushered in a new era of pedocentric schooling in which schools adapted to the needs of children.” In his own words, he believed that childhood “comes fresh from the hands of God” and that children were “not corrupt.”

While his intentions may have been pure, his theories had a marked influence on another pioneer of American education, John Dewey.

John Dewey: The Father of Progressive Education

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, philosopher John Dewey made his mark on history and is still considered the Father of Progressive Education. According to PBS.org, Dewey “was the most significant educational thinker of his era and, many would argue, of the 20th century.”

Dewey’s worldview was humanistic, which was clearly evident in his philosophy of education. In 1933, Dewey joined thirty-three prominent religious, educational, and philosophical leaders in signing the original Humanist Manifesto.

Now, in order to understand his philosophy, let’s take a brief look at the Humanist Manifesto.

The Humanist Manifesto

The stated purpose of the Humanist Manifesto was to establish a new religion—one that places man at the center of the universe. The document states, “While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is nonetheless obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”

The first two core beliefs of this new religion strongly assert that evolution is fact and all things are self-existing rather than created.

The fifth core belief is that “modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.” This same core belief insists that human needs will determine the value of reality.

In other words, the concepts of right and wrong are determined by “intelligent inquiry.”

The ninth core belief states that converts to the Humanist religion will cooperate to “promote social well-being,” which, according to the eleventh and thirteenth core beliefs, will be carried out by institutions such as education and government.

Interestingly, and perhaps not incidentally, this belief mirrors that of another religious movement of the time called the “Social Gospel.” Ask your local Challenge III student for more information about this topic.

The fourteenth core belief establishes socialism as the superior economic framework and hints at communism as the premier governmental framework.

Finally, in the last paragraph, “Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement.”

Interestingly, this last idea is stated much more succinctly in the second iteration of the Humanist Manifesto (1973): â€œNo deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

John Dewey’s Humanist Philosophy

So, if this was the philosophical water in which John Dewey swam, what sort of educational philosophy did the Father of Progressive Education espouse?

Dewey believed that education was “a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness.” Further, he believed “the only sure method of social reconstruction” was “the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness.”

His goal was to reconstruct society via the education system. He believed that the teacher’s job was “to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.” He believed that the “right character” of children should be formed by “the influence of a certain form of institutional or community life upon the individual and that the social organism through the school, as its organ, may determine ethical results.”

The Humanist’s Goal: Shaping Society Through Education

In a nutshell, he believed that society must be shaped via the school system, that the character of future generations should be molded by the governmental institution, and that the idea of right and wrong should be determined by rigorous inquiry.

Based on his godless, humanist philosophy, the waters of his educational philosophy fell squarely within the ocean of his humanist religion.

The Corrosive Effects of Humanism on Students

So what? If we buy into the idea that Hall and Dewey’s philosophical waters overwhelmingly affected our modern educational system, what results might we expect? Might we expect a generation (or more) of students to grow up sharing this philosophy? That seems reasonable.

Abraham Lincoln once said that “the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” If his statement is accurate, might we expect to see a government that swims in the humanistic philosophical waters?

To say that our government radiates humanism is to speak an obvious truth.

To say the same about the children of our culture is, perhaps, not quite as obvious.

After all, especially in the church, we try to flood our children with a philosophy very different from that of the world, a philosophy opposed to humanism. We try to surround our kids in the philosophical water of a biblical worldview.

However, as a good friend of mine very shrewdly stated, at some point, every one of our children will ask, “Who is lying to me?”

The Nehemiah Institute Study: Worldview Erosion over Time

The Nehemiah Institute asked the same question I ask now: How are our school children affected by swimming in the waters of our culture’s philosophy? They began tracking the worldview of high school students in 1988, and have administered PEERS tests that assess students’ worldview in politics, education, economics, religion, and social issues.

The results are telling.

In 1988, public school students from Christian homes overwhelmingly fell into the “Moderate Christian” worldview—in their opinion, God was relevant to religion, but to nothing else.

By 2007, the same demographic (public school students from Christian homes) overwhelmingly fell into the “Secular Humanism” category (and on the cusp of socialism). Even private school kids from Christian homes showed a striking trend to assimilate into their surrounding waters. They overwhelmingly fell into the “Moderate Christian” worldview in 1988, but by 2007, they were comfortably swimming in the waters of secular humanism.” Only in the very small number of private, Christian schools that actively taught a biblical worldview did the students’ philosophy inch away from secular humanism and toward biblical theism.

Swimming Against the Current

The point is: yes, the philosophy of our culture is the water in which we swim, and regardless of the type of fish you are, if you swim in nothing else, you will eventually be assimilated into that water.

Does this mean that all non homeschooling teachers are humanists and socialists? Of course not.

Many of my own family members and good friends have been public or private school teachers. They love the Lord and reject the godless philosophy of our culture.

However, regardless of the type of fish they are, they are forced to swim in the educational philosophical aquarium of our culture. Are we to then jump out of the ocean and migrate to a new water source in which to thrive?

How to Survive the Putrid Waters

Alas, no. That would defeat God’s purpose for His people. In the seventeenth chapter of John, Jesus prays that God will not remove us from the ocean, but that we would be protected from it while fulfilling God’s mandate to be light and salt to the world.

Even so, we are to be foreigners in this world, resisting the temptation to drink from or thrive in its putrid waters. Colossians 2:8 warns us to avoid being captivated by the hollow and deceptive philosophies of the world. And so, we must remain, but we must provide ourselves and our children a cove of fresh, biblical water for respite, training, discipling, mentoring, reviving, strengthening, and resting. The church may seem a good place to provide this, but in reality the church is looking more and more like the world every day.

You Are the Key to Resisting the Secular Humanism of Progressive Education

This task falls squarely on you and me, the parents of our future.

We need to set up our children for success by giving them safe waters in which to swim.

For me, Classical ConversationsÂŽ is a critical, key ingredient to this task for my middle and high school children. We need to control the influences that bombard our children, whether through music, media, entertainment, or education. We need to train them how to respond to the philosophical waters in which they will eventually be forced to swim.

Sounds a lot like John Dewey’s philosophy. So, what separates this idea from his ideas?

John Dewey’s “savior” of the next generation was man himself through the influence of the school, the state, and the godless religion of humanism. But the real Savior of the next generation is unknown to either the school or the state.

It’s not the responsibility of the state to train our children in the way that they should go. Rather, this responsibility lies solely with you and me.

We must train and educate our children to know God and to make Him known; to love Him with their hearts, souls, and minds.

We must train them to be salt and light so that when they are eventually forced to swim in the rancid waters of our culture’s philosophy, they will be able to impact the culture and make a difference for eternity.

Read other articles on this subject here.

Chernobyl meltdown

Meltdown: A Reflection

Posted on | by Sadie Aldaya

By Paul Bright

The Worst Meltdown in History

Recently, I had the privilege of watching the dramatic miniseries Chernobyl, an interpretation of the events surrounding the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl. The series is a horrifying presentation of the arrogance of man, not in the pursuit of science, but in the self-deception of his own pride at pushing the limits of known quantifiers while placing a false faith in a failsafe that can be readily pushed at any moment if something goes wrong.

The Critical Moment of Explosion and Meltdown

As the personal ambition of men pushed a dangerous test, administered by unqualified persons with incoherent instructions, the moment began when the reactor surged out of control. The nuclear engineers, thinking that the boron control rods could instantly be lowered into the out-of-control mix of xenon gas, radioactive uranium, and superheated water, pushed the failsafe button, AZ-5. All the control rods, which should have instantly stopped the nuclear reaction, caused it to explode. The reason? The boron rods themselves, were defectively made. The result was an explosion of the nuclear core, the ejection of nuclear material and radiation, and death and destruction, which no words in a simple paragraph could describe. Obviously, this article will use “meltdown” metaphorically, not literally.

The Arrogance of Unbounded Liberty

All motives and decisions of life individually and together are driven, it seems, by what is uncritically defined as a yearning for liberty. Assuming that the yearning itself is always good, the human spirit pushes ever closer to the edge of every limiting agent to find its ultimate expression of freedom.

“It is unbounded, uncontrolled, and uncontained. It is radioactive libertinism.”

It is unbounded, uncontrolled, and uncontained. It is radioactive libertinism. Whether this occurs in an individual’s mind, the family unit, in church, or in government and culture, the pursuit of liberty for liberty’s sake is justified, celebrated, and pursued. Slogans abound as eternal testaments to liberty, in Declarations of Independence, in state mottos, on statues, in art, and by echo chamber populists. While simultaneously praising liberty, these depictions are flooded with the vilification of authority. And thus, over time, in the conscience of man, in the family, in the church, and in the government and culture, the building up of heat and friction, hatred, anger, vainglory, and self-centeredness start emitting as radioactive fuel, damaging rather than energizing. The control rods of authority are unnecessary, unneeded, unwanted, and counter the nature of the progress of liberty.

The Deception of Instantaneous Authority

And once the danger of the radioactive liberty is seen, the voice of men start calling for instantaneous solutions to halt the ever-growing, out-of-control trend. Demagogues and autocrats rush down into the mix. They present themselves as the only ones who can stop the destruction, and capitalize on every misfortune and evil deed to expand even more influence and power for themselves. Churches become dominated and ruled, not by those who understand the words of Christ that the greatest of these are the least of all and a slave, but the greatest of these are those who are like the gentiles, ruling and reigning and exalting themselves over others. Because God needs His strong leaders on earth, not an absent king in heaven. Families are no longer examples of sacrifice and voluntary submission for the nurture, admonition, and edification of all, but an extinguishing experience of excision from all relationships that exasperates everyone.

“Families are no longer examples of sacrifice and voluntary submission for the nurture, admonition, and edification of all, but an extinguishing experience of excision from all relationships that exasperates everyone.”

Man replaces general welfare for others with the false righteousness of self-love, self-care, and self-rest under the auspices of self-improvement while at the same time being overly critical about other’s selfishness and never understanding why self-inwardness never satisfies. 

The Explosion

But, just like Chernobyl, the authorities operating as independent instantaneous solutions are defective themselves. When Israel wanted a king like all the other nations after centuries of direct salvation by God through judges against the “liberty of man” for idolatry, He warned them how the king would abuse his authority and consolidate riches, power, possessions, and glory for himself at their expense. Everything God said came to pass exactly and repeatedly. The results were a divided kingdom, war, generational animosity, violence, and the final covenantal curse of the discipline of losing their nation. This explosive ejection and meltdown are the inevitable ends for the present course of our country, churches, families, and ourselves. 

The radioactive liberty in the heart of man is not squelched, but instead, the authoritarianism accelerates the whole toxic and heated and destructive mix of rebellion. The explosion, ejection, and meltdown happen once the unconstrained pursuit of liberty is pushed to its very edge as a human right. At the same time, the desire for immediate, instantaneous authority slams down into the whole reactor of men’s hearts. Boom!

“The radioactive liberty in the heart of man is not squelched, but instead, the authoritarianism accelerates the whole toxic and heated and destructive mix of rebellion. The explosion, ejection, and meltdown happen once the unconstrained pursuit of liberty is pushed to its very edge as a human right.”

How to Prevent a Meltdown

What can stop the explosion, ejection, and meltdown of all good things that one receives from the image of God in oneself, in families, in churches, and in government? The answer seems easy, but requires an impossible work that one cannot achieve for oneself.

The first answer is not to pursue liberty as the most basic of all human rights. The great lie from the enemy of all is to pursue liberty because it is good and beautiful and true, and the only One who is worthy of all authority is none of those things and should never be trusted, loved, believed, and obeyed. Changing that in the heart of man is not a human work. It cannot be achieved by a desire for self-improvement. It is not natural to humans. To liberate oneself and enslave others is human; to serve others and enslave oneself is divine. Therefore, repent from the idea that the purpose of man is liberty uncontained.

The second answer is to understand that liberty and authority are interrelational and interdependent. The cultural tenet that liberty and authority are mutually exclusive and should only be used as such is a faith in a failsafe that does not exist. Liberty drives invention, imagination, and service towards a progress of edification and unity. Authority regulates the tendency of liberty to go beyond the beneficial into self-determinationism. Liberty challenges the tendency of authority to go beyond the protection of all to willful edicts and aggrandizement. This is what checks and balances should mean.

Finally, the third answer is that the solution itself might be slow. Patience in re-establishing the balance between liberty and authority might take time and effort. Instruction in the nature of liberty and authority in all spheres of the image of God (conscience, family, church, and nation) should be intimately connected with a biblical anthropology and a robust understanding of hamartiology.

The divine work of balance between liberty and authority will happen in one heart, one family, one church, and then one nation.

Paul Bright profile headshot

Paul Bright currently works in the field of Biotechnology. He is a native of Evansville, IN, and an alumnus of Purdue University and The Master’s Seminary. Paul was a Systematic Theology and Ancient Hebrew professor in Samara, Russia. He and his wife, Jennifer, homeschooled their daughter all the way through high school and currently reside in Covington, Louisiana. You can read Paul’s other contributions here.

a dark silhouette of the back of a person watching a blazing fire

Swamp Fire: A Reflection

Posted on | by Jennifer Bright

By Paul Bright

You Know It’s Hot When the Swamp is On Fire

Driving to a vacation spot this summer for our annual sabbatical at the beach, my wife and I were on Interstate 12 near Stennis at the border between Louisiana and Mississippi. Like much of southern Louisiana and Mississippi, this area is filled with wetlands, bayous, creeks, cricks, rivers, and overgrowth that rivals any dystopian, apocalyptic movie. And it was on fire. A burn ban had been in place for quite some time, but the extended heat of the summer and the lack of rain had turned the vegetation into a tinderbox. The flames had jumped from the westbound lanes, through the median, and onto the eastbound lanes. Thick smoke filled the whole area, making visibility impossible and covering everything with soot and charred smell. In my characteristic deadpan humor, I turned to my wife and said, “You know it’s hot when the swamp is on fire.”

A Quick Laugh and Further Reflection

Only my wife can chuckle at such dry humor. However, the conditions for a fire in a swamp were clear and longstanding due to the combination of neglect, rebellion, and environment. The surprise of driving through a swamp fire was humorous and ironic, in that it illustrates the swamp fire of Western Culture. But what are some of the conditions that lead to the blazing chaos that is burning through our culture, and why are there so few Christians who seem unaware or willing to do anything?

The Putrid Soil of Idealism

Idealism, philosophically defined, is the theory of epistemology that teaches that the mind forms reality. Historically, idealism arose from pursuing rationalism during the Enlightenment in thinkers such as Hegel, Leibnitz, and, to a lesser extent, Kant. In the proponents that followed the Enlightenment, pure subjective idealism became not merely Optimism but also a teaching that the mind does not create the idea but the thing itself. Thus, pure subjective idealism results in the creation of the thing directly. Through the power of the mind, man creates the very thing imagined by thought. The subject creates through noumena (from the Greek word, nous, “mind”). “The duality of the matter and mind,” as Bavinck surmised, has been “denied, and the thing and the representation of the thing, being and thinking, are viewed essentially as one.” 1

The Voracious Weeds in the Swamp

Pure subjective idealism infected Christianity directly through the charlatans of the Word-Faith movement and continues in a more mass-appealing form in the hucksters peddling the prosperity gospel, where the conjoined sins of self-worship and greed increasingly breed ever-blasphemous pronouncements in the name of Christ. The recent history of Western Christianity is dominated by these popular teraphim (from the ancient Hebrew, “false idols”) that are adored and emulated. There is a headlong rush toward any living savior who can speak of money, fame, and celebrity as a blessing. Their numbers are only limited to how quickly followers can heap on teachers. Their influence is only limited by their opportunity to jump from a smaller idolatrous family to a whole tribe (Judges 17-18). They are weeds, all. Truly, truly, they are cursed directly by our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:24-26).

The Impenetrable Undergrowth

Growing unchecked out of this idealism is the regurgitated anthropological teaching that the affections are granted a substance and an epistemological and moral priority. Feelings are given a “soul” with an unyielding, undiminishable, and immutable authority. Feelings are an abiding revelation, a self-originating, self-authenticating, self-interpreting impetus, as base and necessary to existence as breathing air. Thus, feelings are presented as a prius (from Latin, “a prior thing”), not a posterius (from Latin, “a following thing”). Feelings internal and subjective are the ousia (from Greek, “substance”) and hyparchis (from Greek, “abiding presence”) and are, similarly, necessarily detached from phenomena (Greek from phenoo, “I observe”). The new category is aesthemena (Greek from aesthima, “feeling”).  

Swamp Undergrowth is Not a Garden

This affectional ratio ad vitam (Latin for ‘meaning for life’) corrupted historic Christian theology by a deceptively disastrous mutation in the skewed recharacterization of God’s love as eros (from Greek, “sensual love”), not agape (from Greek, “love by choice”). Popularized by multiple, respected, well-studied, philosophical, historical, and exegetical preachers and teachers, the apex of Christian virtue became “Glorify God by enjoying Him forever.” Feelings as motive, as drive, as the substance was drunk in, as living water. Passion and pleasure were put forward in man and God as the only true achievement, embodiment, and reciprocation of glory. Anything of will and duty is of works and baseless and useless. Rather than growing a well-tended garden, the result was an entangling, unstable, impenetrable overgrowth of affectional mass. Undergrowth is not beautiful, and it was part of the curse (Genesis 3:18). Man was never designed by God to be led by affections.

The Match Was Thrown

Is it any wonder that the current cultural climate is one where the mind exhibits and engages in pure subjective irrationality from the prius of the feelings? This is why debates based on phenomena and logic are rejected immediately, comprehensively, and violently based on feelings. The person who believes that the mind is an organ of feelings that stimulate the creation of reality is irrationally enslaved. These persons will go to great lengths to subjugate their thoughts and the observable world around them to conform to their feelings. These persons must create from the inside out, from the affections as the source, through the mind as means, to the outside, as the transformative object. These have made themselves as Deity in their feelings, to which any, and eventually all, must prostrate in obedience.

The Fire Consumes and Is Healthy?

However, in order to create, these persons must first destroy. They will destroy all norms, whether individual or societal, amoral or moral, religious or civil. Worse still, this destruction and recreation is repackaged as a necessary mental health crisis for these individuals when the world outside of them does not immediately conform to their idealism. This explains why their verbal and material reactions include radical outbursts of violence and, contradictorily, simultaneously and exclusively, claim themselves to be recipients of violence. You have, in their reality, assaulted their most complete and necessary substance and being.  

Where there is Fire, there is Smoke

The pursuit of this idolatry will destroy them internally as well as raze relationships, morals, institutions, and societies. The consequences of idealism are already observed and experienced in the institutions of society through education, government, employment, military, health services, the family, and religion. The planned destruction through idealism is combined with the blatant realignment of the historic political foundation of our country. Marxism, at its roots, views man as tolpa (Russian for “herd”). The target of Marxism has always been and will be the most innocent and vulnerable…children. Familial, ecclesiastical, educational, technological, governmental, and societal fumes will billow from the smoldering miasma of this Idealism and Marxism.  

Putting out the Fire Through the Promise of Repentance

The only recourse for change is direct confrontation. Exposure of the insane irrationality comes through the proclamation of the objective revelation written in the Scriptures. There is hope that the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11) will shatter the illusion of self-deification. The promises of God to work for regeneration seen in true repentance have never been revoked.

Growing Anew

Corporately, Christians should pursue the position of illuminator and preserver (light and salt) through soberness, prayerfulness, engagement, and, as is customary in the course of Christian history, a willingness to suffer. It behooves Christians to live circumspectly, pure, clean, and with holy wisdom that comes down from the Father of Lights. Also, Christians should actively prune the undergrowth of this idealism and live worshipfully with the rich communities established on the Reformed doctrines of grace, which oppose idealism. Finally, Christian parents need to understand that the current culture fire is specifically designed to disintegrate their God-given position and responsibility as moral teachers and examples in the minds, hearts, and souls of their children in all respects. So, parents must make a choice and act. What will you choose to do?

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. He 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.

  1. Herman Bavink, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1. (MI: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 216. ↩︎