Homeschool Days at the Capitol, Legislative Days, Capitol Days, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. Seize this excellent opportunity to teach your children the importance of the legislative process. Help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.
The chart below lists October Homeschool Days at the Capitol. Check your stateâs dates here if itâs not listed below.
Refining Rhetoric: Episode 109
Reflecting on the French Revolution, Karl Marx wrote, “The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”
Today, we seem to be living in this sick fantasy of Karl Marx, as communists, utopians, and progressives fight for mankind to be woken up from the “nightmare of tradition.”
In France, the Olympics displayed a ghastly mockery of our Lord’s Last Supper; in America, our schools are omitting history and replacing it with progressive theory; and Vice President Kamala Harris proudly imagines, “What can be, unburdened by what has been.”
What do all of these disturbing occurrences have in common? What is the “end goal” of those who promote them? How can we, as classists and Christians, defend truth, beauty, and goodness in the face of such blatant paganism?
Listen as Robert Bortins and Christ Blackburn discuss all this and more in episode 109 of Refining Rhetoric.
Also, learn more about the dangerous implications of our Vice President’s words in Robert Bortins’ latest op-ed in The Carolina Journal, “What can be, unburdened by what has been.”
Please read some of our other blogs on progressivism and socialism.
Join Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical ConversationsÂŽ as he interviews thought leaders about critical topics related to faith, education, business, and culture. Using the fifteen classical tools of learning to guide his conversations, Robert encourages listeners to seek truth in every arena of life.
It has become taboo today to mention anything relating to Christianity in the same sentence with anything regarding law or public policy. If you mention anything that even remotely sounds like Christian theology in a public policy context, you are immediately met with cries of âSeparation of church and state!â, âWe are a secular democracy!â, or âYou are trying to establish a theocracy!â
In such a climate, it is good to reflect on the proper use of Christian theology in law, governance, and public policy.
First of all, I should point out that, whether we want it to be or not, theology (whether good theology or bad theology) actually is at the core of all public policy, especially in the United States. The Declaration of Independence states this: âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . â
Now, let us ask ourselves, is this truth really self-evident?
Throughout the entire course of human history, people have wanted to divide people into classes. Whether it is through the caste system in India, through the nobility of Europe, or through simple racial preference, what has been self-evident to humans is that âweâ are better than âthey.â So how could the writers of the Declaration of Independence claim that it was a self-evident truth?
The answer is that they had been raised under Christian doctrine.
âThere is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesusâ (Galatians 3:28). âFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godâ (Romans 3:23). âSuppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, âHereâs a good seat for you,â but say to the poor man, âYou stand thereâ or âSit on the floor by my feet,â have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?â (James 2:2-4).
And there are many more. So, we can see that at the core of our country, at the Declaration of Independence, we have distinctively Christian doctrine. So, if someone says that using Christian doctrine violates the rights of other people who are not Christian, they are simply incorrectâit is specifically Christian doctrine that has created and enabled those rights to begin with.
However, it is very easy to get the wrong idea.
The goal of using Christian doctrine is not to make the state an arm of the church. Jesusâ commands were to a people who were not in control of the government, and therefore, care must be taken to properly apply Christian doctrine to the affairs of the state. The churchâs function is for believers, while the stateâs function is for all of the people in the community, no matter how large or small. The stateâs actions are, by nature, coercive. The community of God is, by nature, voluntary.
If we tried to use the stateâs power to force people to believe in Christianity, we would be misusing the power of the state and misunderstanding what Christianity is.
However, in order to properly govern, the state must presuppose knowledge about nature, reality, and humanity. If the state misunderstands human nature, its laws will be ineffective or even counterproductive. If the state misunderstands the source of evil and corruption, it will also fail to curb it and may wind up perpetuating it instead. Christianityâthrough the Bible, through church teaching, and through Christian reflection over thousands of yearsâhas quite a bit to say about the nature of reality and especially human nature. Christianity best serves law and governance by providing better perspectives on the nature of reality and then reflecting on how government can be most effective in the light of that reality.
Let me present a case study from Reinhold Niebuhrâs The Irony of American History. In this book, he shows how the doctrine of sin has affected different governments. Niebuhr presents two incorrect doctrines of sin which have led many governments astray. Now, as with most theology, being an atheist does not prevent a person from having a theology. A âdoctrine of sinâ simply means âan explanation for what is wrong with the world and how it got that way.â
Communists, like everyone else, operated with a doctrine of sinâthey believed that property was the cause of sin. Therefore, they believed that by removing property from society they would remove sin. Communism failed because it operated on a false doctrine.
Modern Western democracies also have an equally erroneous concept of sinâthat ignorance is the cause of sin in the world. Therefore, if we can simply educate the unwashed masses, then our problems will be solved.
Modern libertarians often have their own errant doctrine of sin: that the government is the root of sin in the world, and if we get rid of government, we will have removed sin.
So, what is the Christian doctrine of sin?
The Christian doctrine of sin is that of âoriginal sin.â That is, sin comes with being humanâwe were born with it, and it cannot be removed. There is no âsolutionâ to sin other than Christ, but the negative impact of an individualâs sin can be mitigated within a larger population guided by Christ. John Adams said, âWe have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religionâŚOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â Though Adams was a Universalist, he recognized the truth of original sin and the role that Christianity played in maintaining the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.
This method of applying doctrine to public policy issues is not something that can be done quickly, lightly, or half-heartedly. It requires a commitment to deep thought and reflection. It requires looking deeply into the issues that affect us, not just their surface features. We have to look not just at the laws themselves but at their purposes and understandings of how reality works and then analyze whether those hold up under the truth of Christianity.
I will leave you with this illustration from G. K. Chestertonâs Heretics:
âSuppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, âLet us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself goodâ’ At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.â
WRITTEN BY:
Jonathan Bartlett
Check out Classical ConverationsÂŽ blogs and Homeschool Freedom Action Center blogs.
By Elise DeYoung
Let’s examine the purpose and process of the Electoral College. For several decades, there has been a simmering debate over whether or not we should abolish the Electoral College. Especially since the 2000 and 2016 elections, when the Electoral College elected President Bush and then President Trump despite losing the popular vote, this debate has become increasingly mainstream.
In fact, a clear majority of Americans support replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote, according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center.
However, before we can even consider abolishing our system of presidential elections, we must be sure that we understand its process and purpose.
The US presidential elections have two stages: the primary and the general. You can find more information about the primary here. The general election commences once each party has chosen a nominee at the conclusion of the primary.
Similar to the primary system, the general election is composed of three rounds:
Campaigning during the general election is different than the primary since voters are now familiar with the candidates. However, this is still an essential aspect of the process since it’s the candidates’ final chance to persuade the public.
So, once more, they perform interviews, participate in political debates, and present speeches to maintain the support of their political base and persuade others of their position to win states.
As established in the Constitution, the people’s vote officially takes place on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November.
The standard voting method, in general, is very similar to the primary voting system. Americans gather at the ballot boxes to cast their vote individually. In addition, the concepts of “early voting” and “mail-in ballots” have been introduced in recent decades. No matter how you vote, election officials count the votes at the end of the Tuesday following the first Monday of November.
If you want to learn more about the voting laws in your state, read an article by USA Facts, How Do Voting Laws Differ by State? or refer to your state constitution.
However, the peopleâs vote does not determine the result of the general election. This is because American elections are not conducted by a popular voting system. Rather, the founders designed a system called the Electoral College.
Briefly put, the Electoral College comprises electors from all fifty states that convene every election year to cast their votes, directly electing the President.
The Constitution provides only two stipulations when it comes to the electors. Article II, Section One, Clause Two states that an elector may not hold another office of Trust in the U.S. government. Furthermore, Section Three of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that no individual who has engaged in an insurrection may hold any office in the U.S. government, including the position of elector. Any further rules that apply to who can be an elector and how they are elected are left up to the states to decide.
The parties in the general election choose potential party-approved electors. Then, the people elect which electors they would like to represent them.
The number of electors in a state equals the number of Senators and Representatives in that state.
For example, Iowa has seven electors, while Wisconsin has ten, and Florida has twenty-seven. The Library of Congress has a country map showing the number of electors per state.
The winning candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes, a clear majority. Suppose there is a tie, or the majority is too slim, which happened in the case of Thomas Jefferson versus Aaron Burr in 1801. In that case, Congress resolves the vote.
They meet in mid-December after the popular vote has taken place. So, while we often celebrate or mourn the results of the people’s vote, the election is still not over for another month.
The answer is the same as the delegates in the primary. Depending on the party and state they represent, some must align their vote with the results of the popular vote in their state. Others can vote for whomever they see fit.
This process is more complex than most election systems in other countries. Why did the Founders establish this system with so many steps when they could have established a popular vote?
There are two main reasons why the founders were wise to create the complex system of the Electoral College.
First, they rightly feared the tyranny of the majority. Alexander Hamilton said it well when he wrote, âThe people is a great beast.â They knew that the people had to be controlled by a system that was out of their control.
âThe people is a great beast.â âAlexander Hamilton
Second, the founders also knew that the federal government could not control the system that controlled the mob of the majority. An election system that was in the hands of the federal government could, and probably would, be manipulated by those in charge. They would secure power for themselves by silencing the people’s voices and disqualifying the opposition.
This is why the Constitution includes so many checks and balances. It distributes power among all fifty states rather than centralizing it in the office of the President alone, and why the Founders avoided settling for overly simple systems.
The Electoral College is a firm institution that holds both the tyranny of the majority and the power of the government at bay. It does not allow for either of these groups to ultimately corrupt elections because neither group has the final say.
It is no surprise that those with political power do not like the system, it stops them from securing ultimate victory for their party. Neither is it surprising that the majority dislike the system, it doesnât bow its knee to them. All in all, I would say that the Electoral College is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
And as the clichĂŠ saying goes, if it ainât broke, donât fix it.
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!
Robert Bortins reminds us in this episode of âRefining Rhetoricâ the importance of an informed citizenry and the need for engagement in tackling the issues of today. With the quick pace of life and a faster pace of information, it can be difficult, if not overwhelming, to keep up with it all.
Chris Blackburn and Robert’s quick chat might help you think through how education can affect foreign policy. They explore the consequences of U.S. payments to Iranâlinking them to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, rising oil prices, and inflation.
Letâs not sit on the sidelines. Let’s stay informed and involved!
How?
Check out this episode below. Listen to other episodes of Refining Rhetoric.
There is a new format for the Refining Rhetoric podcast. In the first week, Robert interviews a Christian leader, whether they are a spiritual leader, in the business sector, engaging in the culture war, or active in the political arena. The following week, the discussion revolves around a current event headline and crypto news.
Donât miss out on these resources and opportunities as an engaged and informed citizen. You can encourage other people to stay informed and involved, as well.
Robert Bortins is the CEO of Classical ConversationsÂŽ and the host of Refining Rhetoric. The company has grown from supporting homeschoolers in about 40 states to supporting homeschoolers in over 50 countries and has become the worldâs largest classical homeschooling organization under his guidance.
By Valerie Ward
Do you want the state to determine what your children will learn and how they will live? In our eight years of homeschooling with Classical ConversationsÂŽ, my family has learned how our government works, how to construct well-written papers, how to present arguments well, and how to defend our beliefs. Of course, we’ve all heard the adage that “those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it.” The past shows us just how easily freedoms can be lost. Can we expect others to defend and fight for our freedoms? As homeschooling families, what can we do? Political engagement and encouraging others to get involved are crucial so we do not lose our freedoms.
All CC families will tell you that you can only argue well if you are well-informed. As a result, we now study the legislative process for our state and pay attention to the new legislation presented. Our family is actively involved in a grassroots movement to bring awareness to the bills that are a potential threat to parental rights, educational freedoms, and religious infringement.
Here is another family’s testimony about how Classical Conversations has prepared them for political engagement.
Use these resources to help your family to be well-informed and politically engaged this election cycle. And encourage others to get involved, too.
Valerie Ward is the Classical Conversations Sales Manager for the Texas Region. As a former college administrator turned homeschool mom who nerds out over learning new things, she is ardent about parental rights, homeschool freedom, and religious freedom. She married her high school sweetheart, now pastor husband, and they run a family farm with chickens, ducks, sheep, pigs, and goats. Her passion is to live as much as possible within the freedom the Lord provides from the land He has given.
by Elise DeYoung
Every four years, Americans gather at the ballot box to voice support for our desired presidential candidate. Sadly, in recent decades, this exercise of our republic has been intensely polarized due to political unrest and institutional distrust. This is a serious problem because the “government of the people, by the people, for the people…” [1] cannot stand if we, the people, don’t trust our representatives or the system that elected them.
So, it is vital that, regardless of who you vote for, we all find a common ground of trust in the election system, which Samuel Adams once called “one of the most solemn trusts in human society.”
The most fundamental aspect of trust is understanding. You do not trust someone you do not know; likewise, it is difficult to trust a system of government that you do not understand. Americans must fulfill their responsibility to know how the presidential election works and realize why the founding fathers ordered it as they did.
The presidential election is divided into two main stages: the primary and the general elections. These elections are similar in their structure (the campaign, the people’s vote, and the delegates’ or electors’ vote) but are very different in their methods. This article will explore the first stage of the election, the primary.
During the primary, presidential candidates fight to become their party’s nominee for the general election. It is a ruthless cycle of endorsements, eliminations, and elections, and it is easiest to understand this process in three stages or “rounds.”
Round one of the primaryâthe campaign trailâusually starts at the beginning of the election year. This primary stage is when candidates promote their political intentions, their reasons for running, and their public image to voters and sponsors.
During the campaign trail, candidates will give speeches, air campaign ads, do interviews, kiss babies, and talk about their favorite ice cream.
While this process can seem trivial to the average voter, it is a brutal battle for the candidates fighting to gain public and financial support to sustain their campaign through inauguration day.
The candidates, who have established a public image and a potential path to victory, are then pitted against each other in debates and the polls. This happens so that each candidate can attempt to persuade the voters and sponsors to support themânot the other guy.
These debates force many candidates to drop out of the race before voting even takes place, as they lose support to their more popular competitors. Once this occurs, the remaining candidates turn their attention to the vote.
There are two methods by which states conduct voting in round two of the primary. Some states use a primary vote, and others host caucus events.
The primary vote is similar to the general election. With this method, voters individually go to their designated voting location to cast their ballot.
On the other hand, the caucus method is much more public and involved. A caucus is an event held by the state’s party, where members of that party gather to persuade others to their candidate publicly and cast their votes at the end of the night.
Interestingly, caucuses were historically the main voting method in the United States until the 20th century when states decided that the primary voting system would be “fairer” and “more democratic.”
It is easy to recognize the vast differences between these methods.
Another distinction is that the state government runs primary voting, while the political party runs the caucus event.
Primary voting can be open, semi-closed, or closed, depending on your state. In an open primary, voters registered with any party can vote for any political party candidate. Semi-closed means that registered voters can only vote for the party they are registered to; however, independents can choose whichever party they wish to cast their vote to. A closed primary means that each voter must vote for a candidate in their registered party.
Closed caucuses require you to register for the party you will vote for ahead of the caucus.
We must now address a significant misconception about the American presidential primary. Some people believe that when they vote in the primary, they vote directly for the candidate they choose. However, this is not the case. The people do not nominate the candidate; the party does.
When you vote in the primary, you are not voting to nominate the candidate; you are actually voting to award your candidate the delegates of your party, who will be the ones to nominate someone at the National Convention, which is round three of the primary.
Simply put, each state has delegates for both Democrats and Republicans, and candidates earn delegates based on the results of the people’s vote. The method of distribution depends on the state’s election laws. Some states reward the candidate with the majority vote with all the delegates, while others divide them based on percentage.
This process is different in each state, so I recommend researching how your specific state awards candidates with delegates.
One thing that is standard across the board is that for each party, some delegates must vote in alignment with the result of the people’s vote in their state, while others may vote for whomever they see fit. Democrats call restricted delegates “pledged” delegates, and Republicans call them “bound” delegates. Those who are not restricted to the results of their voter’s primary are “unpledged” according to Democrats or “unbound” according to Republican delegates.
In addition to these titles, many other distinctions exist between how the Democrats and Republicans run their conventions. Learn more about the Democratic method and the Republican procedure.
No matter how your state and party conduct the specifics of the delegate’s role, at the National Convention, each delegate votes for their party’s nominee, and at the end of the night, the nominee is announced.
All these different steps and complicated methods beg the question, why not just establish the simpler method of a nationwide popular vote?
“The people is a great beast.” âAlexander Hamilton
The founders rightly feared the tyranny of the majority in a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Alexander Hamilton famously said, “The people is a great beast.” They knew it was easy to convince large swathes of a population to support the most exciting politician in the room, but that politician wasn’t always fit for the Oval Office. Just take a moment to consider that Adolf Hitler was a fan favorite among the German population when he was appointed as chancellor in 1933.
So, in their wisdom and foresight, the founding fathers established what could be considered “indirect elections.” They created a system where the power of the elections is held by each state rather than being centralized in the federal government, where the people have their voices heard and taken into account without the majority overpowering the minority, and ultimately, where trusted and educated delegates and electors stand between the people, the federal government, and the White House.
“On average, the primary turnout rate for all these states combined wasâŻ27%,âŻwhile the general election turnout wasâŻ60.5%. This means thatâŻless than halfâŻof the voters that cast a ballot in the general election turned out for the primary.” [2]
These numbers are very disheartening because it means that Americans have forgotten the power of the primary.
We must engage in our elections because they are the bedrock of our republic. So now that we understand how the primary works and why the founders established it the way they did, let us vote so that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” [3]
Not only must we engage in our elections, but we must pray for and communicate with our elected officials regularly. Here are some resources for you.
Read other blogs written by Elise here.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
[1] Lincoln, A. (1863, November 19). The Gettysburg Address [Speech]. https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
[2] (2022, July 28). Turnout in Primaries vs General Elections since 2000. States United Action. Retrieved January 30, 2024, from https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/historic_turnout.html#Overview
[3] Lincoln, A. (1863, November 19). The Gettysburg Address [Speech]. https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
by Robert Bortins
Gen Z males are leaning more right than left, a recent survey shows. When it comes to political momentum, it is easy to feel intimidated by cultural forces. Especially for younger generations, we are persistently told that revolutions come from youth, and the cultural tides are shifting because of young voices.
Moreover, when touted from the left, this can be disheartening, knowing that Gen Z fills the voter pool with indoctrinated principles planted by far, far leftist public academia.
However, as politicians, Hollywood, and mainstream media bully conservatives with these empty talking points, the data shows the opposite. And this is especially the case with Gen Z males.
In episode 71 of Refining Rhetoric, Robert explores why Gen Z males are leaning conservative twice as much as liberal, as discovered by a recent survey that contradicts the widely held narrative that Gen Z has a leftist bent. There is hope for Gen Z.
Check out the episode below. Listen to other episodes on Refining Rhetoric or check out “How Civility Can Save Our Country.“
Robert Bortins is the CEO of Classical ConversationsÂŽ and the host of Refining Rhetoric. The company has grown from supporting homeschoolers in about 40 states to supporting homeschoolers in over 50 countries and has become the worldâs largest classical homeschooling organization under his guidance.
by Lauren Gideon
As a classical educator, I canât hide my enthusiasm when I find connections between the disciplines and realize the opportunity to practice the classical tools.
To set the stage, we are now walking full steam ahead towards securing the presidential party nominations and the November general election. If you are an active participant in politics or even just a spectator, you know that things arenât just as simple as team red vs. team blue. Even in our system, dominated by two major parties, itâs not as if weâre separated into giant circles, holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
Why not?
Factions.
Factions are smaller groups within the larger group that often have robust disagreements with other factions based on their differences of opinion. They usually take a bad rap but are a strong indicator of freedom. Our copious evidence for diversity of thought (factions) affirms our political tolerance for freedom of thought, speech, association, etc.
The word fraction is just one letter different and simply refers to a smaller part of the whole. These two words have much in common, but they are not related. However, our factions ARE fractions. It is human nature to form factions within our larger groups, like our families, churches, associations such as political parties, our nation, our world, or within all of humanity past and present, which are consequently fractions of different wholes. Madison discusses factions in Federalist No. 10, which explains the inevitability, the necessity, and the problems they can cause, but also how best to control their effects.
The conservative sphere is fraught with factions and, consequently, fractions. Now, what we know of political power in our republic is that when you divide your collective voice into smaller and smaller groups, it loses power and influence. Those concerned with efficacy are frustrated by these factions that fraction the influence of the whole. To consolidate influence, they cry for unity. Unity is nothing more than the combination of these fractions. And the fractions must combine to have any successful operations.
Combining fractions requires the operation of addition. To add fractions, however, we must follow the rules of that operation. Step one is to attend to the elements. We know a fraction has both a numerator and a denominator. The denominator is also called the base.
Now, to combine fractions for the sake of an operation, we know that we must have a common denominator. How do we do that? First, we acknowledge that every denominator is the product of several factors. (I know I have yet to connect all the dots, but I hope you can see where this is going!) When we examine our denominator, we must do the diligence of sorting out all the unique factors. To get to a common denominator, sometimes we must let go of a factor and bring in a new one. Still, we must negotiate between fractions until we can develop a common denominator on which to operate.
In short, âno.â You need to find a common base only to operate or TO DO something. That means the people or groups we work with can change based on the thing/things we are doing. For example, philanthropy is a factor/value of many groups that may disagree on theology or eschatology. But to operate on the base of philanthropy, we donât necessarily have to factor in values that we donât have in common.
Politically, we all have bases that are the product of several factors. We have analyzed some of these factors and clarified how and why they became part of our base. We still need to analyze others to have that clarity on their value. Only through this understanding (dialectic art) can we be fruitful in our rhetoric. Clarity helps us find commonality, the essential ingredient for successful operations.
But commonality is not our nature. Factions are notorious for obsessing over our distinctions. While clarity can come through distinctions, without an appropriate value on commonality, we can kiss operating goodbye!
So why do we prefer to focus on our distinctions? Iâll answer a question with a question. If we focus on what we have in common, or what is the same value, how can we prove the value of our factor to be superior?
We canât. There is no foothold for our pride or ego when we seek to discover that which is shared or equal. Can it be pride at the root yet again? Surly not, and especially not within Christian conservativism. (I jest).
Our common denominator is only as valuable as the factors it contains. There will be those that cry out for unity for unityâs sake. Ignore their baseless cries. Unify on factors that are good, true, and beautiful. To do this, we must know these things, love them, and look for them in the world and people around us.
Philippians 4:8 ESV
8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Lauren also contributed The Free-Market Education Table at the Potluck.
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. The Foundations curriculum brought their family together, provided a scope and sequence that was manageable, and always directed their attention to Christ. Lauren credits her experience as a home educator and as a leader within Classical Conversations for giving her the classical tools to tackle whatever opportunities come her way. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nationâs founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
By Lauren Gideon
As I write this blog on New Yearâs Day, I canât help but take note of the colliding spheres of meaning in our holidays and in our politics. At this moment, firmly nested in between Advent and Epiphany, the entire focus of this season revolves around celebrating the arrival of the Holy Monarchy. Even people, whose consciences are opposed to recognizing December 25 for historical reasons, still revere the significance of the incarnation of the Eternal King.
The word âkingâ first appears in Genesis 14. In this chapter, nine kings are listed in the conflict that transpires. Four kings and their kingdoms wage war on the other five. When Lot and his household are captured, Abram is forced to intervene. At the end of the chapter, we learn about the King of Salem, Melchizedek, who was also a priest of the Most High God. This conflict happened around 1866 BC.
Other historical documents teach us about Namer, the first King in Egypt, who ruled around 3150 BC, and Enmebaragesi, King of Kish, in northern Babylonia, c. 2700 BC.
We have no record of God establishing a monarchy until 1 Samuel 8 (c. 1052 BC).
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah 5 and said to him, âBehold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.â 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, âGive us a king to judge us.â And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, âObey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. 8 According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. 9 Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.â (1 Samuel 8:4-9 ESV)
According to this passage, the people initiated the conversation and requested a king, and their request was an act of rejection. When God calls himself the peopleâs king, one question was whether he was defining monarchy or leveraging a term already a part of the ancient vocabulary.
Godâs granting of their request was an act of revelation and consequence. In Samuel 12:17, Samuel gives the people a sign.
17 âIs it not wheat harvest today? I will call upon the Lord, that he may send thunder and rain. And you shall know and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking for yourselves a king.â
And the people responded with confession,
19 And all the people said to Samuel, âPray for your servants to the Lord your God, that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king.â
But this did not stop God from giving the people what they requested. This would begin the parade of Hebrew kings.
What is important to conclude is that just because God established a human monarchy does not change the fact that the request was an act of rejection and a wicked act. There is a sentiment among some Christians that because a human king ruled Godâs chosen people and God directed the process of establishing the monarchy, this must mean that the Hebrew monarchy was good. However, the text is very clear about how God frames the event. It is essential to distinguish what God allows from what He calls good.
This confusion has continued throughout time. Much of classical liberalism literature was drafted in the 17th century in opposition to the Divine Rights theory. King James I of England (1603â25), who commissioned and was the namesake of the 1611 English translation of the Bible, was the foremost exponent of the divine right of kings.1
Sir Robert Filmer wrote an essential piece of literature on the divine rights theory in the early 17th century (published in 1680). A key aspect of his argument was that he claimed, âGod Governed Always by Monarchy.â
John Locke and his contemporaries spent their lives untangling this mess, drawing on their observations of history and human nature. Do you know what they discovered? To summarize, they unpacked what scripture had always been saying:
10 as it is written:
âNone is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good,
not even one.â (Romans 3:10-12 ESV)
Paulâs words in Romans directly echo both Psalm 14 and Psalm 53.
What scripture teaches us is that none on Earth is worthy. We have no non-wicked option to set up as a king! Additionally, all humanity is equal in merit. Each individual is an image bearer of Christ and possesses a totally depraved nature. Thus, these two questions must always be asked, âWho among us is worthy to rule someone else?â and âWho among us deserves to be ruled by another fallen human?â
In Thomas Jeffersonâs first Inaugural Address, he deals with this issue: âSometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.â
These age-old questions were addressed at the inception of our nation after centuries of debate and historical case studies. In our nationâs oldest official document, the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson penned these words: âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equalââ a direct affront to the divine rights theory!
Disclaimer: Although articulated and directed towards the monarchy, the elephant in the room is that while the young nation could see the injustice of the monarchy, some did not see the obvious egregious direct parallel with the slave trade. (And letâs not join in the hypocrisy by thinking our generation is the first that neither is ruled nor subjugated. There are many mechanisms of control in place based on the false premise that one âknows betterâ or that we ought to protect people from themselves.)
If we are to live in civility with equals, how is that possible? How can we honor the reality that no human is worthy to rule another human?
The answer to that question and a philosophical cornerstone for our constitutional republic is that âGovernments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.â
Our system was one in which we fundamentally confessed humanityâs wickedness and inadequacies and acknowledged the injustice that occurs when one human is subjected to another. With violence, we threw off the shackles and injustice of the British Monarchy, and the United States of America was born.
And here we sit, 247 years later, contemplating and celebrating the advent of the Holy Monarchy, the king born in a stable over 2000 years ago. Is there any chance 21st-century Americans might need to attend to their conflicting thoughts on monarchy?
Human monarchies are only imperfect because humans fall short. When God was preparing Adam for Eve, God first paraded all the ânot-Evesâ in front of Adam.
18 Then the Lord God said, âIt is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.â 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. (Genesis 2:18-20 ESV)
Throughout history, a similar event has been unfolding from the ancient Kings, through the Hebrew kings, to the modern kings; a parade of unworthy counterfeits march across the pages of time. Their shortcomings cultivate an awareness and a yearning for what is missing. We realize that we must suffer through chaos, which is humansâ best attempt at justice, while we eagerly await the good, worthy and just King who is to come. The stage has been set for us now, the same as God did for Adam.
How do we rectify this as thankful Americans? The beauty within the American system is wrapped up in the humility and confession that no one here on earth is worthy and that each individual has dignity and deserves justice as an image bearer of Christ. As long as we embrace, manifest, and teach these principles, we are a living confession to the truth of our human condition and our need for the True King, and we live out the mandate in Micah 6:8 (ESV).
8 He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
The advent of the coming of Christ the King is problematic for our human limitations. We know that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit…
Born of the virgin Mary (First Advent)
On the third day, he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven (Ascension)
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there, he will come to judge the living and the dead (Second Advent)
In all this coming and going and coming again, do we forget that the âKingdom of Christ is at handâ? That our King stands outside of space and time? That his rule is eternal and that we are eternal souls? Consider this reminder from Colossians 3:15 (ESV).
“And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body.”
For in all these things, there is much to celebrate, and we can sing along with this old song with a new appreciation.
Come, Thou long expected Jesus
Born to set Thy people free;
From our fears and sins release us,
Let us find our rest in Thee.
Israelâs strength and consolation,
Hope of all the earth Thou art;
Dear desire of every nation,
Joy of every longing heart.
Born Thy people to deliver,
Born a child and yet a King,
Born to reign in us forever,
Now Thy gracious kingdom bring.
By Thine own eternal Spirit
Rule in all our hearts alone;
By Thine all sufficient merit,
Raise us to Thy glorious throne.
By Thine all sufficient merit,
Raise us to Thy glorious throne.
-Charles Wesley
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical Conversations. She co-leads and teaches through an organization committed to raising citizenship IQ 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.