Here are a few Christmas wishes for 2011.

1. To Albert Pujols: I hope that all the money makes up for the fact that you had the opportunity to be the greatest sports icon in the most positive and rabid baseball town (Philly is more rabid, but negative) in the world. You left because they did not respect you?!?!?! C’mon man! They loved you. Good luck with this in an invented place. Coal for you!
2. To Jimmy Rollins: Love for you in the city of brotherly love. May your commitment to stay be as blessed as possible. Maybe another ring under the tree?
3. To Wendell Berry: Recently reading some of your best paragraphs. Brilliant! May you have a quiet and peaceful day with your family gathered round…and a good walk through a familiar and thick woods.
4. To Peter Leithart: Your blog is a blessing to read, but I fear that you might be reading, thinking, and writing too fast. You’re both and inspiration and a mystery. My wish for you is a long night’s sleep. Enjoy.
5. To the United States: A new government. This one is broken and its pettiness (on both sides) is making me sort of dread opening the paper in the morning. We borrow 40% of every dollar we spend. 40%!!!! We need an intervention. Hope it comes in 2012.
6. To my faculty and staff: Good work this year. Sleep soundly over break.
7. To my students: Drink deeply from the fountains of life. Christ Himself is the deepest fountain. Love God first with all your heart and do whatever you please with all of your heart!

I am going to try to go without my computer for a few days—this will feel like Linus without a blanket. See you in the New Year!

I think I found the common thread. See how this strikes you. Both the Tea Party (and Ron Paul’s supporters) and the Occupy movement are reactions to the bailout. The Tea Party knows that the bailout was wrong. They believe it was morally wrong. They tell this truth to everyone that will listen. The yell, “No!!!” When the government contemplates more relief because they rightly see it as theft (either from us in the present or from future generations).

Occupy is also a reaction to the bailout. It also says that the bailout was wrong. It believes that it was wrong, however, not because it was morally wrong or because it was theft, but because it was unfair. They are steamed that Wall Street Bankers who made idiotic decisions were protected by the full faith and credit of the government (i.e., by the wealth or selling of present and unborn taxpayers [if you read slavery when you see this you are probably closest to the truth]). We all should be steamed about this! They are most steamed, however, because the government helped those folks, but is not helping them. They want their own bailout so that they can avoid foreclosure, or so that they can be given a job, or so that they can have whatever they want. They reason that if the government gave someone a cupcake, then it has to give everyone a cupcake. Of course, this is insanity because we can’t afford any more cupcakes—nor could we afford the cupcakes that we have recently bought (i.e., recently in the last thirty years).  

These movements are not consistent. How does this relate to a classical Christian education. It is an application of what Sayers says about the Logic Stage—in which we teach students to think critically and clearly—when says that its aim is that we Distinguish! We see the differences between one thing and something that sounds (at points) very similar, but is, at its roots, quite different.

“Governor Corbett, thank you for your commitment to help students trapped in failing schools. We all applaud this desire and we are ready to work to work with you or anyone else to rescue people trapped in cycles of poverty, sin, and brokenness. We know that the problems that you face regarding our budget and especially educational funding are more than challenging. We pray that God would give you wisdom as you make these crucial decisions.

 “When challenges face us, we need first to see them clearly and to recognize their gravity. Here are a few parts of the challenge that we face. These facts are not in dispute:

• We have made promises to retired teachers concerning their pension and benefits—promises that we do not have the funds to keep. These promises are going to result in higher taxes or in significant cuts in present spending for education (and other programs) so that we can fund the pensions and benefits of retired teachers.
• By any measure, some of our schools are failing. They are not producing students that are employable because they do not have skills necessary for employment (solid reading and math skills). By many measures, most of our school are sliding backwards. We are spending on average over $13,000 per student.
• These issues are not JUST educational issues. They are, in fact, societal issues. The educational disaster students face is tied inextricably to a moral crisis—a moral apocalypse—in our culture. It is not just that many of our students do not know how to read, but we, as a society, are having problems explaining to them why they should learn. Our best attempts are often pointing them toward the job that they can get or the money that they can make. These goads are insufficient to motivate true dedication. They are, in fact, dead ends. If we are to motivate our students, we need to give them a vision of that shows them that the good life is not made up of only material possessions, but of things like love, commitment, service, and sacrifice.

As we approach this problem, we have to recognize that small solutions and tiny fixes are not going to be helpful. The system is broken. Its failure is obvious. The cost of maintaining the present system can be measured in dollars and cents (dollars and cents that we do not have!) but the human cost of failure in this area are even more terrifying and more expensive. If we do not effectively deal with this problem we should not dare to hope for our Commonwealth or nation to long survive.

Seeing this crucial problem you have offered a response. I applaud parts of this response. I am concerned about some of the direction. Most Christian schools in our state exist on very limited funding. Many are desperate for money. Many of the proposals that you have made will help students and will allow families to choose schools that are accountable to the market and to the parents in ways that the public schools are not. The programs that you offer will enable some students (students in the worst schools) to have a way to escape. My heart goes out to these students and I have spent many hours considering how Christian schools like mine can be part of serving and rescuing these students.

The danger is dependency. Christian schools have a lot to offer needy students. They typically educate more efficiently (at a lower cost per student). They are able—unlike public school presently—to cut to the heart of the matter. Christian schools can openly proclaim the truth that is so deeply needed by these students. Christian schools can give students reason for living that points above ambition and possessions. We call them to lay down their lives for others; because Christ is Lord. He has conquered death and He has made a way of forgiveness for you. In light of His sacrifice and in light of His promises, we can boldly lay down our lives for others. This message is crucial if we want to provide hope and guidance for our charges.

I believe that you would affirm the value and power of this message. I think that in your proposal concerning vouchers you are trying to help these students escape a failing system and you are doing something that is helpful (financially) to Christian schools. The dependency that this can and will cause is terribly dangerous. I do not believe that you will tie any sort of restrictions that would keep us from proclaiming the truth of the gospel to the voucher. You can, I hope, see that this string can and no doubt will be tied in the future. When that happens, many Christian schools will face a terrible choice: fail financially or stop proclaiming the truth. The first choice ends your existence; the second ends your reason for existence.

But can’t schools simply budget for the voucher and protect themselves against these future problems? No! Voucher money pollutes the main stream of income for schools—the stream of tuition funds. These funds make up the bulk of most operating budgets.

You are working to expand the Educational Improvement Tax Credit which enables some businesses to support scholarships for needy students. Thank you for working to expand this program. We believe that it serves the tax payers well and helps some needy students get a better education. Dependence on this program can endanger the future of schools, but we can budget against it. Setting aside funds to protect our schools if and when this program ends can and should be done. Ending the program would harm particular students, but schools could survive and remain independent if they are careful.

Again, sir, thank you for your effort. May God bless your administration as you serve as Christ’s minister (Romans 13:4).

In the long term you have to bring in more than you spend. I do not believe that all debt is wrong. I do think that in the long run the borrower is the slave of the lender. I am sort of astounded by the politics of the thing. The Republicans (the party I find most affinity with most of the time) raised the debt limit seven times under George W. Bush. They could have been fiscally conservative then. President Obama, who is now concerned about the debt, must have undergone some sort of epiphany. He has been spending at a rate that would cause our Founders to stick with Britain and not found this new country. It is horrifying for all these august looking people to thunder away on principles that they obviously did not hold only a few years—or even a month—ago. They think that this sort of pontificating will fool the people, and, sadly, it seems to work. We, the people, seem to have some sort of unbelievable amnesia. It looks to me like the progression of Romans 1 judicial blindness.

Here is the conclusion that I am reaching. I do not think that this system will fail. The powers that be (in Washington and New York) have too much at stake. These powers increasingly have little connection to the people that they are fleecing in the middle of the Country (from Lancaster County to eastern Washington and Oregon). America is becoming a battery to power the aspirations of these powers. The system will not fail, but for the people to have freedom it probably needs to fail.

As an educator at a school that loves Christ and the personal freedom and responsibility that flows from the Bible and the commitments of the West, I am working to make my students ready to bear freedom. I hope to give them a taste for it and a longing for it. Someday, maybe, they can have more of it than we have now. I am afraid that they might suffer much for the folly that we are allowing both in the recent past and in our day.

If we are to survive as a country, we must plan an escape from Nixonland.

This will be challenging and, I must admit, on the surface of things I see only a faint reason to be hopeful that this escape could happen. (I really worry that the forces of deep division, selfishness, and the lust for power in our country will pose frightening challenges for our future.)

If we are to escape, this escape begins with a recommitment to classical Christian education or sometime like it. Here is why:

Nixonland is built on continual sins against truth. These sins are deft misuses of some of the most brilliant tools that God has given us—logic and rhetoric. We are mixing up convincing sounding arguments that move the passions and obscure the truth. This has always happened. Today, however, as a result of our schools ceasing to teach logic and rhetoric (i.e., giving up a classical liberal arts education) most people are duped by slick sounding language. (We have ceased being free men and women and we are now told that we are free even though we don’t have the tools that it would take to be free.) If we would return to classical education—at least for a significant number of our children—there would be more accountability for telling political lies.

Also, classical education connects us to the past and helps us to put issues into some sort of priority list. Today, politicians typically bang the gong in “whatever way necessary” to drum up support, humiliate a rival for power, or, most often, raise money. Nixon was a savant in this arena. He was the “law and order” president approving criminal break ins to get the scoop on his rivals because he was convinced that they were planning to humiliate him. Classical education with its emphasis on the great books frees us from the tyranny of the urgent present and the shouts of the 24 hour news cycle.

Finally, the skills taught in and the content of a classical education helps people see the shallowness of the great technological catalyst for political lying which is the television. I am not against TV. It is good, but it is only good for one thing—entertainment. It enables political mischief because (like text messaging) there is never time to tell the whole truth. It was TV used thoughtlessly as a political tool that led us into Nixonland. Nixon lost the first presidential TV debate to good looking, articulate, witty JFK. By losing this debate (mainly because he did not understand the medium where his five o’clock shadow had more to do with truth than his arguments), he probably lost the presidency. Nixon learned his lesson. He obsessed over TV, hiring the prodigy Roger Ailes as a 25 year old to run his image (Ailes now runs Fox News). He scripted (or tried to script) everything. He won the presidency and won re-election. Lying on TV is too easy. By amplifying someone’s ethos over a short period of time, or by making one mistake something that can be replayed an infinite number of time, it makes politics inhuman and keeps us from making good decisions.

But, one mights say, “Can’t all of this be done by simply having a classical education? Does the educational reform need to also be Christian?” These are excellent questions. So far, all that I am suggesting could be done at a classical school that is not Christian. An escape from Nixonland, however, cannot happen without a return to Christ and to the Christian ideas that built this nation.

First, we need repentance and forgiveness. This seems like an easy thing. Can’t we all just get along. In truth, we cannot. Only in Christ, in His blood, can wrongs be washed away.

Second, we need to be reminded that it is the thing that counts—not the sound of the thing. God looks on the heart. Slick words and unjust measures are abominations to Him. Politicians weighing out words that they do not believe so that they can confuse or convince or co-opt half the people plus one is an outrage to Him. It must become repugnant to us as well.

Third, we need to have a vision for where we are going. Taking the road out of Nixonland is not an answer. We need to be headed somewhere. (This is the main problem with our present educational system right now, I believe, there is no ultimate aim for students outside of their own personal peace and prosperity.) And we need to be headed somewhere as a people and as a community. This can be found outside of Christ. We could become (and are becoming or are) an economic empire where profits and unemployment rates are more important than prophets and righteousness. We could adopt some other religious vision of life—lslam or Hinduism. It is only upon Christ that an ongoing foundation for civilization can be laid because He is the reason for this world. He created it. It reflects Him. The false gods and our idols (like Mammon) crush and disappoint. Jesus dies to save us from our sins and is raised again to found an order that promises the restoration of the world. In the Lord’s Supper, we see a hint of this coming world (that is already here and is growing). In this service, we offer thanks back to God for the world and for the redemption that He has given to us in Christ. As we do this, the very order that was established in the Garden is restored. Man, with thanks, praises His gracious Father. God with joy pours out blessing on His children.

It is in the power of God that we hope. It is in the power of God that we trust. It is His grace and mercy and power that can bring us out of Nixonland.

Demme Elected New GOP

Ethan represents what is too often absent, but what is recommended by a classical and Christian education—engagement. Too often, I find myself (and many in our culture) paralyzed by cynicism about political involvement. This paralysis is caused by seeing the shortcomings in our own lives. Our response is to pull in, to care only about ourselves, and to reckon life as something done in the very narrow field of our own family, our church, and the associations we choose. This was impossible in the past—before the automobile and the internet allowed us to think that we were escaping geography and the body. We must remember that Christ called on us to love our neighbor. We might find our neighbor on the side of highway (the Samaritan did) or online. We must, however, not forget that our neighbor is our neighbor and that the life of the local community is our life. Ethan is an example to us all.

I am also betting the local GOP will be a more tech savvy in the near future. Hat’s off to Ethan Demme!

1.  The political left uses tragedies to take swipes at the right even when—maybe I should say especially when—there is no cause. The left wants gun control. All facts are used to prove that it is necessary. Of course, let me be clear, this fellow should not have had a gun! The idea that somehow mass restriction on guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is dubious. I believe that the left has learned (maybe it is just instinctual) that they should toss accusation at the right whenever something like this happens especially if there is no reasonable connection between the action and anyone on the right. They do this because…
2. The political right (in the case Governor Palin) does not handle these sorts of swipes well and too often ends up looking petty as they react to these baseless attacks. Governor Palin is not to blame for this event. The fellow was deranged. Communist Manifesto was one of his favorite books—which, of course is not one on the Glenn Beck approved list. Governor Palin, I am sure, got angry because she was unjustly smeared. Sadly, she released her video response at the same time that President Obama was at the bully pulpit. She is justified in her anger. Her response was unwise. Any sort of reaction that rebuts personal concerns looks petty—particularly against Obama’s excellent and uplifting speech. I am not sure why she did it, but, politically, I do not think it was wise.
3. Finally, both sides of our political spectrum seem immune to both history and reason. The chant arises that our political rhetoric is over the top. It is. This “over the topness”, however, is not new. It has been a characteristic of American politics (and American life) since the third election (Adams v. Jefferson). We are given to overstatement. In some ways our political dialogue is fruitless today, but not because of its vitriol, but because of our penchant for having hurt feelings. We cannot argue with each other. We preach to the choir and stir them in a froth. Real political gains happen when leaders focus their rhetoric more broadly but still resonate with their base—see Ronald Reagan on this point.

Some of the most disturbing words in this whole event have come from the media.

First, on the left, there is a blindness to the logic of the Constitution that is sort of stunning. I heard one fellow (I believe it was Chris Matthews) say something like—“What does bearing arms have to do with free speech?” This sort of disconnect is pitiful in the media. They must know that the very reason that arms bearing is in the Bill of Rights is that a populace that has no way to protect itself from the government is ripe for tyranny. Our Founding Fathers knew this because a government pointed guns at them and told them to hush up. The truth is, of course, that deranged lunatics are the reason for the 2^nd Amendment. Our Founders were worried about the government having all the guns. They knew that this would lead to tyranny and the end of free speech and every other freedom. In the 20^th Century, too often, it led to mass murder.

The right wing media, however, does little better. They understand the reason for the Constitutional right to bear arms, but struggle to react well to masterful rhetoric on the left—especially by President Obama (the best speaker to hold the office since, at least, Reagan). They pick at his speeches. They look so petty and make him look so magnanimous. His speech was brilliant. I do not agree with all that he said in it, but the tone was uplifting, appropriate, somber, and hopeful. The right would do well to just tip their hat to the President when he makes speeches like this and then move on. Do not oppose speeches like this one. Oppose policies! President Obama’s flaw is that his rhetoric and his actions are not congruent.

Now, for education. A classical Christian education spends a lot of time helping students with their rhetoric. Our 10^th through 12^th grade students are called rhetoric students. Why do I focus on this so much? Barak Obama’s use of the bully pulpit at the memorial service in Arizona is a superb example of why rhetoric matters. Appropriate rhetoric (good words) presented well is a force that moves people and changes things. Good rhetoric is the closest mimic I know of to God’s power in creation. Words and ideas expressed well have an impact.

The right, if it wishes to have a representative in the Oval Office after the next election, must recognize the kind of candidate that can beat Obama. They need someone who will fight on the issues and match, or at least compete, with the sort of transcendent rhetorical flair displayed on occasion by President Obama. People—especially those outside of the choirs on the left and right—long for a President to have this sort of rhetorical power. The right should realize that they need someone who looks and acts more like a President than President Obama. This will be a tall order, and I do not know that person’s name.

Remember, however, rhetoric is important—very important—and this is why Veritas spends so much time on it.

Evil Empire Speech

Here are a few observations.

1. Reagan is such a great communicator (maybe that is why they called him the Great Communicator). He speaks with great conviction and candor. After the rhetorical slickness of the last two Democratic Presidents and the rhetorical inability of the last few Republican Presidents, Reagan’s rhetorical care is striking—and convicting. He knows how to lead. How to communicate ideas simply and to clarify his position. Brilliant!
2. There is a great difference between a Conservative like Reagan and the Libertarian Republicans of our day. He is building something and protecting a heritage. They always seem like they are tearing down. Both need to happen, but I do not think you can lead long without a positive vision of the future.
3. Reagan communicates fearlessly—especially concerning foreign affairs. We never talk like this anymore. We have stopped calling wickedness evil. Our blindness is evident.

Our country has traveled far in 30 years and not much of the distance has been in the right direction. We need God’s mercy to give us better leaders than we deserve.

Because I am a believer I know from many biblical passages (Romans 1 being perhaps the most pointed) that homosexuality is wrong. Our country and almost of all of the Christian West has affirmed this truth for thousands of years under the tutelage of the Scriptures. Today, we are going back on this long held cultural belief. As we do this, we are justifying our changes on the grounds of “justice” and “fairness” and “equality” implying, of course, that what we did in the past was unjust, unfair, and prejudiced.

 Before beginning this discussion let me make a few things clear. First . . . .

First, I do not hate gay people. I want them to be happy. This ruling and our countries continued (and growing) affirmation of homosexuality will not make them happy. The greatest loss, I believe, in this whole transaction might be that it gets harder and harder to tell the truth about life, fulfillment, and righteousness to homosexual people.

This legal veil that we are pulling over truths so obvious that they should be smacking us in the face is tragic. In the present discussion the matter of justice and fairness is at the forefront. Often, when we portray justice in our art we picture her as a lady wearing a blindfold. This blindfold represents the fact that true justice is not moved by the standing of people, their importance, their inducements, or their person. Justice applies true principles fairly and equitably. I am afraid that our culture could now righteously be portrayed as a blindfolded person or as a blind (think Oedipus) man or woman. We think that this blindness comes from a deep commitment to justice and fairness. I believe that its source is God’s judgment on us. He is blinding us as a nation and preparing us for great judgment.

Consider what our culture is affirming as true in this ruling in this little catechism (the answers in italics represent the UNTRUE things which our culture is implicitly affirming):

• Are the bodies of men and women made especially for sexual union?

No. All bodies can fit together in any way. Nothing is better or different than anything else.

• Is procreation something that is good and should be encouraged within the bonds of the marriage covenant?

No. It is neither good nor bad. It just happens. Relationships of two people who form a marriage covenant and produce children are equal to other agreements between two people whose bodies are not made to produce children.

• What is the purpose of our bodies?

The purpose of our bodies is only pleasure. If you are most pleased by having a relationship with someone of the same sex or with someone of the opposite sex, each choice is fine. There is no difference between these two things.

• Is the love of “sameness” (like the love of a man for another man) equally true and affirming as the love of difference (like the love of a man for a woman—or vice versa)?

The love of sameness and the love is difference is the same. There is no difference between any loves.

• Can any sort of sexual love be “wrong”?

No. All sexual loves are good or bad based on the pleasure that they cause. Nothing else matters….(er…um…Well, except for sexual loves that are between people under and over the age of 18 or between people and animals. These are misuses of sexuality—just like homosexuality used to be—well, at least for now.)

• Can we tell people that some love that they have is wrong or destructive?

We must never mention this. It is both rude and discriminatory. We must not tell them that.

These questions are deep cultural lies that we are telling each other now.

The marriage covenant is a picture of Christ and the Church. Christ’s love reaches out to what is different—not what is the same. Our bodies are made to fit together to fill and fulfill each other. This glory is perhaps the most incredible magic loose in the world (ok this is overstatement, but of Lewis’ four loves while I would rate eros third or fourth in importance it is certainly second (behind agape) in the wonder that its contemplation causes). When our sexual lives are bent toward the love of sameness something is wrong. Homosexuality ends up being (ironically) something that is very much against diversity. We as a culture cannot see this and now we are making it harder to legally say this.

The decision made last night will drum people out of the military. The next chaplain (I am betting that it will happen today at some military base) who opens his Bible and finds his text is Romans 1:24-27, which says:

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.  

What is he to do? Our Congress and our culture demands that he lie, demands that he skip this passage, demands that he shave the edges off the truth. His Lord demands that he preach God’s full and unadulterated truth to his people. I am praying today that these men will be faithful. When they are faithful, mark my word, they will be crucified publicly. Same old story.

I am a man with offices (Headmaster, elder, etc.,) but I have no authority to tell people what to do. Sadly, the church in America is so divided that it speaks a cacophony any time it opens it mouth. If I could speak for it today, I think I would ask it to do this: It should call on every Christian man and woman in the military to resign immediately. (It does no good for them to resign one or two at a time—or to be crucified one or two at a time.) It should call on them to do this not because it is offensive or wrong to serve in some role with homosexuals. On the contrary, we should love and show kindness to all people. The church should call on them to resign because our government is commanding them to stop telling the truth. Christians cannot do this. Maybe this mass exodus would teach our leaders to stop this march toward the reinforcement and vigorous affirmation of lies—lies that will destroy the lives of the very people that the teary-eyed proponent of “justice” believe that they are serving today.

The State of Education by Gov. Chris Christie

Listening to this, however, he is not against public education or against teachers—he is against bad teachers and against structures (like the teachers’ unions) that protect bad teachers. I think all of us—even good teachers in the public schools—should be against bad teachers who are coasting.

We, as a nation, really need to push more and more education into a market (rather than a tax) context. Let’s hope that American (private, Christian, and public school folks) get behind ideas like this.