Archives For C.S Lewis

Whether you’re for or against same-sex marriage, room needs to be made for answers to fundamental questions about the consequences and fabric of the issue.

Swiping these away with the empty words of “love is love” or “it’s about equality”; or the equally dismissive ‘’God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, does harm to the overall debate.

Dismissals like this rob the debate of substance, thought and meaning.

There are substantial questions which very few people are willing to answer.

Fewer still, appear to have the courage to stand by conclusions that have already been determined by either biology, or worked out through the centuries and, by reason and faith, accepted as tried and true.

Heterosexuals, by matter of their biology and biological function are already ahead of alternative unions which lack this biological function. That it is easier for heterosexuals to have children, for example, isn’t something they’ve chosen. Heterosexuals are born that way. It isn’t a deliberate affront, social construct, or conspiratorial plan to oppress homosexuals.

Yet the tone of SSM advocates places this biological fact and its “superior” function, as an oppressive tool used against a minority group of individuals who, by the inconclusive, and therefore current understanding of science, choose, are groomed, or nurtured into, a sub-culture that is, by all appearances and dynamics opposed to that union between a man and a woman. It is opposed because same-sex unions cannot be the biological equal of the union between a man and a woman.

This raises serious questions like: at what point does the push for SSM, which seeks, outside just provisions already made in Australian law for Homosexuals and homosexual unions, become more about contempt, resentment and heterophobia, than actual equality?

For example, one store in Melbourne took to Facebook to effectively ban anyone who voted “no” from their store:

By precedent, does this “refusal to serve” now mean that Christian bakers, Pastors and other service providers, in Australia, can ALSO REFUSE to bake cakes for Same-sex weddings, should marriage be redefined? Based on examples from countries that have legalised SSM, the answer is no. They would be sued, and as evidenced below, would have to ‘run the gauntlet’ set up by social media lynch mobs, as they are smeared, and destroyed for their dissent.

With so many questions, sitting without answers, all I hear is the mindless and empty retort, “love is love” or “it’s about equality”, which is, as I’ve pointed out here, and here, not an argument for Same-Sex marriage.

In addition, how is SSM not about the imposition of an unhealthy gender segregation that says we should stick to our own kind; since, by definition of homosexuality, there is no reconciliation between the genders of male and female; no loving union between male and female?

There has been no discussion about the role of misogyny or misandry, either. Which is ironic, since misogyny has been, rightly, taken up by Left-wing politicians as a great evil in need of purging.  Does their stand on misogyny make them hypocrites, when they deny the presence of misogyny or misandry when “yes” to SSM supporters vilify “no” voters?

The apparent double standard from the Left was witnessed by Australians yesterday, when, Benjamin Law, sometimes ABC guest, writer and gay activist, threatened Conservative politicians with “hate sex” – {rape} – on Twitter.

This double standard from the Left is reinforced, by the fact that the Left remained predominantly silent about Benjamin’s ”violent sexual threats”, yet only a few weeks ago, were taking the stick to Christians, claiming that  “Christians were more violent than Muslims”, by exaggerating a study done by W. Bradford Wilcox, in the United States, on domestic violence among American Evangelicals.

Why can’t we get answers to questions, like, how or does SSM, for the sake of self-aggrandizement, seek to undermine, through ridicule, the natural biological union shared between heterosexuals?

At what point can we say “no” to strategies of evasion that circumvent this, such as the false claims that biological sex and all that pertains to it, is fluid?

“P” cannot equal “q” without the violence of perpetual revolution and proposed idea of utopian reconstruction:

In the English speaking world, the letter “p” can never be the letter ”q”. A true ”q” can never be a true “p”, it, despite any claim that would seek to displace ”q” from its true value, would always be a false claim. This is because the identity of “q” is found in it’s relation to the truth value of “p”.
Anything outside this means we are no longer talking about ”p” or ”q”, but a distortion of relationship; a falsification that impacts, not just the value of ”q”, but also ”p”.
To do so would be to commit ”q” to a false truth-value; a construct that in the end, tyrannically imposes falsehood over the correct functions of both ‘p” and ”q”. This reassignment of values, doesn’t just surrender truth to an untruth, it creates confusion in communication by way of relational dysfunction.

At what point can we ask how this push for SSM undermines true equality – does it seek to rip the heart out of the beauty of a man loving a woman and vice versa?

Likewise, does SSM undermine friendships between men and men/women and women, by confusing close friendships with same-sex attraction or homosexual activity?  When can we ask, whether or not SSM will destroy the very idea of friendship?

Where it becomes necessary:

‘in our time to rebut the theory that every firm and serious friendship is really homosexual. The dangerous word really is here important. To say that every friendship is consciously and explicitly homosexual would be too obviously false…[unfortunately, though] The fact that no positive evidence of homosexuality can be discovered in the behaviour of two friends does not disconcert the wiseacres.’ (C.S. Lewis, 1960) [ii]

Biology is not a social construct. Demanding that the world eradicate, in the name of so-called equality, the recognition of the biological union between a man and woman, that commitment and marriage seals, is an attempt at reconstruction. It is classical Marxism, involving the creation of a social construct built up and imposed on society, by the very people who claim to fight against one.

How does this debate involve Marxism? At the core of Marxism, Leninism and the socialist agenda is perpetual war. Will SSM become a perpetual war because the goal of biological equality, should that be the aim of the LGBTQ movement in regards to SSM, can never be reached?

The main goal of Marxism is perpetual war/revolution against those who stand opposed to what they say you shouldn’t be opposed to. You are, will, do and say, what they tell you to, or else. :

‘The building of socialism implies the destruction of capitalism…To forget this is to forget socialism. Socialism, Lenin noted, “is not ready-made system that will be mankind’s benefactor. Socialism is the class struggle of the present day proletariat as it advances from one objective to another objective tomorrow for the sake of its basic objective, to which it is coming nearer every day.’ (Fedoseyev, 1980) [ii]

Based on the imposition of this “revolution” and it’s new cultural law/s, and the actions of those on the “yes” side of the SSM debate, just being a heterosexual could one day, if it isn’t in some circles already, be considered a crime against the “revolution”.

As such, our young and the unborn will be the victims of this “revolution” in the name of an (unattainable and unrealistic) equality.[iii]

Where, then, will the insatiable desire be countered? At what point will humanity, hand in hand with reason and faith, draw a line in the sand and so no more?

Will the “no” of future generations be far more determined and perhaps violent? Generations who were handed over to confusion, loss and fear, their pain ignored, all in the name of mindless, feel-good, slogans such as “love is love”?

This raises some final questions: Is SSM really about a demand for a biological equality, where there, biologically cannot be equality?

Such as the biological fact that two women, or two men, cannot procreate together; Where they cannot become one flesh. At least not at the moment, and certainly not in the future, without the aid of petri dishes, test tubes, chemicals, and or mechanical apparatuses; a sedated polis, and twisted science.

By the tone and language of most SSM advocates, the very existence of any natural biological union between a man and a woman, [I would add within the boundaries of cohabitation and commitment], and any who celebrate that union, can be viewed as being oppressive towards the LGBTQ.

Suggesting that, by way of their very existence, heterosexuals are offensive to homosexuals. If true, does this mean that every male and female in their “yes” to each other, whether within committed cohabitation (defacto) or sealed by marriage (dejure) stands as a “no” to same-sex marriage?

What eventually will humanity, in particular heterosexuals, be demanded, subjected or commanded to consent to?

At what end, will this “revolution” find its own answers and closure? Is it, by all current social trajectories, possible that the imposition of new cultural laws, under the Rainbow Flag, ends tragically with: “The existence of “breeders” should only serve one purpose”?


References:

[i] Coalition MPs lash out at ‘vile’ tweet by same-sex marriage advocate Sourced 12th September 2017, from News.com

[ii] Lewis, C.S. 1960 The Four Loves HarperCollins Publishers (pp.72 & 73)

[iii] Fedoseyev, P.N, 1980. ‘What is Democratic Socialism?’  Progress Publishers, U.S.S.R Sourced 9th September 2017 from archive.org

 [iii] Ardent, H. 1936 On Revolution, as Hannah Arendt argued, in her discussion on the French Reign of Terror, ‘revolution must devour its own children, [and in the case of France, “perpetuate a sequence of revolutions”]’  (p.57)

I purchase the Wednesday edition of The Australian, not only for the mid-week news coverage, but also for the commentary. Given the hostile nature of the debate and the level of excellence I admire Janet Albrechtsen for, issuing this response is either really smart, or really dumb.

Last week I laid out some of my reasons for voting “no” to SSM in a blog post called, “Nein: Why I will be voting “no” to SSM?

That remains relevant, of course, only if a high court challenge to the planned Government survey (plebiscite) on SSM, doesn’t overrule giving Australians the right to voice their opinion, on this issue, in a democratic way.

What hasn’t been blocked, although major attempts from SSM advocates have tried to do so, is the debate.

Today, in The Australian (p.14), Janet Albrechtsen, a libertarian conservative, laid out her reasoning for having changed her position on same-sex marriage. Janet argues that protecting/preserving freedom – liberty – is the reason conservatives should vote “yes” to SSM.

The problem with this position is that for freedom to exist, it must be governed. If not, why have road rules and enforce them? Why have flags on a beach to protect swimmers from unknown dangers? Why have workplace safety laws?

If I understand correctly where Janet is coming from, it is a secular humanist view of humanity. This view sees humanity as inherently good; therefore it has no problem with advocating absolute personal freedom, but that position has a distinct lack of accountability and individual responsibility. It turns a blind eye to the blood soaked ground of the 20th Century and blurs the crimes committed in the name of liberty, during the Reign of Terror in the late 18th Century. This position rejects the Judeo-Christian pillars which form the foundations for the very liberty, Janet says she wishes to protect. To argue that by voting for SSM, a person is preserving freedom, is myopic. It is short-sighted.

Freedom exists in limitation. Edmund Burke wrote, “liberty must be limited in order to be possessed”. Karl Barth, who stood up against Hitler, carefully stated: ‘Where there is no genuine authority, so there is no genuine freedom. There is only action and reaction between a despotic arrogance and an equally despotic despair. (C.D.1938, p.646)’.

Likewise, C.S Lewis, states in the Abolition of Man that, ‘the heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.’ To vote for SSM based on an idea of absolute personal freedom, no matter how sedated that might be, is as senseless and dangerous, as the words “love is love”.

I’m not yet a card-carrying conservative, but I do consider myself an ally in some of their current causes. Janet’s newfound position on SSM and her arguments for why conservatives should vote “yes” to SSM, isn’t a convincing one.

To her credit, the abuse of SSM advocates towards their opponents is acknowledged, but that Janet didn’t address the broader concerns, such as the long-term effects and the consequences of SSM on society as a whole, is the equivalent of dismissing the elephant in the room.

After holding out against the gathering storm, Janet, now seems, sadly, to be saying, “I’ve had enough of all the whining and tantrums. Just give the children what they want, or we’ll never hear the end of it.”


References:

Albrecthsen, J. 2017 Same-sex marriage: A libertarian conservative case for voting ‘yes’  Sourced from The Australian, 6th September 2017

Barth, K. 1938 Church Dogmatics 1.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Scripture as the Word of God Hendrickson Publishers, p.646

Burke, E. Letter To The Sheriffs of Bristol, (Sourced 6th September 2017 from https://archive.org/stream/sheriffsbristol00burkrich#page/42/mode/2up/search/liberty

Lewis, C.S, 1944. The Abolition of Man, HarperCollins Publishers

blog-post-25th-nov-2016-rlWhen it comes to composing music there’s hits, and then there’s misses.

The lesson I’m learning from my own hits and misses is that nothing created is ever completely wasted.

Outside the perfectionist, the only mistakes that really matter in music are the ones that stand out. Those particular kinds of mistakes can break a song and an artist. It’s the ones that break with the rhythm or the melody; the ones that are heard by everyone, not just the person with a trained ear to the ground.

The potential for mistakes like these keep us fine-tuning our craft and tools for the job. They keep is in step with the beat, ensuring that one hundred percent of our attention is given to the composition at hand.

Through humility and a gracious attitude, mistakes can teach us. Through grace they can be made part of a disciplined life. They become fuel; the impetus to get better. Through grace mistakes can even become part of the song, or the beginning of new one.

In God, with God, through God, we are shown how this works. Shown that once humanity drops its facade of isolation, rejects it’s hubris-filled rejecting and grasps the grace that grasps us, nothing created is ever completely wasted. As Joseph said to his brothers,

“You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” (Gen. 50:20, ESV).

Likewise, Paul tells us, “God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to his purpose for them.” (Rom.8:28).

Not even the scrappy three-minute melody that had way too much drums in the mix, or the muddy sound of an instrumental overdone with bass or a guitar solo.

Nothing created is ever completely wasted.

Every new melody, every new beat, every new sound is born from the lessons learnt by simply having the courage to put a hand in The Hand that enables us for the task.

“Courage, dear heart,” (C.S. Lewis) for ‘our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. Working together with Him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.’(2 Cor. 5:21-6:1, ESV).

Nothing created is ever completely wasted.

.

Reagan quote

 

In other words: with the increase of power, so comes a potential decrease in intelligence.

Think of the game total war. With the increase of lands and territory comes the difficulty of being able to govern it all. There’s the inevitable unrest as one area complains about higher taxation than the newly acquired lands. Attempts to balance these out are futile. The end result is that I either send in a highly paid army (that I can barely afford to re-position from the borders of my total war campaign) and implement total control or I side with the rebels. In which case I lose power and choose total, civil war.

To be true, the game mechanic is structured to keep things interesting. It bends against even the most kind among the known world’s rulers. All of my glorious intentions to keep my glorious nation (I mean glorious empire) together fell on the sword of the quest for ever more glorious power.

Still, I can’t escape the implication: with the increase of power, so comes the potential decrease in intelligence. Intelligence does not increase with an increase of power or privilege. In retrospect, my glorious leadership of this burgeoning in-game empire was, as I saw it, benevolent. Why on earth would my subjects want to oust me? I improved their material wealth, even though I may have drained other areas, refused a crusade, jihad or two and squashed a few ”insignificant” uprisings, in order to make more and more glorious my conquests. All done for my glorious peoples.

The point is this: even the most utopian of glorious leaderships will fall. Complex politics reflects humanities complexes. It’s what C.S Lewis outlined when talking about the tyranny of self; something he pinpoints sharply in is, 1948, essay called ‘The Trouble With “X.”

‘I said that when we see how all our plans shipwreck on the characters of the people we have to deal with, we are ‘in one way’ seeing what it must be like for God. But only one way. There are two respects in which God’s view must be very different from ours. God sees how all people in your home or your job are in various degrees awkward or difficult; but when He looks into that home or factory or office He sees one more person of the same kind – the one you never do see. I mean, of course, yourself.That is the next great step in wisdom – to realise that you also are just that sort of person […] Unfortunately, we enjoy thinking about other people’s faults: and in the proper sense of the word ‘morbid’, that is the most morbid pleasure in the world.’ [i]

Lewis’ advice on how to combat this is,

‘Abstain all thinking about other people’s faults, unless your duties as a teacher or parent make it necessary to think about them […] Not even God with all His power (for He made it a rule for Himself not to alter people’s character by force. Although, He can and will alter them – but only if the people will let Him) can make “X” really happy as long as “X” remains envious, self-centered, and spiteful.'[ii]

Jesus enters this discussion with the words,

‘If anyone would come after me, let him [or her] deny [themselves], take up [their] cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?’ (Luke 9:23, ESV)

Total War may just be a simulation. Nothing but pixels and a few hours of harmless interaction with history. However, the message of its experience extends out towards knowledge of truths that have been heard and acknowledged here in the comments of Reagan, the admonishing words of Lewis and instruction from God Himself.


Source:

[i] Lewis, C.S 1948 The Trouble With “X”…, 2000, Essay Collection: Faith, Christianity and the Church, Harper Collins (pp.357-360)

[ii] ibid.

IMG_5137231944, C.S Lewis wrote:

‘The demand for equality has two sources; The noble: the desire for fair play. The mean-spirited: the hatred of superiority […] the kind of ‘democratic’ education which is already looming ahead is bad because it endeavours to propitiate evil passions, to appease envy. There are two reasons for not attempting this.
One: you will not succeed. Envy is insatiable. The more you concede to it the more it will demand. No attitude of humility which you can possibly adopt will propitiate a man [or woman] with an inferiority complex. Two: you are trying to introduce equality where equality is fatal.
Equality [outside mathematics] is a purely social conception. It applies to man [and woman] as a political and economic animal. It has no place in the world of the mind. Beauty is not democratic. Virtue is not democratic. Truth is not democratic […]
Political democracy is doomed if it tries to extend its demand for equality into these higher spheres. Ethical, intellectual or aesthetic democracy is death.’[i]

Lewis’ position on extreme egalitarianism is not unique. The late American political philosopher, Jean Bethke Elshtain, also brilliantly hummed her own critical tune in relation to this issue.

Writing under the heading, ‘Multiculturalism and Democratic Education’ Elshtain stated:

‘Teacherly malfeasance occurs in instances of unreflective, dogmatic politicisation. Each evades the dilemmas of democratic equality rather than offering us points of critical reflection on that dilemma. This sort of education fails in its particular and important task of preparing us for a world of ambiguity and variety. It equips us only for resentment or malicious naïveté [ii]

Lewis and Bethke come at this argument from different angles. Both add to the argument for the rebalancing of the “education revolutions” of the past decade. The area where this applies most is the coercion to meet a particular type of egalitarian compliance (e.g.: new multiculturalism; new tolerance). Slyly disguised as part of an educational standard this ‘purely social conception’ (Lewis) poses as an academic essential. Acceptance and legitimacy is only validated by an alignment with its ideology. In turn, a form of financial blackmail follows. Funding and accreditation comes by complying, or rather conforming with a particular political position.

As a political aim it succeeds in coercing conformity. However, it paralyses the academy because the academic focus is reduced to how best the education fits within a particular type of extreme egalitarian social construct. This narrowing forces everyone into the same box.  From here academic indifference and complacency replaces the energy of academic rigour. Genuine progress is held back by total compliance to an out of control quest for the implementation of “progressive” ideas of tolerance. Democratic debate and its ability to preserve the beauty of unity in diversity, dies.

Differences are unreasonably considered irreconcilable. People are then isolated. Strangers are turned into enemies and friends into strangers.  Both institutionally and clinically, in the name of new multiculturalism, each are set to stick to their own kind, where never the two should meet: Anglos with Anglos; men with men; women with women; African-Americans with African-Americans; indigenous Australians with indigenous Australians; in politics the left with the left, right with the right.  This is, in a roundabout way, the rejection of differences.

For Elshtain it flags a new segregation:

‘As a form of ideological teaching, multicultural absolutism isolates us in our own skins and equates culture with racial or ethnic identity. [In America], the new multiculturalism promotes commensurability: If I am white and you are black, we cannot, in principle, speak to or understand each other. You just won’t “get it […]. Some critics wonder how long it will take to move from separate approaches for African-American children in the name of Afro-centricity, for example, to a quest for separate schools.[iii]

Extreme egalitarianism masquerades as authentic equality. The point and purpose of equality is driven into a quagmire of sameness. Fairness is abandoned and the quest for equality ends up creating new forms of inequality. For example: anyone with a differing position or different ability is condemned, labelled and if history is allowed to repeat itself, shipped off to who knows where, under the guise of “re-education” or “resettlement.”

Nowhere is Lewis’ observation of a hatred of superiority more evident than in Australian society. Socially, our children are taught very early on to enforce extreme egalitarianism. This usually takes the form of an acceptable kind of bullying whereby the victim is labelled a “try hard.” The competency and talent of the person is reduced to meaninglessness by the majority who refuse to deal with their own sense of inferiority. Rather than celebrate the competency and talent of the person, the majority maliciously turn a complement into a put down. The benefit of difference is squashed into the box of sameness.

Most non-Australian cultures would be confused by this. For them the term “try hard” is about positive reinforcement. Those without the talent and competency cheer on those who try hard to hone their skills. The communal benefit is seen, valued and acknowledged.

Not so in Australian society. Outside athletic ability, the rule remains the same: “don’t try to, or even attempt to rise above the rest.”

Although changes are taking place, this tall poppy syndrome still rates as being a huge problem. It presents itself as the biggest obstacle to writers, artists, musicians, intellectuals, right down to budding home-buyers and homeschoolers.

The quagmire of sameness keeps people down. It mutes creativity and stifles industry.

Those who want to retain authentic democratic equality will not find resisting extreme egalitarianism easy. They face a similar hostile reaction to that of Albert Camus, who ‘was virtually excommunicated from the French Left by Sartre and his comrades because he expressed a strong disapproval of the passion for unity that saw any opposition as treason.’[iv]

For both Lewis and Elshtain, extreme egalitarianism is a ‘phony equality.[v]’  It perpetuates that which it says it opposes. This phony equality levels what it subjectively sees as uneven ground, while at the same time it sows inequality, with the tools of oppression: institutional racism, economic discrimination, legalised misogyny and misandry.

Democratic education is reduced to a list of new tolerance compliance orders. Academic standards are lowered whilst teachers are forced to obsess over appeasing the feelings and fickle sentiments of society. In not being willing to fairly recognise and responsibly discuss differences, for fear of offense or ridicule, democracy wanes. Political democracy, as C.S Lewis pointed out, is ‘doomed if it tries to expand its demand for equality into beauty, virtue and truth.’

In not being able to celebrate unity in diversity or find and maintain common ground, democracy fails. The cohesive elements of a vibrant Western society are then consigned to breakdown into the terror of fascism, the shared poverty of communism or the destructive anarchist vacuum of tribalisation.


Sources:

[i] Lewis, C. 1944, Democratic Education In Walmsley, L. (Ed.) 2000 C.S Lewis Essay Collection Harper Collins p.190

[ii] Elshtain, J.B. 1995 Democracy on Trial Basic Books, Perseus Books Group p.83

[iii] Ibid, p.79

[iv] Ibid, p.120

[v] Ibid, p.74

Evaluating ExpectationsWith time restraints and the high amount of information available, it’s unreasonable to expect a teacher or a parent to teach a child everything.

Attempting to learn all there is to know about a subject is unrealistic. Any pressure to do so only squeezes the joy out of the learning process.

For example, no one that I’m aware of expects 5th or 6th graders to write a one hundred thousand word, doctoral thesis, on Newton’s Laws of physics. What’s expected is that children might understand the three basic principles, and be able to name them.

Learning takes time and we need time to learn.  This is why most pre-tertiary and some undergraduate programs only teach an overview of a particular topic, sometimes, in repetition. The overview takes the form of an in-depth introduction to the content of the subject.

Once taught, the student is free to explore the subject further. Taking the opportunity to advance then becomes the responsibility of the student, not the teacher – “wax on, wax off.”

The same applies to homeschoolers. The overall goal is infused with the intention to create, inspire, spark interest in and give kids a love of learning.

For Homeschoolers both the world and the home are seen as being educational platforms that provide ample opportunities to empower the learning process. Effectively taking personal responsibility for their child’s early education, homeschooling parents actively involve themselves in the learning process.  They direct and engage with their child. Matching their child’s education with natural abilities in consultation, not servitude, to contemporary standards.

This overall goal begins and ends with what Christian theologians call right relationship, exampled by God, intended to be lived out in both world and home environments. This theological vantage point allows for certain benefits to be more clearly seen.

For instance:

Relationship development: Generally speaking, mum and dad work together. Both are equally responsible, contributing on multifaceted levels. Within a responsible and loving framework, there are few limits on what can be determined as an educational experience.

Community development: Helping a child understand that they are part of a community and seeking to establish what that means for them. Transparency and accountability fall into the sphere of communal participation in the educational process, often including friends, family, professionals, and/or travel.

Embracing technology and media: When it comes to technology and the media, there are parental boundaries in place that teachers don’t inherently own. A child’s learning is directed towards understanding technology, how to adapt to its many changes and use it responsibly. In addition, children are taught the concept of gratitude for access to the technological advancements and privileges on offer in Western Society.

Life affirming experiences: Applied knowledge is the aim of education. A deliberative knowing only empowers embedded knowledge when what we know is applied. Think theology and ministry or perhaps theory and practice. One challenges the other. Theology empowers ministry; ministry informs theology and both move towards becoming an integrated whole.

Humility: No homeschooler or teacher is perfect. Through our constructive response to limitations and setbacks, students learn the importance and being teachable.

Society and politicians will either reasonably support homeschool, or disempower it by coercing parents into a subtle abdication of their parental responsibilities. Whereby, a teacher, fraternity or ideology, ordained by the state, is placed, wrongfully, right at the heart of where a parent or trusted guardian should be. Something for which a blueprint and tragic history already exists[i].

Our task as homeschoolers is not to force our kids to learn, or indoctrinate them with state aligned agendas which change as easily as approval ratings.

Our task is to help our homeschoolers learn, directing them towards freedom and responsibility; towards the Creator, who in Jesus Christ freely chooses to direct us towards Himself[ii].

Following God’s example,  we choose to stand with our kids in order to show them that they can reach beyond themselves; beyond what they and others think they cannot do, inspiring them to see the possibilities of what they can do.

Whether education is based on homeschooling or on parent-teacher consultations, a realistic, achievable and holistic education, hits the ground running when parents are responsibly involved.

The objective for homeschoolers is universal:  loving parents doing their best to set their kids up for success.

‘The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.’[iii]
C.S Lewis, The Abolition of Man, [pp. 13-14]

Sources:

[i] Germany between 1933 & 1945

[ii] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II/I

[iii] Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man HarperCollins. Kindle Ed.

C.S Lewis Doodle  is one of the best – if not the only – YouTube channel for visualising the writings of C.S Lewis. Each video rests more on the rare art of artistic exposition, than on an entertaining artistic expression of Lewis’ thought, and they work.

Powered by the voice of narrator, Ralph Cosham, the artistry and attention to detail which goes into producing these short videos are of an indisputable, very high quality. They are useful as a visual-aid, helping to unpack the depth of meaning, intent and context of selected material from Lewis’ many works.

I had recommended these just over a year ago and I am more than happy to do so again.

Kalman Kingsley, is the chief illustrator and has added some new material since then. So, if you’ve got a few minutes spare, they’re well worth your time.

‘The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind so long as we are subject to one law.
But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation.’
– (C.S Lewis, ‘The Poison of Subjectivism’ in ‘Christian Reflections‘)