R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 29

The empire strikes back

The empire strikes back: An attack on a prominent classical Christian school shows the movement has the liberal establishment running scared

A major hit piece in the liberal media might be what most schools fear, but for one prominent private school in Kentucky, the hit reveals the extent to which the establishment fears the rising power of classical Christian schools. In other words, we now have their attention.

I see the rise of the classical Christian education movement as one of the most encouraging developments of our times. Seen correctly, those three words belong together. They cohere in a distinctive model of education that is, in truth, a recovery of one that would have been considered the gold standard among educators in previous generations. It is driven by an educational philosophy deeply rooted in classical Greece and Rome, channeled through the Middle Ages, and was updated and explicitly adopted by leading educators on both sides of the Atlantic generations ago. I am a vocal proponent of classical Christian education, and I am proud that my grandchildren are in a classical and Christian school.

This movement has caught the attention of the secular educational establishment and its media allies, precisely because it represents a rejection of the establishment’s secularism, liberal theories of education, progressivist ideologies, and educational failures. And it’s growing. It’s growing fast.

The light is dawning on Christian parents that the public schools represent both educational failure (driven by progressivist ideology) and leftist moral indoctrination. Many parents are learning this only after hearing their children spout the latest affirmation required by the LGBTQ movement. In California, the public schools do not even have to inform parents that their offspring identify as transgender at school—even adopting a new name and pronouns. What happens in California spreads fast, driven by teachers unions (just look at their activism on these issues) and the dominant educational establishment.

But what makes the classical Christian educational model so powerful is its comprehensive continuity with the educational models that produced literate and thinking citizens while also sharpening and strengthening Western civilization. And that, dear reader, is what is driving defenders of the secular status quo absolutely crazy.

The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., recently ran a series of reports on Highlands Latin School, which has become one of the most prominent schools in the classical Christian movement. HLS defines itself as classical, Christian, and traditional. These days, all three are contested words that can cause cardiac arrest among self-styled progressives. In the massive series of articles billed as “The Cost of Empire,” the newspaper claims that its two reporters have “pieced together the formula for Highlands Latin School’s staggering growth and the way it approaches teaching.”

The reporters, Josh Wood and Krista Johnson, describe the rise of HLS as “a classical Christian education empire.” They traced the origins of the school and chronicled its development. In one telling passage, the reporters stated, “Classical education emphasizes ancient historical texts and ancient languages, such as Latin. At Highlands, it is merged with Christian ideology.” Christianity is now reduced to an “ideology,” and learning what generations of American children learned at school is presented as strange. That sentence tells you the extent to which modern public education is detached even from its own history.

The rise of classical schools is presented in this series as a clear and present danger to society, even as these schools represent a recovery of lost learning and produce stellar graduates. Predictably, the reporters found some disgruntled graduates and former students for comment. But the series of articles, taken at face value, reveal the fact that the secular establishment is not really concerned about the classical Christian school movement’s failures but its successes. The reporters reveal themselves when they cite public school advocates who decry even classical charter schools as “right-wing.”

At this point, we need to see what the progressives really hate about the movement. It is the words “classical” and “Christian” that set them off. But this series also hits directly at what it sees as another danger represented by the classical Christian school movement—its defense of Western civilization. The tagline of Memoria Press, a curriculum publisher that is part of the HLS family, is “Saving Western civilization one student at a time.” The reporters say the motto “is seen as a dog whistle by some former students and experts.”

That tells you far more about the state and stance of the current secular education establishment than about Highlands Latin School—that the secular establishment now sees Western civilization as a threat and any affirmation of that tradition as thinly disguised racism and a “Trojan horse” for “white nationalism.” Here is the lesson: Anyone who defends the lasting truths and values of Western civilization is now a “white nationalist”? Do those who make such claims know that much of the classical tradition was based in North Africa?

Here is a great lesson for us all: If you take on the educational establishment, you will be hated. If you seek to teach children so that they will learn to appreciate Western civilization, you will be called a white nationalist, even if you are not white. If you produce stellar graduates who go on to illustrious universities, you will be denounced as too strict and too demanding.

Parents are not fools, and increasing numbers of them are looking to schools like HLS and the larger classical Christian education movement (including intrepid homeschoolers and consortium models) for their children. Without apology, they are choosing an education for their children that is defined as both classical and Christian—and many like what they see.

Therein lies the threat to the establishment. But add to all this the fact that Kentucky voters will face the question of ending the state’s public school monopoly in November with what is known as Amendment 2. That, let’s be clear, is what has them so scared, and all this reminds you why voting “yes” on that amendment is so important.

My guess is that this series of hit pieces in the Courier-Journal will backfire and turn out to draw even more families toward the school and others like it. No school is perfect, but if one can drive the liberal establishment crazy and lead it to respond with this much fury, it’s doing something big, something important, and something worth your attention. Count on it.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on October 3, 2024.

The post The empire strikes back appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

View more on R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 03, 2024 02:00

What is Christian Nationalism? | Ask Anything Tour

Dr. Mohler answers a question about defining Christian Nationalism during the Ask Anything Tour at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia on March 24, 2024.

You can watch the whole episode at the link: https://albertmohler.com/2024/03/24/a...

The post What is Christian Nationalism? | Ask Anything Tour appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

View more on R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 01, 2024 13:29

Friday, November 1, 2024

The post Friday, November 1, 2024 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

View more on R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 01, 2024 02:00

Happy birthday, Mr. President

Former President Jimmy Carter celebrates his 100th birthday today and the nation marks a milestone. Though a few retired presidents have reached a 90th birthday, Carter is the first former chief executive and commander in chief to reach the magical century mark. The entire nation should pause to wish our 39th president a very happy birthday.

Those who know Jimmy Carter well speak of his nearly indomitable will. Medical announcements now stretching more than three years warned of his imminent death. He went into hospice care well over a year ago, and few then thought he would reach his 100th birthday. He proved them wrong. His wife, Rosalynn, stood so long at his side, and she did so until her death last year on Nov. 19 at age 96. President Carter attended her memorial service in a wheelchair, looking quite frail. Few then thought he could make it to 100. Today he proved them wrong.

The same pattern was evident when Carter first told close associates and family members he was planning to run for president. His mother was said to have asked, “Of what?” Carter was then the governor of Georgia, and no politician from the Deep South had reached the White House in decades. Furthermore, there was no shortage of credible candidates for the 1976 Democratic Party nomination. Sens. Frank Church of Idaho, Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington, Birch Bayh of Indiana, and Walter Mondale of Minnesota all saw themselves as presidential contenders. So did other Democratic figures like 1972 vice presidential nominee Sargent Shriver and Rep. Morris Udall of Arizona. Eventually, no less than 17 Democrats joined the battle for the nomination. Carter won it, and he won it decisively. How?

Once again, we come back to his determination, but that strength of will was matched by two other factors. One was a team of campaign strategists and managers who mastered the party’s newly revised nomination rules and used them to their advantage. The other factor was provided by history: President Richard M. Nixon had resigned the office in disgrace in the wake of the Watergate scandal in August 1974. We now know that by that time, Carter had already decided on a run for the White House. Nixon’s fall provided Carter with a way to win. He would run as the consummate political outsider—the very opposite of the creatures from the Washington swamp.

He did run, and he ran hard. He worked voters like a machine. He knocked on doors in states like Iowa, stood in the snow, and simply said, “Hi, I’m Jimmy Carter and I’m running for president.” His run seemed implausible until it seemed inevitable. At the end of the day, Carter won the nomination and then went on to win the White House, defeating Nixon’s successor, President Gerald R. Ford, in a narrowly decided contest.

Carter meant to send signals of a humbler and more populist presidency. The newly inaugurated president, joined by his wife, got out of the presidential limousine and walked a bit in the inaugural parade. With the nation facing an energy crisis, he famously advised Americans to set the thermostat lower in winter and wear a sweater indoors. To the consternation of White House staff, he set an example by wearing a sweater and lowering the thermostat in the Executive Mansion. He attempted to set an example as a common man in an uncommon office, much like Harry Truman decades before.

All this laid bare a simple but unbending truth. Americans may say they want a common man as their president, but they lie. In truth, they want their president to provide effective leadership on the national stage and around the globe. They want someone who runs humbly and leads audaciously. They want to feel secure in the world and at home.

That’s where Carter fell short. He is not remembered as a colossal figure on the world scene. He did achieve the historic Camp David Accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt—a peace that has held through the decades to the present, we should add. But in terms of the great challenges posed by Soviet communism and the rise of militant Islam, Carter fell short. The humiliation of the hostage crisis in Iran certainly added momentum to his landslide loss in the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan.

In terms of domestic policy, Carter was something of an oddity. He wanted a big federal government but did not want a government takeover of the entire economy. In the end, his domestic policies ran into entirely predictable opposition. He displeased both conservatives and liberals. As his reelection bid approached, he found himself facing a very hurtful challenge from within his own party when Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts ran against him, seeking a return to what he saw as the Democratic Party’s rightful leadership. Kennedy fell short, but it was Carter who lost the White House to Reagan, and by historic proportions. Today, most Americans now alive were born after President Carter left office.

As recounted by close associates, Carter seethed against Reagan and the voters, and he left office a bitter man. But that’s when his story took a different turn. Carter decided to reinvent the post-presidency. Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter founded the Carter Center, based in Atlanta, and used it as a platform for good works around the world. An example of the good done by the Carter Center is the eradication of some worm-based diseases in the developing world. His successors in office from both parties fumed when he delved into foreign policy statements, but Carter pressed on.

Now, he has reached what no other U.S. president has reached: his 100th birthday. President Carter was very critical of me, for reasons I will explain at another time. But in my engagement with him, I found that, as much as we disagreed on huge issues, I could not help feeling affection for him. So, in that light, I call on all Americans of goodwill to offer sincere congratulations to former President Jimmy Carter on his historic 100th birthday.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on October 1, 2024.

The post Happy birthday, Mr. President appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

View more on R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 01, 2024 02:00