This post reminds me of listening to Greg Bahnsen History of Philosophy lectures. I think they were from RTS in 1982. I first listened to the tapes in 2008. He combined classroom and public pedagogy with a very high degree of skill.
It's an interesting set of issues, and an important challenge for classical Christian educators relative to the public square. Being outside of the intellectually somewhat insular world of classical Christian education for the last 10 years,I have a fairly different take on it than you, though.
For one thing, I would argue that a properly formed classical Christian civics does not see the public as an antithetical enemy, but understands that the Christian himself is always already part of the messy, mixed up public that he is trying to reach with a transforming message.
Secondly, a properly formed classical Christian civics does not assume that "classical Christian education" is a sort of societas perfecta, an entirely self-contained, self-regulating, self-sufficient external entity authoritatively addressing the public, which is again being conceived of as fundamentally an enemy.
Thirdly, a properly formed classical Christian civics sees the public square as an "already-not-yet" mission field from which, has Saint Augustine wisely instructs, all of the converts to the City of God originate, and which, therefore, must be patiently borne with until we find the truth being confessed by them.
All of this, in turn, means that the role of the classical Christian teacher in teaching the public square must be conceived of quite differently than the all too typical nearly Manichaean culture-waring mentality that infects the majority of the classical Christian education world.
Classical Christian teachers who want a meaningfully impact the public square should spend far less time railing against a conveniently over magnified monster they call "secularism" and far more time investing in the youngsters in their own areas - both the Christian ones who don't go to the "elite"-LARPing classical Christian schools and the unbelieving ones who go to the public schools! - in terms of teaching them to read better, write better, and remember their basic math facts.
The long and the short of it is that the propaganda classical Christian teachers should be putting out into the public square should be on the order of "praeparatio evangelii," as they used to say in the patristic age, not on the order of "damnatio memoriae."
Tim, thanks for jumping in here. I alway appreciate your insights. It was interesting reading your comment, though, because I had to go back and reread what I wrote to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Interestingly, I agree in principle with nearly everything you said in your response—save for the scarlet thread of what seems to be an assumption that the OP implies antagonism toward the culture. I wonder if there might be some loaded assumptions, linguistic baggage as it were, charging your reading... (Moscow mood vibes perhaps?)
Or, perhaps I'm wrong in my reading of your comment, but I don't believe I suggested the "the public [is] an antithetical enemy" or "conceived of as fundamentally an enemy." Rather, I believe I said, "It is a noisy world and some have been really good at transcending the noise and getting their message heard (i.e. propaganda). And, "there is no shortage of bad propaganda: sophistry or what some (C. S. Lewis reference) might call bad philosophy."
I would also agree that "the role of the classical Christian teacher in teaching the public square must be conceived of quite differently than the all too typical nearly Manichaean culture-waring mentality" As I also noted, "I am not advocating here for any kind of Nietzschean will to power. I’m really talking about contending for the Truth of things, for the faith once delivered to the saints, as it were—but strategically" (i.e., paraphrasing Jude 3).
Where I think we disagree is largely in two areas. First, I would not agree that "a Manichaean culture-waring mentality... infects the *majority* of the classical Christian education world." Some elements are infected by it, certainly. But I've been around long enough to see infections like that get into every kind of "culture" in varying degrees.
Second, we clearly disagree in our view of secularism. It is indeed a monster, most hideous in its deception—leading people to believe it is merely neutral, when it is in fact an ideological usurper. I can see why many choose to affirm secularism's benignity, however. They conflate the *idea* the word is supposed carry (merely non-religious; neutral) with its actual manifest behavior, the deathworks religion of Philip Rieff's "Third World Anti-culture."
That said, where I think we clearly agree is that the public square as an "already-not-yet" mission field and that CCE propaganda should be on the order of "praeparatio evangelii," not on the order of "damnatio memoriae." I believe strongly in rational public discourse, not cancelation in any of its manifest forms. I would just like to see more classical Christian educators actually discoursing, propagating "how the truth of things stands" out in the public square, not simply limiting their engagement to the artificial, controlled microcosm of the public square, the classroom.
At the end of the day, however, all men must be patiently borne with (our neighbors genuinely loved) until we find the truth being confessed by them. Cheers, my friend!
I don't know that I was imputing the views I talked about to you or your post. But I read a wide variety of CCE materials even though I don't teach in those schools anymore, and I don't think I made up, or even really exaggerated, any of the things I said. It's kind of interesting to me though, how every time I say something like this in any CCE forum, somebody says I just have some sort of angst against Moscow that's clearly distorting my perspective. I'll be the first to say that New St Andrews changed my life for the better, and that I'll never be able to pay my debts back to the people there. I can't divorce myself from my Moscow experiences, nor can I ignore the fact that 90% of CCE people I meet who have any kind of connection to Moscow think and act exactly like I said in my original post when it comes to these issues. There's actually something real there, Scott. I's not just a figment of my imagination.
As for "secularism," the reason I said it's an exaggerated monster in CCE circles has to do with a fairly lengthy expository examination I did of the concept about five ago. I concluded that the term is a code-word that is integral to very sloppy thinking in almost every usage I see of it. The term isn't grounded in its actual Latin root "saeculum," or its associated concepts, and it tends not to be set in the full scope of historical Christian discourse about civics and politics, but only in a sort of retrograde 1980s angst about the sexual revolution, the Communists, and the quite mythical notion that there is this monolithic, pure thing called "the Judaeo-Christian heritage" that only a tiny few really spiritual people have managed to recover. In more recent writings, that is by people who didn't go through the '60s, '70s, and '80s, it's set in a retrograde angst about the 90s and the great "conservative" need to "pwn the Libs."
"Secularism" as a CCE code word is kind of like what Francis Schaefer used to talk about under the term "connotation words" - words that are far more emotive in content than rational, and which actually distort meaningful dialogue about what it is they think they're picking out. There are plenty of horrific anti-God things in our culture. It's just profoundly unhelpful to lump them all under one great big emotive banner called "secularism" - the invocation of which gets everybody in a certain frame of mind to nod sagely like a bunch of "conservatives" in a Facebook echo chamber going "Yep,, absolutely right, brother!" Huh. I thought we read Augustine and Aquinas in these schools, not Tucker Carlson and J.D. Vance.
I certainly agree there's a great deal of anti-God thought and practice in our world, but that's really no different than any era. Ours is not somehow special in elevating that anti-God matrix, and so we're not somehow special and elevating something called "classical Christian education" against that special mode of evil. nor are Christians, even ones embedded in the CCE context, quite as immune to some of the more deeper rooted elements of so-called "secularism" as they tend to think they are.
Let me say one more time I don't think I'm imputing any of that to you personally or to your post. I don't imagine I know you well enough to impute those things to you personally.
But you asked for thoughts about what kind of propaganda classical Christian educators should be putting into the public square. I've taught in three different varieties of classical education - one explicitly Christian (in fact, two ACCS schools), an apostatized charter school, and the other a charter chool in which 80% of the faculty are serious Christians.
In other words, the field of discourse is much bigger than almost anybody in explicit CCE circles is willing to talk about. Josh Gibbs at Circe is about the only one I know of who's actually doing that, in fact.
I agree with the sentiment. Classical Christian teachers should be competent and willing to publicly propagate the heritage they aim to pass on to students in the classroom. Practically, what ways do you see this being accomplished?
One of the things that I wish I had as a teacher is a group of colleagues to work with together on public projects--like an Inklings group--because I do not find myself capable of producing consistent work that is compelling to a wider audience. Guilds like The Rabbit Room make individual artists more capable of serving the needs and demands of the public. Would guilds for Classical Christian teachers be effective propaganda? If so, do such guilds for Classical Christian teachers already exist? If not, how could we form them?
Guilds or even consortiums are a significant way, for sure. That is something we’re building with Kepler and The Consortium of Classical Educators; and, we are seeing some humble success in those arenas. Personally, I think platforms like Substack and other media are also relevant tools. Where these latter seems to fail most often is when the user doesn’t have a philosophy and purpose for use, inevitably falling into the trap of doomscrolling on one hand and performance posts on the other (i.e., serving algorithms and focusing on getting clicks, likes, and more followers instead of authentic, meaningful engagement).
To use a contemporary metaphor, students are the "products" of the business of education. To evaluate the "goodness" and effectiveness of our propaganda message, Christian teachers ought to evaluate whether or not, besides acquiring mere civic "productivity," their students are becoming increasingly conformed to the vision given us in Christ's teaching, especially the Beatitudes, which infuse the moral "laws" of the Ten Commandments with a spiritual understanding beyond the mere letter. Only then will the God's Law begin to serve man(kind) instead of man(kind) serving the Law.
This post reminds me of listening to Greg Bahnsen History of Philosophy lectures. I think they were from RTS in 1982. I first listened to the tapes in 2008. He combined classroom and public pedagogy with a very high degree of skill.
It's an interesting set of issues, and an important challenge for classical Christian educators relative to the public square. Being outside of the intellectually somewhat insular world of classical Christian education for the last 10 years,I have a fairly different take on it than you, though.
For one thing, I would argue that a properly formed classical Christian civics does not see the public as an antithetical enemy, but understands that the Christian himself is always already part of the messy, mixed up public that he is trying to reach with a transforming message.
Secondly, a properly formed classical Christian civics does not assume that "classical Christian education" is a sort of societas perfecta, an entirely self-contained, self-regulating, self-sufficient external entity authoritatively addressing the public, which is again being conceived of as fundamentally an enemy.
Thirdly, a properly formed classical Christian civics sees the public square as an "already-not-yet" mission field from which, has Saint Augustine wisely instructs, all of the converts to the City of God originate, and which, therefore, must be patiently borne with until we find the truth being confessed by them.
All of this, in turn, means that the role of the classical Christian teacher in teaching the public square must be conceived of quite differently than the all too typical nearly Manichaean culture-waring mentality that infects the majority of the classical Christian education world.
Classical Christian teachers who want a meaningfully impact the public square should spend far less time railing against a conveniently over magnified monster they call "secularism" and far more time investing in the youngsters in their own areas - both the Christian ones who don't go to the "elite"-LARPing classical Christian schools and the unbelieving ones who go to the public schools! - in terms of teaching them to read better, write better, and remember their basic math facts.
The long and the short of it is that the propaganda classical Christian teachers should be putting out into the public square should be on the order of "praeparatio evangelii," as they used to say in the patristic age, not on the order of "damnatio memoriae."
Tim, thanks for jumping in here. I alway appreciate your insights. It was interesting reading your comment, though, because I had to go back and reread what I wrote to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Interestingly, I agree in principle with nearly everything you said in your response—save for the scarlet thread of what seems to be an assumption that the OP implies antagonism toward the culture. I wonder if there might be some loaded assumptions, linguistic baggage as it were, charging your reading... (Moscow mood vibes perhaps?)
Or, perhaps I'm wrong in my reading of your comment, but I don't believe I suggested the "the public [is] an antithetical enemy" or "conceived of as fundamentally an enemy." Rather, I believe I said, "It is a noisy world and some have been really good at transcending the noise and getting their message heard (i.e. propaganda). And, "there is no shortage of bad propaganda: sophistry or what some (C. S. Lewis reference) might call bad philosophy."
I would also agree that "the role of the classical Christian teacher in teaching the public square must be conceived of quite differently than the all too typical nearly Manichaean culture-waring mentality" As I also noted, "I am not advocating here for any kind of Nietzschean will to power. I’m really talking about contending for the Truth of things, for the faith once delivered to the saints, as it were—but strategically" (i.e., paraphrasing Jude 3).
Where I think we disagree is largely in two areas. First, I would not agree that "a Manichaean culture-waring mentality... infects the *majority* of the classical Christian education world." Some elements are infected by it, certainly. But I've been around long enough to see infections like that get into every kind of "culture" in varying degrees.
Second, we clearly disagree in our view of secularism. It is indeed a monster, most hideous in its deception—leading people to believe it is merely neutral, when it is in fact an ideological usurper. I can see why many choose to affirm secularism's benignity, however. They conflate the *idea* the word is supposed carry (merely non-religious; neutral) with its actual manifest behavior, the deathworks religion of Philip Rieff's "Third World Anti-culture."
That said, where I think we clearly agree is that the public square as an "already-not-yet" mission field and that CCE propaganda should be on the order of "praeparatio evangelii," not on the order of "damnatio memoriae." I believe strongly in rational public discourse, not cancelation in any of its manifest forms. I would just like to see more classical Christian educators actually discoursing, propagating "how the truth of things stands" out in the public square, not simply limiting their engagement to the artificial, controlled microcosm of the public square, the classroom.
At the end of the day, however, all men must be patiently borne with (our neighbors genuinely loved) until we find the truth being confessed by them. Cheers, my friend!
I don't know that I was imputing the views I talked about to you or your post. But I read a wide variety of CCE materials even though I don't teach in those schools anymore, and I don't think I made up, or even really exaggerated, any of the things I said. It's kind of interesting to me though, how every time I say something like this in any CCE forum, somebody says I just have some sort of angst against Moscow that's clearly distorting my perspective. I'll be the first to say that New St Andrews changed my life for the better, and that I'll never be able to pay my debts back to the people there. I can't divorce myself from my Moscow experiences, nor can I ignore the fact that 90% of CCE people I meet who have any kind of connection to Moscow think and act exactly like I said in my original post when it comes to these issues. There's actually something real there, Scott. I's not just a figment of my imagination.
As for "secularism," the reason I said it's an exaggerated monster in CCE circles has to do with a fairly lengthy expository examination I did of the concept about five ago. I concluded that the term is a code-word that is integral to very sloppy thinking in almost every usage I see of it. The term isn't grounded in its actual Latin root "saeculum," or its associated concepts, and it tends not to be set in the full scope of historical Christian discourse about civics and politics, but only in a sort of retrograde 1980s angst about the sexual revolution, the Communists, and the quite mythical notion that there is this monolithic, pure thing called "the Judaeo-Christian heritage" that only a tiny few really spiritual people have managed to recover. In more recent writings, that is by people who didn't go through the '60s, '70s, and '80s, it's set in a retrograde angst about the 90s and the great "conservative" need to "pwn the Libs."
"Secularism" as a CCE code word is kind of like what Francis Schaefer used to talk about under the term "connotation words" - words that are far more emotive in content than rational, and which actually distort meaningful dialogue about what it is they think they're picking out. There are plenty of horrific anti-God things in our culture. It's just profoundly unhelpful to lump them all under one great big emotive banner called "secularism" - the invocation of which gets everybody in a certain frame of mind to nod sagely like a bunch of "conservatives" in a Facebook echo chamber going "Yep,, absolutely right, brother!" Huh. I thought we read Augustine and Aquinas in these schools, not Tucker Carlson and J.D. Vance.
I certainly agree there's a great deal of anti-God thought and practice in our world, but that's really no different than any era. Ours is not somehow special in elevating that anti-God matrix, and so we're not somehow special and elevating something called "classical Christian education" against that special mode of evil. nor are Christians, even ones embedded in the CCE context, quite as immune to some of the more deeper rooted elements of so-called "secularism" as they tend to think they are.
Let me say one more time I don't think I'm imputing any of that to you personally or to your post. I don't imagine I know you well enough to impute those things to you personally.
But you asked for thoughts about what kind of propaganda classical Christian educators should be putting into the public square. I've taught in three different varieties of classical education - one explicitly Christian (in fact, two ACCS schools), an apostatized charter school, and the other a charter chool in which 80% of the faculty are serious Christians.
In other words, the field of discourse is much bigger than almost anybody in explicit CCE circles is willing to talk about. Josh Gibbs at Circe is about the only one I know of who's actually doing that, in fact.
I agree with the sentiment. Classical Christian teachers should be competent and willing to publicly propagate the heritage they aim to pass on to students in the classroom. Practically, what ways do you see this being accomplished?
One of the things that I wish I had as a teacher is a group of colleagues to work with together on public projects--like an Inklings group--because I do not find myself capable of producing consistent work that is compelling to a wider audience. Guilds like The Rabbit Room make individual artists more capable of serving the needs and demands of the public. Would guilds for Classical Christian teachers be effective propaganda? If so, do such guilds for Classical Christian teachers already exist? If not, how could we form them?
Guilds or even consortiums are a significant way, for sure. That is something we’re building with Kepler and The Consortium of Classical Educators; and, we are seeing some humble success in those arenas. Personally, I think platforms like Substack and other media are also relevant tools. Where these latter seems to fail most often is when the user doesn’t have a philosophy and purpose for use, inevitably falling into the trap of doomscrolling on one hand and performance posts on the other (i.e., serving algorithms and focusing on getting clicks, likes, and more followers instead of authentic, meaningful engagement).
Really enjoyed this.
To use a contemporary metaphor, students are the "products" of the business of education. To evaluate the "goodness" and effectiveness of our propaganda message, Christian teachers ought to evaluate whether or not, besides acquiring mere civic "productivity," their students are becoming increasingly conformed to the vision given us in Christ's teaching, especially the Beatitudes, which infuse the moral "laws" of the Ten Commandments with a spiritual understanding beyond the mere letter. Only then will the God's Law begin to serve man(kind) instead of man(kind) serving the Law.