In How it Should be Done, Rod Dreher (the Crunchy Con) shares his family’s path to education, from homeschooling, to disappointing private schools to the Providence Christian School. It isn’t just the academic rigor that attracted the Drehers, but its prohibition against…dare I call it socialization?
A small but telling example: Providence doesn’t allow students to discuss TV, movies or popular culture on campus. When I tell parents this, half respond as if I’d disclosed that my child studied at Heinrich Himmler Elementary, and the other half can’t believe our good fortune. Providence doesn’t require abstinence from these things, but if you’re training your child to love the good, the true and the beautiful instead of trash culture, this school is a powerful ally. Dallas Morning News
The main point I got from the editorial, however, has less to do with education and more to do with how conservative Christians should be handling the cultural decline we so often lament.
Social conservatives have placed far too much hope (and too many financial resources) in politics as an agent of cultural renewal, and far too little in the slow, steady work of building up institutions like Providence. As the agrarian essayist Wendell Berry has written, “our country is not being destroyed by bad politics; it is being destroyed by a bad way of life.” Ibid.
It is a point I have made repeatedly. The government is not the solution to our problems. When we as conservatives seek governmental solutions to the issues in our culture, we are no different than the “social engineers” we seek to counteract. The only solution is to change the culture, one soul at a time. That begins with our own hearts, our children’s and our neighbors’. It does not begin in Washington. It is our “bad way of life” which has brought about the bad politics we see at every level of government.
But some cannot get past God, even if He is in a private school. Or even in the home.
This [inculcating children with ancient myths] leads rather casually to being able to justify depriving fellow citizens of basic rights in the name of saving marriage and, not very much further down the road of faith over reason, to a willingness to sacrifice themselves in order to kill non-believers, thus assuring themselves a place in heaven. Letters on Points
Actually, I would say that Dreher’s piece does the opposite. But we have to be able to read past stereotypes of Christians and read what he actually wrote. That part about placing too much hope in the government for cultural renewal is important. This blind adherence to scientism is a greater threat. It is seeking to deny humans the basic, fundamental right of worship and religious expression because such things do not fit into their view of the world.
“I am against religion,” wrote Richard Dawkins, “because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” The damage of the Abrahamic religions is more perverse than that, however, for they deny not only our rightful place within, but also our essential responsibility to all of humankind. Ibid.
Actually, that is not at all true. As Christians, we are taught “Love thy neighbor.” And even more:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Matthew 544
What does scientism teach us about morality? Nothing. It is silent on the issue, because no morality can be empirically proven. It does not belong in the realm of natural science and thus has no place in the philosophy. Interestingly, the whole philosophy has already been tried.
The Russian Pisarev in the 1860’s wanted a disappearance of culture and the emergence of a “non-cultural” scientific culture, whose ideal was neither invented nor abstracted but found and left where it alone could be represented–in actual and living phenomena. In the beginning of the next century constructivism in Russia in its early utopian phase was also inspired by scientism. Scientism, Romanticism, and Social Realist Images of Science
The philosophy upheld by Mr. Shuey leads rather casually to being able to justify depriving fellow citizens of basic rights in the name of science and, not very much further down the road of scientism over reason, to a willingness to silence non-believers. Perhaps heaven isn’t the goal, but the furthering of a sort of cold rationality is.
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
Great post, Dana. Welcome back. I know that is a little late, but I was relying on your feed, so as far as I am concerned, you just got back this morning!
“The government is not the solution to our problems. When we as conservatives seek governmental solutions to the issues in our culture, we are no different than the “social engineers” we seek to counteract.“
I totally agree! I have been saying this forever.
As for Dawkins…”I am against religion,” wrote Richard Dawkins, “because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
I think this is one of the best things I have experienced since becoming a Christian. We need to be satisfied with not understanding the world - to an extent.
I was always one of those people (and still am at times) who would drive myself crazy needing to know and understand everything. That is about control.
There are so many things in life we cannot understand and if we cannot resign ourselves to that simple truth, we will never be at peace.
Allowing us to let go is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. (IMO)
You can’t have a bunch of contented people out there, Charity, or it will start WWIII. Or IV depending on your view of current events.
The thing that really gets me is that the more extreme adherents to this basic philosophy seek to do exactly what they accuse the religious of seeking to do. They completely ignore the actual teaching of the religion, use a few extremists who don’t even follow their own religion as examples and justify silencing everyone based on that? We don’t have to talk about “slippery slopes” and “short steps” to see where they are going. And it isn’t a perversion of their belief that brings them there. It is the logical conclusion of the worldview.
We may be taught to love our neighbors as Christians, but that does not always mean that we do…some of the most hateful amd mean things are said and done and demonstrated by those exact same Christians in the name of Christianity against other human beings.
As for science and religion (the word altogether bothers me, I prefer faith or spirituality, myself) can co-exist and does. I am currently reading a piece by a world renouned scientist and devout believer Francis S. Collins, author of The Language of God and head of the Human Genome Project. Fascinating work and interesting perspective.
I hate seeing the two worlds polarized or one lauded above the other. I do think they can co-exist, assist each other.
As for looking at governement to fix cultural ills. I like what was said about fixing ourselves first–one soul at a time. But I do think, that sometimes, government may need to jump start things or give a push to something that they see beginning to take pace; sometimes waiting for one soul at a time might just take too long ie. the end of slavery, the women’s vote, child labor laws…we couldn’t wait for each individual/soul to be moved/come around and give up their slaves, embrace the idea of a woman having a voice of understanding and hiring and providing working conditions that were fair to children and workers rather than the owners of factories.
Yes, individuals brought those movements to light, but government intervention was needed to make them binding by all. I am all for small government, but I am for a government as I do not believe man will kind and considerate and fair in all of his dealing and we need a united and guiding force that holds us and our ideals to a standard that we all (majority) agree upon…and to me, that is what our democracy is about–individualism with the common good in mind.
No, not all Christians are models of Christian love. But that is a problem with human sin, not the religion. Horrific things have been done in the name of science. Religion is not the root of all evil, human sin is. But there are a growing number of people who think the world would be a better place if religion did not exist.
On your examples of government intervention. These are all instances in which the government intervened to do what it was designed to do: protect our liberties. If someone is stalking me, I am not going to wait until his heart is changed. I will report it to police.
What was specifically inferred in the original letter was about the “Defense of Marriage” act and the marriage amendment. This does not actually preserve any rights that I can see. I personally disagree with homosexual marriage, but it isn’t an issue of basic human rights, so I shouldn’t be going to the government to see it abolished.
Instead, I should take my stand and discuss it with people. Our cultural decline (the fact that television and movies are becoming increasingly violent and pornographic) cannot be solved by government intervention. I can pass all the laws I want, but it will not fix the root of the problem.
That is what I was talking about. As a Christian, I am very concerned about what other people think and believe. It has eternal consequences. But I cannot legislate it, and that wouldn’t even make sense if I could.