SOME THOUGHTS BY
GARY RAY BRANSCOME
It is written,
"Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye
shall find rest for your souls." (Jeremiah 6:16
Near the beginning of the last
century (about 1914) a radical change took place in American education, as most
universities replaced the classical curriculum (which had been the basis of
education for centuries) with the so-called modern or scientific curriculum.
Since that change took place our universities have, to a great extent, changed
from respected halls of learning into ideological indoctrination centers; and
institutions that once stood for moral, spiritual, and academic excellence have
become hotbeds of spiritual and moral degeneracy. In fact, the morality (or
lack of it) now dominant in our universities is the morality that was formerly
associated with the most poorly educated members of society (tobacco row).
What needs to be understood is that
real education involves much more than just training people to do a high paying
job. It requires a disciplining of the mind that enables a man to lift his
thoughts above the ideologies and passions of the hour. To that end, the
classical curriculum required students to learn the classical languages, and by
so doing, helped them to better understand the English language, and thus to
think in clearly defined concepts. In fact, without that mastery of language
modern scholars are severely handicapped. For example, very few college
graduates now understand the difference between a republic and a democracy, yet
the words “republic” and “democracy” are entirely
different in their origin, and their meaning is as different as the governments
of
In addition to helping the student
think more clearly, the classical curriculum enabled the student to expand his
thinking beyond the thought forms popular in his own era. Through familiarity
with the great thinkers of the past, he was able to lift his mind above
ideology in order to see things from another perspective. As a result, those who
received a classical education were not easily swayed by every wind of
ideological doctrine. Instead, they were able to view popular trends and
opinions in their historical perspective, and to know where various ideas
originated, what their consequences were, and how they reappeared from time to
time with slight alterations. At the same time, the Word of God provided them
with a standard for evaluating those ideas.
For example: In Plato's account of
the death of Socrates we find that Socrates believed that our sense of right
and wrong had its origin in civil law, rather than in the law God inscribed
upon the heart (Romans 2:14). In other words, instead of seeing the moral law
as basic to the political law he saw the political law as basic to morality. And,
that view is known as “statism”. However,
while it is true that the political law is often needed to reinforce and
support the moral law, those who assume that our ideas of right and wrong come
from the political law, wind up thinking that they can change morality (and,
thus, human nature) by changing the political law.
The science of economics originated
with Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth
of Nations.” However, while many of the observations noted in that book
are still valid, one assumption that was later rejected is the idea that the
value of a product is determined by the amount of labor it takes to produce it.
Although that view may seem reasonable on the surface, is does not explain many
things, such as why iron and gold, which require a similar amount of labor to
produce, are so different in price. That is why economists now believe that
value is subjective, and is conditioned by supply and demand. Nevertheless,
some of the early economists (who had accepted Adam Smith’s theory)
wrongly assumed that rent, interest, and even profit was unjust because it
added no labor to the product yet demanded greater value.
The concept of evolution occurred
to naturalistic philosophers long before Charles Darwin was born. Darwin simply
took their philosophy and interpreted certain facts of nature to support it,
while offering “survival of the fittest” as an explanation of why
it took place. However, even though he led his readers to believe that the
theory was supported by observable data, it was not. For example, no one has
ever observed one kind of animal changing into another kind, and there is
genetic evidence that such a change is impossible. For that reason,
Communism brought together the mistaken
doctrines that I have just mentioned, and forged them into a secular religion. That religion denies the existence of God (and therefore of
morality), while assuming that profit is immoral, and that human nature can be
changed by the state (statism). On the basis
of those beliefs, that religion then proposed to alter human nature in a way
that would make everyone willing share the fruit of their labor with others. It
proposed to accomplish that goal by first establishing a dictatorship that
would change morality (and thus human nature) by requiring people to live
according to communist ideals. However, even though history has shown the world
what a dismal failure communism actually is, it had to cause untold suffering
and the death of millions of people, before the pseudo-scholars that dominate
our universities would admit that it does not work, and some still will not
admit it.
I know of one woman who views
herself as intellectual, pluralistic, and tolerant. Yet, she worked long and
hard to pass legislation aimed at forcing her feminist views on everyone else.
Moreover, upon learning that the congregation I attended held to the
traditional roles of men and women, she urged the women to rebel. Her
university training had obviously not brought her to the point where she could
appreciate or tolerate opinions that were not in accord with her own way of
thinking.
In his book
“The Closing of the American Mind”, Allen Bloom laments the almost tyrannical narrow
mindedness common on many university campuses. Sadly, government support for
modern education tends to institutionalize that narrow mindedness. Moreover,
because many highly influential (but narrow minded) graduates are working to
impose their feminist views on us by force, young women who do not want to be
forced to act like men or fight like men may have to leave the country if the
government ever tries to draft them and send them into combat. So far, true
patriots have held off feminist attempts to subvert freedom, however, the
feminists have no intention of giving women a choice when it comes to combat.
And, I see no real hope for change until this nation returns to God and to a
classical curriculum taught in accord with God's Word.
Throughout history there have been
certain people who view themselves as superior to others, and imagine that all
of the problems of society would disappear if everyone would simply think like
them. Moreover, time after time these people have wormed their way into
positions of power and influence, and then used their position to tyrannize others.
That is where a knowledge of the classics, including a
knowledge of history and of how these people have worked in the past, would be
useful in preventing tyranny, including the kind of tyranny now being promoted
by the universities.