You should get in touch with Corning, the glass manufacturer. You know, "gorilla glass"? The stuff used to make smartphone screens?
I have to think they'd be interested in anything as indestructibly transparent as the hypocrisy in this post.
You don't get to criticize anyone for not being "neutral," for "forming loyalties," for "selective. . . retellings of American history," for "equating submission to a political project with submission to Christ," of "spiritual abuse," of "weaponizing Christianity", etc., while bandying about terms like "far-right," "systemic injustice," and comparing people to Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.
Or, rather, you can do that, but not without other people pointing and laughing. Some of us have been around long enough to realize that people who try to bolster their positions by comparing their opponents to Nazis are not exactly coming from a position of ideological neutrality. They just claim that mantle when it's rhetorically convenient.
You aren't really upset about "binding the conscience" or "indoctrination" or anything like that. You're quite comfortable with everything you accuse Hillsdale, et al, of doing--as long as it's directed at ideological aims with which you agree. It's only when people with a different vision of the Good try to do what you're doing that you have a problem with it.
Oh, and WCF 20.2 does not mean what you think it means.
You can sneer about “transparency” all you want, but the fact is this: education is never neutral. Every curriculum disciples. The only real question is who it disciples us to serve—Christ or Caesar. Hillsdale’s 1776 curriculum disciples students to bow before America as if it were the Kingdom of God. That is not neutral. That is idolatry. Calling it “far right” is not a rhetorical trick. It is naming the beast for what it is.
And yes, I will compare this tactic to what Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco did, because they all weaponized education to baptize their politics. If Christians are too squeamish to admit when the same strategy is unfolding here, then we are proving their propaganda works. If that makes you uncomfortable, good. Truth should unsettle false peace.
As for WCF 20.2, I know exactly what it means. It says Christ alone is Lord of the conscience. Not Hillsdale. Not Douglas Wilson. Not any school or church trying to chain the gospel to a partisan project. When you say parents must accept a rigged version of history to be faithful Christians, you are trampling the very freedom the Confession defends. That is spiritual abuse. That is sin.
And no, I am not fine with indoctrination “as long as it’s the left doing it.” That’s your projection, not my position. My point is that indoctrination is always wrong because Christ alone deserves our loyalty. The gospel is not a tool for your political crusade. If you cannot tell the difference between catechizing for Christ and catechizing for Caesar, then you have already chosen your master.
I'm not about to be lectured about the dangers of "weaponiz[ing] education to baptize their politics" by someone who is so comfortable flinging about terms like "political crusade," "rigged version of history," "far right," etc. There's nothing about Hillsdale's curriculum that "disciples students to bow before America as if it were the Kingdom of God." If the version of history they teach is "rigged," so is the version you'd prefer.
If you're going to accuse them of not being "neutral," you need to at least pretend to be neutral yourself. But you aren't. Maybe you think you are, but you aren't.
Just listen to yourself. You're regurgitating progressive talking points, and not even bothering to disguse it. You're just taking the correctness of the Regime for granted. You're in no position whatsoever to accuse anyone of of having "already chosen your master." Particularly when you're so explicit about invoking a dichotomy between Christ and Caesar to do it. "You can't listen to Hillsdale or Douglas Wilson if you want to follow Christ! They're binding the conscience! Unlike me, who has every right to demand that everyone accept my version of history!"
Your accusations of "spiritual abuse" and "sin" don't land at all. If anything, they're a signal that maybe the people you're complaining about are doing something good. You wouldn't be crying about it otherwise.
You keep trying to hide behind “both sides,” but that’s smoke and mirrors. There’s a world of difference between critiquing nationalism and sacramentalizing it. Hillsdale isn’t just teaching “a version of history.” They are discipling kids to see America as God’s chosen instrument, to view political loyalty as covenant loyalty. That is golden-calf religion, plain and simple.
And spare me the line about neutrality. I never claimed neutrality. No Christian should. The point is not neutrality, it’s fidelity. The difference is that I’m calling Christians back to Christ, while Hillsdale and Wilson are binding consciences to Caesar. That’s not “just another perspective.” That’s idolatry. That’s blasphemy.
You accuse me of parroting “the Regime,” but here’s the irony: your entire defense boils down to parroting the talking points of Hillsdale, Wilson, and the New Right. You claim I’ve chosen my master... you’re right! I have. His name is Jesus. Meanwhile, you’re bending over backwards to defend men who confuse His Kingdom with the stars and stripes. That’s not faithfulness. That’s syncretism.
And here’s the part you really need to sit with: spiritual abuse is not a scare word. It’s what happens when people use Christ’s name to coerce obedience to their politics. When they equate disagreement with disobedience to God. When they tell believers their salvation depends on loyalty to a flag, a leader, or a party. That is wolves in shepherds’ clothing.
So no, your smug dismissal doesn’t land. It exposes exactly what I’ve been saying. If your standard is “anyone accused of abuse must be doing something right,” then you’ve already traded the gospel for raw power. That’s not Christianity. That’s Caesar worship in a thin Christian costume.
I haven't actually defended Hillsdale or Wilson. You think I'm doing that because I'm criticizing you. But I'm not. Read more carefully. What I'm saying is that regardless of the relative merits of either, taking your approach to criticize them has the opposite effect of what you intend, because you are doing precisely the things you accuse them of doing.
You're not "calling Christians back to Christ." You have just as particular a political project as Wilson or Hillsdale, and you are explicitly equating disagreement with said project with disobedience to God. You are explicitly using Christ's name to coerce obedience to your politics.
That doesn't necessarily make you incorrect, but it absolutely nukes your credibility from high orbit. If what they're doing is wrong for the reasons you describe, what you're doing is just as wrong, for precisely the same reasons. That being the case, there's no reason whatsoever to take any of your accusations seriously.
You never once link to or even quote from any material that you think is blasphemous idolatry. You're very convinced that the 1776 curriculum "represents a selective, conservative retelling of American history," but you don't even bother to give a single example from the material itself. This is mere conclusory handwaving, and it doesn't even merit a direct response.
If you think I'm smug, well, maybe look in a mirror once in a while.
Ryan, you can protest all you want that you’re “not defending Hillsdale or Wilson,” but if every word you write is aimed at shielding them from critique while attacking anyone who calls them out, then functionally you are defending them. That’s not me misreading you. That’s just what you’re doing.
And no, I am not “equating disagreement with my politics with disobedience to God.” I am naming a specific sin: baptizing nationalism as if it were the gospel. If you think resisting that is just “my political project,” then you have already collapsed Christianity into politics. That’s your move, not mine.
As for evidence, I’ll happily cite it: the Hillsdale 1776 Curriculum explicitly calls slavery a “necessary evil” in the founding, whitewashes the Civil Rights Movement by painting Martin Luther King Jr. as an almost lone good actor while vilifying more radical voices, and portrays the Founding Fathers as virtually unblemished heroes. That’s not education. That’s catechism into American civil religion. If you want citations, they’re public. Go read their curriculum yourself.
You accuse me of handwaving, but what you’re doing is classic: demand citations while ignoring the mountains of evidence already out there, all while pretending that your refusal to engage makes you the rational one. It doesn’t. It just makes your defense of them more obvious.
And the mirror comment? Cute. But look in your own. You’re lecturing me about credibility while writing long defenses of institutions you claim you’re not even defending. That’s not credibility. That’s cowardice.
You should get in touch with Corning, the glass manufacturer. You know, "gorilla glass"? The stuff used to make smartphone screens?
I have to think they'd be interested in anything as indestructibly transparent as the hypocrisy in this post.
You don't get to criticize anyone for not being "neutral," for "forming loyalties," for "selective. . . retellings of American history," for "equating submission to a political project with submission to Christ," of "spiritual abuse," of "weaponizing Christianity", etc., while bandying about terms like "far-right," "systemic injustice," and comparing people to Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco.
Or, rather, you can do that, but not without other people pointing and laughing. Some of us have been around long enough to realize that people who try to bolster their positions by comparing their opponents to Nazis are not exactly coming from a position of ideological neutrality. They just claim that mantle when it's rhetorically convenient.
You aren't really upset about "binding the conscience" or "indoctrination" or anything like that. You're quite comfortable with everything you accuse Hillsdale, et al, of doing--as long as it's directed at ideological aims with which you agree. It's only when people with a different vision of the Good try to do what you're doing that you have a problem with it.
Oh, and WCF 20.2 does not mean what you think it means.
You can sneer about “transparency” all you want, but the fact is this: education is never neutral. Every curriculum disciples. The only real question is who it disciples us to serve—Christ or Caesar. Hillsdale’s 1776 curriculum disciples students to bow before America as if it were the Kingdom of God. That is not neutral. That is idolatry. Calling it “far right” is not a rhetorical trick. It is naming the beast for what it is.
And yes, I will compare this tactic to what Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco did, because they all weaponized education to baptize their politics. If Christians are too squeamish to admit when the same strategy is unfolding here, then we are proving their propaganda works. If that makes you uncomfortable, good. Truth should unsettle false peace.
As for WCF 20.2, I know exactly what it means. It says Christ alone is Lord of the conscience. Not Hillsdale. Not Douglas Wilson. Not any school or church trying to chain the gospel to a partisan project. When you say parents must accept a rigged version of history to be faithful Christians, you are trampling the very freedom the Confession defends. That is spiritual abuse. That is sin.
And no, I am not fine with indoctrination “as long as it’s the left doing it.” That’s your projection, not my position. My point is that indoctrination is always wrong because Christ alone deserves our loyalty. The gospel is not a tool for your political crusade. If you cannot tell the difference between catechizing for Christ and catechizing for Caesar, then you have already chosen your master.
Thanks for reading!
I'm not about to be lectured about the dangers of "weaponiz[ing] education to baptize their politics" by someone who is so comfortable flinging about terms like "political crusade," "rigged version of history," "far right," etc. There's nothing about Hillsdale's curriculum that "disciples students to bow before America as if it were the Kingdom of God." If the version of history they teach is "rigged," so is the version you'd prefer.
If you're going to accuse them of not being "neutral," you need to at least pretend to be neutral yourself. But you aren't. Maybe you think you are, but you aren't.
Just listen to yourself. You're regurgitating progressive talking points, and not even bothering to disguse it. You're just taking the correctness of the Regime for granted. You're in no position whatsoever to accuse anyone of of having "already chosen your master." Particularly when you're so explicit about invoking a dichotomy between Christ and Caesar to do it. "You can't listen to Hillsdale or Douglas Wilson if you want to follow Christ! They're binding the conscience! Unlike me, who has every right to demand that everyone accept my version of history!"
Your accusations of "spiritual abuse" and "sin" don't land at all. If anything, they're a signal that maybe the people you're complaining about are doing something good. You wouldn't be crying about it otherwise.
You keep trying to hide behind “both sides,” but that’s smoke and mirrors. There’s a world of difference between critiquing nationalism and sacramentalizing it. Hillsdale isn’t just teaching “a version of history.” They are discipling kids to see America as God’s chosen instrument, to view political loyalty as covenant loyalty. That is golden-calf religion, plain and simple.
And spare me the line about neutrality. I never claimed neutrality. No Christian should. The point is not neutrality, it’s fidelity. The difference is that I’m calling Christians back to Christ, while Hillsdale and Wilson are binding consciences to Caesar. That’s not “just another perspective.” That’s idolatry. That’s blasphemy.
You accuse me of parroting “the Regime,” but here’s the irony: your entire defense boils down to parroting the talking points of Hillsdale, Wilson, and the New Right. You claim I’ve chosen my master... you’re right! I have. His name is Jesus. Meanwhile, you’re bending over backwards to defend men who confuse His Kingdom with the stars and stripes. That’s not faithfulness. That’s syncretism.
And here’s the part you really need to sit with: spiritual abuse is not a scare word. It’s what happens when people use Christ’s name to coerce obedience to their politics. When they equate disagreement with disobedience to God. When they tell believers their salvation depends on loyalty to a flag, a leader, or a party. That is wolves in shepherds’ clothing.
So no, your smug dismissal doesn’t land. It exposes exactly what I’ve been saying. If your standard is “anyone accused of abuse must be doing something right,” then you’ve already traded the gospel for raw power. That’s not Christianity. That’s Caesar worship in a thin Christian costume.
I haven't actually defended Hillsdale or Wilson. You think I'm doing that because I'm criticizing you. But I'm not. Read more carefully. What I'm saying is that regardless of the relative merits of either, taking your approach to criticize them has the opposite effect of what you intend, because you are doing precisely the things you accuse them of doing.
You're not "calling Christians back to Christ." You have just as particular a political project as Wilson or Hillsdale, and you are explicitly equating disagreement with said project with disobedience to God. You are explicitly using Christ's name to coerce obedience to your politics.
That doesn't necessarily make you incorrect, but it absolutely nukes your credibility from high orbit. If what they're doing is wrong for the reasons you describe, what you're doing is just as wrong, for precisely the same reasons. That being the case, there's no reason whatsoever to take any of your accusations seriously.
You never once link to or even quote from any material that you think is blasphemous idolatry. You're very convinced that the 1776 curriculum "represents a selective, conservative retelling of American history," but you don't even bother to give a single example from the material itself. This is mere conclusory handwaving, and it doesn't even merit a direct response.
If you think I'm smug, well, maybe look in a mirror once in a while.
Ryan, you can protest all you want that you’re “not defending Hillsdale or Wilson,” but if every word you write is aimed at shielding them from critique while attacking anyone who calls them out, then functionally you are defending them. That’s not me misreading you. That’s just what you’re doing.
And no, I am not “equating disagreement with my politics with disobedience to God.” I am naming a specific sin: baptizing nationalism as if it were the gospel. If you think resisting that is just “my political project,” then you have already collapsed Christianity into politics. That’s your move, not mine.
As for evidence, I’ll happily cite it: the Hillsdale 1776 Curriculum explicitly calls slavery a “necessary evil” in the founding, whitewashes the Civil Rights Movement by painting Martin Luther King Jr. as an almost lone good actor while vilifying more radical voices, and portrays the Founding Fathers as virtually unblemished heroes. That’s not education. That’s catechism into American civil religion. If you want citations, they’re public. Go read their curriculum yourself.
You accuse me of handwaving, but what you’re doing is classic: demand citations while ignoring the mountains of evidence already out there, all while pretending that your refusal to engage makes you the rational one. It doesn’t. It just makes your defense of them more obvious.
And the mirror comment? Cute. But look in your own. You’re lecturing me about credibility while writing long defenses of institutions you claim you’re not even defending. That’s not credibility. That’s cowardice.