Education Without Truth is Cultural Suicide (Chapter 3)

The Nature of Truth

Truth is a funny thing. It is an objective thing; it exists regardless of who adheres to it or acknowledges it. To put it plainly, truth IS. Truth is not invented, nor is it voted into existence. Truth does not change with time or opinion. Truth is that which is grounded in reality. Humanity does not invent truth; we can only discover it. If we do not recognize, or if we reject the reality we live in, it does not change the existence of truth.

That being said, truth is also not obvious to us in practice. Truth is something that must be taught, handed down from generation to generation, or it will not merely be forgotten, but eventually dismissed as untruth. Truth is always there, but without proper teaching and instruction, we fail to see it clearly. Truth, if rejected, becomes subjective in the human mind (though it remains ontologically objective), and is then determined by the individual or by society.

Truth exists, but because of man’s depravity, our fallenness in mind and body, we often fail to see what is made obvious. As stated in the last chapter, our condition is such that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It is not that truth is not manifest and plain, but that we actively reject it. Because of this, those who have and recognize truth must reveal it and teach it to others.

The Enlightenment thinkers assumed the concept of reason, but did so based upon Christian tenets of revelation that they themselves increasingly rejected. They believed that reason alone could preserve truth, while rejecting the premise of the Lawgiver, the One who owns reason itself. What gave this concept any appearance of validation was the length of time it took for the accumulated Christian capital of these societies to be spent. However, as the saying goes, “The chickens have come home to roost.” Truth was first forgotten, then distorted, and now is outright denied. This is what happens when a society ceases to value truth.

Truth is preserved through transmission, through the teaching of precept upon precept. This must be done intentionally. Early in Western society, this was clearly understood. Parents taught their children. Teachers reinforced, and in some cases expanded upon, these truths at the behest of the parents. In all of this, the institutions of both family and education were preserved upon a foundation of objective truth. When parents handed over their responsibility of teaching truth to professionals, and the professionals embraced the myth of neutrality, truth was first forgotten, then reinterpreted, and now has been outright rejected.

This progression is both obvious and predictable, as noted as early as 1879 when R. L. Dabney wrote in his book On Secular Education that public education without religion would not be neutral, but would inevitably become hostile to Christianity. Is this not precisely what we have seen and experienced? Truth survives because ontologically it cannot be destroyed, but covenantally it will be forgotten and eventually hated.

When that final step is taken, truth becomes subjective in the human mind and heart. Subjective truth is incoherent, but it is the inevitable final step in the rejection of objective truth. Remember Pontius Pilate, saying to Jesus, “What is truth?” As the Book of Ecclesiastes reminds us, “there is nothing new under the sun.” The very question Pilate wrestled with in ancient Jerusalem is the same question our confused society continues to ask today.

When truth is redefined, it opens the door to questioning everything, morality especially. If we all have our own “truths,” then no amount of reason or scientific inquiry can stand against such a category. Institutions must shift accordingly or be rejected as false. Once institutions give way to such ideology, society as a whole begins to live according to false truth. Falsehood becomes the foundation of society, which then leads directly to its inevitable collapse. It can do no other.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness; because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.” (Romans 1:18-19)

Generational Forgetting

The Bible is not silent on this matter. In the Book of Judges, we see how quickly this kind of societal collapse can occur. After the death of Moses, Joshua was given leadership over the people of Israel. He led them into the land God had promised, and under his leadership the land was conquered. Yet the tribes did not fully obey the LORD, failing to drive out the inhabitants as commanded. They possessed the land, and the text tells us that the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua.

But what happened when Joshua died, and when that generation—those who had seen the works the LORD had done for Israel—passed away?

Judges 2:11 tells us:

“And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals. And they abandoned the LORD…”

What was the cause of this abandonment? Verse 10 gives us the answer plainly:

“And there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that he had done for Israel.”

One generation. That is all it took for the nation to fall into evil and turn to other gods.

There is an old expression that says, “The first generation believes, the second generation assumes, the third generation forgets.” While the logic is clear, Scripture shows us that the decay does not begin in the third generation, but in the second. The so-called “assumption” stage carries far more weight than it first appears. The second generation is not taught properly, because the first assumes that what was once clearly taught has become obvious or common sense. If something seems obvious, why teach it?

The first generation says, “Thou shalt not steal, thus says the LORD.”
The second generation hears, “Thou shalt not steal, because I said so.”

The second generation inherits the rules and cultural norms, but they are no longer grounded in anything lasting. They appear to be arbitrary, the inventions of the previous generation. And so the question arises: who are they to impose such rules? Because the second generation failed to inherit the foundations of morality given by God, they cast off those rules and begin to do what is right in their own eyes.

If we were to summarize this process of gradual neglect, it would look like this:

First, truth and cultural norms are assumed.
Second, because of that assumption, intentional teaching is neglected.
Third, when teaching is neglected, knowledge becomes shallow.
Fourth, when knowledge is shallow, memory fades.
Fifth, when memory fades, truth is no longer recognized or given its proper weight.
Sixth, once truth is no longer recognized, it is replaced.

Israel did not wake up one day and decide to reject the LORD. Rather, they neglected their duty to pass on the knowledge of Him, and the next generation simply did not know who He was. The truth was known, but it was not taught. Because it was not taught, it was forgotten. And that which is forgotten cannot be obeyed.

This is not a pattern unique to Israel. Judges 2 is not an anomaly, but a covenantal pattern. A generation that does not intentionally teach truth will raise a generation that does not know truth. For truth to remain known, it must be repeatedly taught. Not merely repeated for form’s sake, but grounded in its proper foundation, or it will drift. Memory must be reinforced. Faith must be cultivated. Nothing happens by accident.

Because of this drift, we find ourselves with a generation that enjoys comfort, but lacks purpose. And perhaps the most troubling aspect of this pattern is not simply rebellion, but rebellion rooted in ignorance. This is the most dangerous kind, because ignorance cannot recognize its own problem.

The issue is not whether people will learn, but what they will learn. Education is essential for the survival of any culture, but the wrong kind of education leads to destruction. Education is unavoidable, and it is never neutral. If truth is not taught intentionally, it will be replaced institutionally.

What happened in ancient Israel is not distant history, but the natural outcome of neglected truth.

“There arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that He had done for Israel.”
— Judges 2:10

Institutional Replacement

Somewhere along the way, we lost our understanding of what it means to be “educated.” Ours is a society that places a high value on education. Here in Alberta, we are often told that we have one of the most educated populations per capita in Canada. This is a good thing, right? It depends.

No society exists without education. But hear me clearly: I am not speaking merely of formal schooling. Education is more than the “three R’s” — reading, writing, and arithmetic. Education, first and foremost, is the formation of mind, morals, and worldview. What good is an education if it is built upon falsehoods? The answer is obvious.

Every child is taught something. This is unavoidable. Societies teach what they value. Consider ancient Sparta, a highly militaristic city-state. From a young age, boys were trained to fight, to endure hardship, and to become fearless warriors. Weak or sickly children were abandoned. Full citizenship required military excellence. What kind of education do you think was given in such a place? Spartans did not prize luxury, wealth, or eloquence. They valued discipline, strength, and loyalty to the state. Their education reflected those priorities. Children were not taught to be individuals, but to serve something greater.

The point is simple: every culture forms its people. The question is not whether children will be educated, but which education they will receive, and by whom.

There was a time when it was widely understood that the responsibility for educating children belonged first and foremost to their parents. This was evident in generational trades and family vocations, where sons were taught the skills and responsibilities of their fathers. Whether one agrees with that model is beside the point. The principle remains: education was a parental responsibility.

Over time, that responsibility was transferred to a professional class. What began as assistance became replacement. Parents, in many cases, forgot that the education of their children was a God-given duty. This shift has produced a common assumption today: that parents are either unqualified to educate their children or uninterested in doing so. Many now eagerly anticipate the return of the school year, viewing education as something to be handled elsewhere. Responsibility has not merely been shared — it has been surrendered.

This transfer was made possible, in large part, by the promise of neutrality. Government schools were presented as institutions that would simply teach facts, free from bias or belief. Reading, writing, and arithmetic, we were told, require no worldview. But is that really the case?

Recent developments suggest otherwise. We are told that mathematics can be subjective, that objective standards are oppressive, and that identity determines truth. Curricula have moved far beyond the transmission of basic knowledge and now aim to shape students into “agents of change.” Education increasingly centers on the individual, except when it calls for collective transformation. Identity-based thinking has taken root, and concepts like safe spaces and cancellation have become normalized. What was once presented as neutral has revealed itself to be anything but.

When truth is removed from education, education does not cease — it simply begins to teach something else. And that “something else” does not remain passive. It forms loyalties, shapes beliefs, and directs behavior. What replaces truth will inevitably take on authority.

This is not unique to our time. It happened in Israel. It happens in every society. And it has happened here.

“And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children…”
— Deuteronomy 6:6–7

Canada

As stated earlier, Canada was not founded upon a blank slate of so-called neutrality, but upon the Rock of Christ and Christianity. It may not have been perfect, but it was grounded in the One who Is. Bible reading and prayer were normal, and churches were deeply involved in education. In fact, the earliest schools were run by churches—Roman Catholic in Quebec and predominantly Protestant in Upper Canada (Ontario). Moral formation was considered just as important as reading and writing.

But then something changed.

In the 1840s, figures such as Egerton Ryerson in Ontario and Jean-Baptiste Meilleur in Quebec helped shape a new vision: education as a centralized, state-run system. Government increasingly took responsibility for schooling, and with it came a shift in authority. How were families drawn into this system? Education was offered as “free,” though funded through taxation. Over time, this made families increasingly reliant on the system and introduced the idea of a professional class that was better equipped to educate children.

By 1871, Ontario made school attendance mandatory. Before long, the school system became an unquestioned part of daily life. What had once been a parental responsibility supported by the church was now an institutional function administered by the state. Few stopped to ask whether this shift was good or necessary. It was simply assumed.

Then came the bait and switch.

Schools that had once permitted, and even encouraged, biblical teaching, public prayer, and Scripture reading began to move away from Christianity in favour of a so-called neutral education. This shift was justified in the name of pluralism, inclusivity, and fairness. Alongside this came a false dichotomy between religion and scientific inquiry, as though the pursuit of truth required the exclusion of faith. Empiricism was elevated, not as a tool, but as a competing foundation. By this point, most no longer thought in terms of worldview at all. The language of neutrality was accepted without question.

Once Christianity was removed from its place of authority, the moral foundation it provided was removed as well. In its place came ambiguity. In place of duty came radical individualism. In place of clarity came confusion. What began as an attempt to remove bias became the imposition of a new worldview.

Education in Canada today would be unrecognizable to those who began the endeavour two centuries ago. Identity-based thinking now centers the individual. Hostility toward Christianity has become increasingly common, even as other faith traditions are presented as cultural enrichment. Objective truth has been displaced by subjective, self-defined truth, leading to widespread confusion about even the most basic realities. We now have a generation that does not know, and institutions that actively reinforce that condition.

We are not witnessing the breakdown of education, but the success of a different kind of education.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this process is that it was entirely predictable. Thinkers across history have warned of this very trajectory. Augustine of Hippo described the instability of the “City of Man.” Edmund Burke warned that severing society from its moral and religious foundations would lead to disorder. George Berkeley argued that without religion, society would descend into unrestrained human behaviour. In the twentieth century, Francis Schaeffer asked in How Shall We Then Live what would happen if the Christian West abandoned its foundations. His answer was fragmentation, nihilism, or tyranny.

What we are experiencing in Canada is not a mystery. It is the natural and predictable outcome of neglected truth.

Alberta

Will an independent Alberta imagine itself wiser than those who came before? Will we insist that society can be upheld and governed by abstract philosophy built on nothing more than human preference?

If Alberta is to avoid repeating this pattern, it must begin where Canada left off. It must build upon the solid foundation of the Rock, Jesus Christ. Only then can we avoid the inevitable collapse that follows when a society rejects its Creator and attempts to define truth for itself.

Education, in such a nation, must once again be grounded in the truth of God and rooted in the responsibility given to parents. Any future constitutional framework must be explicit in recognizing both the source of truth and the duty to teach it to the next generation.

Anything less will lead us right back to where we are today.