Why trust is the quality we can least afford to lose

News broke Thursday morning that President Trump was planning to sign an executive order instructing newly appointed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling the Department of Education. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly wrote on X that such an order would not be signed on Thursday, though it’s perhaps telling that she did not refute the idea that such an order could come soon.

As of this morning, that order has still not been signed, though the situation could change quickly. And while the timing is still uncertain, Trump seemed to indicate that it won’t be long: “I want to just do it . . . I mean, we’re starting the process. We’re trying to get the schools back into the states.”

But why is dismantling the department such a high priority for the President? And what would it look like if he was able to succeed in doing so?

Before we can answer those questions, we first need to understand a bit more about what the Department of Education actually does.

What does the Department of Education do?

Congress created the Department of Education in 1979 to consolidate the various education programs that had previously been spread among different agencies. Ronald Reagan campaigned on dismantling it the following year, and seeing the department dissolved back into its disparate elements has been a goal for many Republicans ever since.

But while the department is responsible for a variety of education-related services, it doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on high school and below as you might think. The states still set the curriculum and local school boards have far more influence over what is taught and how schools are run than the federal government.

Moreover, the states pay for roughly 90 percent of public education, with the remainder coming from the federal level. Still, that 10 percent is often enough for the federal government to wield a good bit of influence over what is taught, as evidenced by both the push for LGBTQ rights under Biden and warnings against the “indoctrination” of children under Trump.

The bulk of the Department’s energy and resources, however, is aimed at programs intended to support low-income children or those with disabilities, as well as grants and student loans for those continuing their education beyond high school. Were Trump to be successful, those responsibilities would return to other areas within the government.

Given that completely dissolving the Department of Education would require sixty votes in the Senate—Republicans currently have a 53-seat majority—it’s unlikely that the President will be able to accomplish his goal. And McMahon acknowledged as much in her confirmation hearings. Instead, the most likely outcome is that anything that can be jettisoned or reassigned will be, with the remainder forming a shell of what the department is today.

Would such a shift solve the problem? More than 60 percent of Americans seem dubious, though the latest polling also shows that both confidence in public schools and satisfaction with the quality of education they provide are not trending in the right direction.

Change of some sort is clearly needed, and it’s not hard to see why.

When trust is lost

In a recent article for Law & Liberty, Frederick M. Hess analyzed the loss of trust that many parents still harbor against the public education system in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early on, when so much was still unknown about the virus, closing schools seemed like a necessary and correct precaution. As Hess points out, though, “By summer 2020, it was increasingly clear that kids weren’t at risk and weren’t major sources of spread.”

At that point, it made sense for schools to open back up to in-person learning, and many did while taking precautions like requiring masks, social distancing, and other steps that were—at that time—considered helpful to prevent the spread of the virus.

However, many not only remained closed but were heavily critical of any suggestions they should do otherwise. Their resolute rejection of calls to return to the classroom, coupled with clear evidence that the closures were “having devastating effects on youth learning, well-being, and mental health,” eroded much of the confidence parents used to have in the institutions entrusted with their children.

The fact that teachers were not considered “essential workers” in the same vein as doctors, sanitation workers, and grocery store clerks further inclined many to question the significance of their role.

To be clear, that assessment is not accurate for most teachers, who are routinely underpaid while devoting long hours and their last shreds of sanity to foster an environment in which children can learn and grow. And it seems like most parents still trust the individual teachers responsible for instructing their kids.

However, public trust in the teachers’ unions and the larger apparatus that enabled so many Covid-era policies to endure beyond the point of necessity in many parts of the country has not returned. And there’s an important lesson in that reality for each of us today.

The first step to rebuilding trust

For the most part, people understand that we’re not perfect. All of us make mistakes, and what matters most is what we do after. Will we try to explain away our errors, or even double down on the notion that we’ve been right all along? Or will we own up to them, ask forgiveness, and try to make things right going forward?

Having the humility to admit when we’re wrong is the first step toward rebuilding trust, and that’s just as true for you and me as it is for presidents, union leaders, and everyone in between.

Fortunately, today is likely to bring each of us the chance to practice such humility in the face of our mistakes. The question then becomes, how quickly will you take advantage of that opportunity? Will you respond in arrogance and defiance or humbly admit your mistake and ask for forgiveness?

Which path you choose is likely to have a profound impact on the degree to which others feel like they can trust you in the future. And, considering the impact of our witness is based largely on the degree to which people find us trustworthy, learning to face our mistakes well should be among our highest priorities.

I don’t know what will ultimately happen to the Department of Education, but I suspect its fate would be different—or at least the path to its dismantling more difficult to tread—if public trust in its institutions and those in charge of them were higher. And while their response to the pandemic was not the only reason why that trust has waned, it certainly had a role to play for many parents and citizens.

Will the same be true in your life? Will you move forward as if your sins and mistakes never happened, or will you own them and ask for forgiveness?

Only one of those answers can position you to experience the fullness of God’s loving mercy and help others to do the same.

Which will you choose today?

Quote of the day:

“Nothing sets a person so much out of the devil’s reach as humility.” —Jonathan Edwards

Our latest website articles:

• Buying the “Cheetozard” and playing Monopoly with apps
• Why you should go back and watch the Gather25 Conference
• A review of Mark Sayers’ “Non-anxious Presence”
• The latest on tariffs, Ukraine, and Gaza
• Oval Office showdown, more tariffs, Oscars results & a landscaping hot take

Denison Forum

“An extraordinary display of partisan scuffling”

President Donald Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress last night. This was not a State of the Union address. Rather, it followed the precedent set by President Reagan in 1981 and continued by every president since as they delivered speeches to Congress and the nation in the months after being inaugurated.

The one-hour, forty-minute address was the longest of its kind. Mr. Trump defended his policies, casting his first month in office as the most successful in history. He said he received a letter earlier in the day from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying he was ready to sign a proposed minerals deal between the two nations. And Mr. Trump said the mastermind of a 2021 bombing during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan had been detained.

However, seven minutes into the speech, Rep. Al Green (D., Texas) was escorted out of the chamber after rising from his seat and shouting at the president. Numerous other Democrats marched out of the chamber of their own accord; by the time the address was over, their side of the aisle was half empty.

Many Democratic women wore bright pink in a display of defiance. Some Democrats held up protest signs during the address. Others refused to attend; one hosted a Facebook Live town hall instead.

The Hill called Democrats’ actions “an extraordinary display of partisan scuffling even by the standards of the polarized modern era.”

The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions

If you support President Trump and his policies, you probably find these responses frustrating. If you agree with the Democrats, you may find their responses appropriate and even necessary.

We can wish for a system of governance that is less fraught with partisan conflict. But I have witnessed personally the alternatives available today and cannot recommend them to you.

I have traveled over the years in Cuba, China, and Russia. None see protests within their governments against their leaders, but this is because they are led by autocrats who severely punish dissent. By contrast, dissent and even chaos are common features when parliaments meet in the UK, Israel, and similar countries. This is because all (or at least most) of the viewpoints held in their nations are represented in their governments—often loudly.

Political opposition and division have been a part of American governance throughout our history. In the presidential election of 1800, for instance, John Adams’ camp warned that should Thomas Jefferson win the presidency, the US would become a nation where “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will openly be taught and practiced.” Jefferson’s camp in turn called Adams a “gross hypocrite” and “one of the most egregious fools on the continent.”

The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions.

What has changed over the years is the degree to which politics have become a religion for many. At the same time church membership and identification with Christianity have declined, political issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage have become more urgent and polarizing. Social media has enabled many to find community not in a religious congregation but within “tribes” of political alliance and allegiance. Demonizing the other side has become a central strategy of political campaigns and engagement.

As Gerard Baker laments in the Wall Street Journal, traditional media has taken on this religious tenor, advancing partisan agendas as orthodoxies and marginalizing or canceling those who disagree. Rather than holding leaders and parties accountable as neutral arbiters of nonpartisan fairness, they have become “like prayer books for a believing congregation . . . tending to the emotional well-being of committed believers.”

When politics replace religion

When politics replace religion, here are some consequences:

• If our nation is to flourish, our leaders must be infallible, since we have no higher authority to trust.
• Our citizens must be infallible in their political choices and personal conduct, since we have no wisdom or accountability beyond our own.
• Those who disagree with us are by definition the enemies of what is right and good and must be opposed in any manner necessary.
• Vengeance and retribution are ensured when the other side inevitably regains power.

As a result, participatory governance fails, leading either to autocracy or civil war.

By contrast, Julian of Norwich (1342–c. 1416) testified: “God is the ground and the substance, the very essence of nature; God is the true father and mother of natures.” When we worship and serve him as our Lord and King, making our political aspirations and engagements a means to the end of loving our Lord and our neighbor (Matthew 22:37–39), here are some consequences:

• We know that our leaders are fallen and fallible, so we pray for them (1 Timothy 2:1–2) and support them (Romans 13:1–7). If we must choose, however, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
• We know that citizens are fallen and fallible, so we hold each other accountable to biblical truth and morality with honesty, compassion, and humility (Ephesians 4:2, 15).
• Those who disagree with us are opponents rather than enemies, so we treat them with the respect we would wish from them (Matthew 7:12).
• Vengeance and retribution are rejected, forgiving as we have been forgiven by Christ (1 John 1:9).

As a result, participatory governance flourishes as the means by which we serve each other to the glory of God (cf. Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–37).

Abraham Lincoln famously warned, “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” The choice is ours.

“Words which do not give the light of Christ”

As you respond to last night’s presidential address to Congress, will you view those with whom you disagree through the lens of religious charity or political division? Will your words and actions promote gracious unity or partisan rancor? Will they enhance your witness for Christ or drive people further from your faith?

Mother Teresa noted,

“Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness.”

Which kind of “words” are more common in our culture?

Which kind will you share with the world today?

Quote for the day:

“Our forgiving love toward men is the evidence of God’s forgiving love in us.” —Andrew Murray

Our latest website articles:

• Why are celebrities dressing in immoral ways? “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1)
• The power of being seen & valued

• Adrien Brody’s second Oscar puts him in rare company: Why “you’ve got to be believed to be heard”
• A review of Rebecca McLaughlin’s “No Greater Love”: A call to see friendship as an extension of our faith
• Will Pope Francis resign? Should he? “Stay faithful to the last word you heard from God”

Denison Forum

How the conflict is both complex and simple

The Trump administration is pausing all aid to Ukraine, including weapons, days after a contentious meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump.

In related news, the UK and France are seeking to forge a European “coalition of the willing” to secure a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. This comes as France proposes a partial one-month truce between Russia and Ukraine, and Mr. Zelensky says Ukraine is “still ready” to sign a minerals deal with the US. However, he also says a deal to end the war with Russia “is still very, very far away.”

This ongoing controversy over the way forward in Ukraine is both highly complex and very simple.

How the conflict is complex (part one)

It is highly complex in that there are so many competing agendas in conflict with each other. For example, consider the press conference last Friday in the Oval Office staged to discuss the signing of a rare earth minerals agreement between Ukraine and the US.

Forty minutes in, Vice President Vance advocated for diplomacy to end the conflict; Mr. Zelensky then began to argue with him, citing times Vladimir Putin has violated diplomatic agreements and asking, “What kind of diplomacy are you speaking about?” A heated argument ensued, ending the press conference and postponing the signing ceremony that was to follow.

If I had not seen the press conference but only read opinions about it, they would seem to be discussing completely different events. Republican leaders blamed Mr. Zelensky for the conflict; one castigated him for having “the audacity to disrespect” the president. Democrat leaders blamed Mr. Trump; one called him “a lapdog for a brutal dictator in Moscow.”

This is unsurprising: in our divisive political climate, many people consider anything President Trump does to be either entirely right or entirely wrong. Many partisans are convinced the other side is not just wrong but evil—and you don’t compromise with evil. So every political story descends into name-calling and point-scoring for “our” side against “their” side.

How the conflict is complex (part two)

Then there are the basic facts of the conflict:

• President Zelensky wants security guarantees from Europe and the US to keep Russia from invading again. In his view, Ukraine is fighting Vladimir Putin on behalf of the West. If Russia captures Ukraine and then proceeds to invade a NATO country, America and Europe will be drawn into a world war.
• European and US leaders know that if they grant such guarantees and Russia invades Ukraine, World War III will ensue. Since both sides have nuclear weapons, such a war could endanger mankind.
• President Trump sees this as a European conflict and therefore believes European nations should do more to support Ukraine and the US should be less involved.
• Vladimir Putin sees any Western presence or influence in Ukraine as an encroachment on Russian sovereignty paving the way for another invasion of the Motherland.

Last Friday’s press conference should be viewed through the prism of these contradictory facts.

Mr. Zelensky was frustrated that the proposed rare earth minerals agreement did not include security guarantees he believes are crucial for his nation. Mr. Trump was frustrated that Mr. Zelensky did not seem grateful for the help he had been given and turned a press conference into a debate. Both then argued for what they believe is in the best interest of the nation they serve.

And so the conflict continues.

How the conflict is simple

I said earlier that this conflict is both complex and simple. Here’s the simple part: Ukraine and Russia want the same territory. Both consider it part of their historic homeland and vital to their sovereignty and security. If one wins, the other must lose.

Such a zero-sum dilemma is at the heart of most intractable conflicts across history.

For example, Israelis and Palestinians both venerate the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. To the Jews, it is where Abraham offered Isaac and their temple was built. To the Muslims, it is where Abraham offered Ishmael and the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. Both sides want the same “rock” and the land it represents.

The only way to resolve a zero-sum dilemma without conflict is to change the terms of the engagement from win-lose to win-win. This involves compromising what I want to enable what you want. The more I must sacrifice to make such a compromise, the more I must value your best as I value my own.

Imagine a world in which Russia values Ukraine’s sovereignty and flourishing as much as it values its own. Or a world in which Palestinians and Israelis want the same prosperity and freedom for each other that they want for themselves.

Such a world is the intention of Jesus’ second Great Commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39, quoting Leviticus 19:18). He did not tell us to love our neighbor only when we agree with them. (That would be so easy as to need no such directive from our Lord.) He told us to love them “as yourself.” And you love yourself even when you don’t like yourself. In fact, you love yourself even when you despise something you have done to yourself or to someone else.

This is how we are to love our neighbor, whether they are a person or a nation.

“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb”

Of course, such selfless love is impossible for fallen humans, which is why zero-sum conflicts continue in our families, communities, and the world at large. But while we cannot fulfill God’s word in our strength, the good news is that we don’t have to.

The love Jesus commands is a “fruit” of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), one result of the Spirit’s work in every life yielded fully to him (Ephesians 5:18). If both sides in the Russia/Ukraine war would submit themselves to Christ as Lord and surrender to his Spirit, he would empower them to forgive each other, seek each other’s best, and live together in harmony.

You might say this is impossible, but remember: The Spirit transformed a Christian-persecuting zealot into the greatest advocate and apologist for the Christian movement in history (Acts 9). He transformed a Gentile-rejecting Jew into a missionary to a Roman centurion and his family (Acts 10). He is working today to conform you and me to the character of Christ (Romans 8:29).

And no one in human history loved his neighbor as himself more than our Savior.

Jesus is grieving over the horrific war in Ukraine right now. He is also grieving over any zero-sum conflicts in your life and mine. He loves your neighbor so much that he died for them. Now he wants you to love them as he loves you.

One day “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb” (Isaiah 11:6). That day can come for your heart today.

Quote for the day:

“To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.” —C. S. Lewis

Our latest website articles:

• Adrien Brody’s second Oscar puts him in rare company: Why “you’ve got to be believed to be heard”
• A review of Rebecca McLaughlin’s “No Greater Love”: A call to see friendship as an extension of our faith

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali proclaims the gospel at debate over religion: Why the West needs Christianity, not just religion
• Will Pope Francis resign? Should he? “Stay faithful to the last word you heard from God”
• 70 Christians beheaded in the DRC: How to pray in the darkest of situations

Denison Forum