Christian: Christianity as ___________: Paideia

While C.S. Lewis never directly uses the phrase “a givenness to the universe” in The Abolition of Man, the entire book is rooted in the fact that there is one. He argues that throughout history there has been a givenness to the universe. The Tao he describes is essentially a universal collection of understanding about what it means to be a good human. Historically, this has been understood across cultures and throughout time. Lewis argued that this universal understanding is quickly fading. There is no longer a recognition that there is a givenness to the universe, and as a result, humanity is being abolished.

One of the things I appreciate most about Lewis is his ability to recognize where culture is headed well before everyone else. He noticed the direction things were moving in the 1940s, and today we find ourselves further down the path he predicted. Whenever I read Lewis, I am so impressed by his ability to see things that others cannot and I find myself asking, “What am I missing today that he would have noticed?”

Lewis writes about a group of individuals he calls “debunkers”. These are people who scoff at tradition, calling it old and antiquated. Debunkers believe that innovation trumps imitation. For a debunker, progress depends on the recognition that the generations before us didn’t hold to tradition because it was proven to work, they held to tradition because they didn’t know enough to realize it was wrong.

Words are funny things, and how they are defined tells us a lot about culture. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘debunk’ as “to remove the ‘nonsense’ or false sentiment from; to expose”. Based on this definition debunking seems like a good thing. We NEED debunkers because without them we would all be led astray, blindly following tradition that is false and hollow! Today, euphemisms for debunkers might include critical thinkers, trailblazers, or pioneers. While there are hundreds of synonyms for this kind of debunker (someone who unmasks, exposes, brings something to light, or uncovers). There are none for how Lewis defined the concept. Let that sink in. There is no word in our modern language for someone who wants to buck tradition because they don’t value it. The reverse is true too. I asked AI, “What word would define someone who tries to hold fast to tradition because it has innate value?” I was given three options: a traditionalist, a conservative, and a preservationist.

Traditionalist: “an advocate of maintaining tradition, especially so as to resist change”

Conservative: “averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values”

Preservationist: “one who advocates preservation (as of a biological species or a historical landmark)”

The first option has a negative connotation, the second is usually thought of politically but regardless, the negative connotation is still there. Both of those words highlight someone who resists or is averse to change (not usually a good thing). When you read either of those definitions, you don’t walk away with the feeling that they are someone you would want to be. The third word, preservationist, is probably the most accurate, but today it is almost always connected to the environment or architecture. How ironic that there is no good word to define someone who upholds traditional values. Well, it would be ironic if it wasn’t first so unsettling. For a word to make it into the dictionary it needs to pass a four-part test. It needs to be commonly used, have a widely agreed upon meaning, have staying power, and be useful for a general audience. The idea that there could be individuals who value tradition enough to fight to maintain it, or that there might be individuals who are striving to debunk tradition simply because it is old (or uncomfortable), clearly aren’t common enough ideas to need to be defined. The lack of words to define these concepts also tells us that society as a whole doesn’t think they have staying power, or that they’ll be useful for society as a whole.

A Christian is someone who is deeply committed to or shaped by the ideals of Christianity. I would argue that as classical Christian educators, we are all deeply committed to and shaped by the ideals of Paideia (the process of establishing our children in the traditions of a society with the hope of forming and maintaining a strong, flourishing culture). While there’s a word for the telos (paideia), there’s not a word for someone whose aim is paideia. We need a word. If Christian is to Christianity, ____________ is to paideia.

So, I asked ChatGPT. They suggested the word paideian…a word they clearly made up. But now it’s been written down. Then, an hour later, I asked them to define “paideian” and it said the following:

Paideian (though not a widely established term) could be used to describe a person who embodies or advocates for the principles of paideia—a classical Greek concept that emphasizes the holistic education and cultivation of an individual, blending intellectual, moral, and cultural development.

An hour later, I asked it again what “paideian” was, and it said:

“Paideian” refers to someone or something related to paideia, an ancient Greek concept of education and cultural development. … In short, “a paideian” is a person who is shaped by or aligned with the principles of paideia.

Notice it removed the “though not a widely established term” from the definition. It also removed the word “could”. Suddenly we have an agreed upon definition.

So, I guess we now have our answer? Christian is to Christianity as Paideian is to Paideia.