Parental Responsibility

A couple weeks ago there was another school shooting. A fifteen-year-old took a handgun to school in Oxford, Michigan and shot several students and one teacher. Running parallel to the dramatic reporting of the incident was the ongoing search for the boy’s parents who were being sought by police. The parents tried to hide, but they were quickly discovered and arrested. The original charge was involuntary manslaughter. Defending her decision, Karen McDonald, the prosecutor, said, “I wasn't elected to do the safe thing, and this is just far beyond politics. To me, this was the right thing to do. I don't think anyone looking at it … could have decided to just allow those two individuals to move forward in their life and never have any consequences.”

McDonald later told a reporter that she was angry that it’s 2021 and we still have school shootings. I assume she is disturbed by the fact that since the 1999 Columbine shooting, school tragedies continue to take place far to frequently. I’m not sure anger, no matter how well justified, is the best motivation for a public servant of any kind, especially a county prosecutor. The judicial system in this country is supposed to apply the appropriate law to every circumstance in a rational manner apart from emotional considerations.

This is not the first time someone has suggested charging the parents of a school shooter; however, according to McDonald, she is the first to attempt to do it. Involuntary manslaughter is defined as the crime of killing another human being unlawfully but unintentionally. If a parent handed a child a gun and told him to go shoot people, there may be some complicity. In this case, the parents didn’t know their son had taken the gun from the house. The boy acted independently. Unless emotion trumps rational thinking, I cannot imagine a jury applying the legal definition of manslaughter to the parents in this case.

The situation does lead me to ask myself how far parents’ responsibility extends in the life of their children. At what age do children become morally responsible for their actions? Child psychologists have tried to identify a stage of development at which moral responsibility applies; opinions vary, but it is usually put in the early teens. The Bible refers to an age when children can tell the difference between right and wrong, but it does not pin a number on it. Ancient Jewish tradition assigns thirteen as the age when a boy becomes a man, or more precisely, a “son of the covenant,” the definition of bar mitzvah.

In Western society today, there seem to be few thirteen-year-olds who have mastered what psychologists call higher level thinking or formal reasoning. We seem to be pushing adulthood and its responsibilities into the twenties for many young people. That is not to say that apart from a clinical mental deficiency a fifteen-year-old doesn’t know it’s wrong to shoot his schoolmates. Very young children can tell that some things should not be done, even if it is only because they know it will displease their parents and possibly result in punishment for them. This does not necessarily mean they know right from wrong in the abstract, however.

Parents can either help their children mature morally, or they can impede them. The Oxford shooter’s mother seems to be in the latter category. When her son was caught using his cell phone against school policy, she texted, “LOL I'm not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught.” Supporting rule-breaking does not qualify as good parenting, but I don’t think it rises to the level of involuntary manslaughter. The father of the shooter seems to have been a bit more rational. When he heard of the shooting on the radio, he rushed home to see if the gun they had purchased for their son was there. When he discovered it was missing, he phoned the police to tell them his son might be the shooter. That must have been painful, but it shows a sense of responsibility not apparent in his wife.

The young man had scribbled violent images and disturbing phrases in class that day, and the parents were called in to discuss disciplinary measures. They decided not to take their son out of school, and the school administration allowed him to stay. At that point, I believe (as a former school principal) that both the parents and the school were making a mistake. The suggestion to take him home and seek counselling should have been insisted upon. The school officials made the right suggestion even though they didn’t know about the recent gun purchase, but the parents did, and the father apparently had his suspicions. If there is blame to be shared for the ensuing tragedy, there is plenty to go around.

The Bible gives little precise information about when a child stands independently before God. At age twelve, Jesus seemed to know where He belonged to the surprise of His parents.  During His ministry, Jesus praised the faith of children and encouraged adults to copy their simple faith. When the Sanhedrin questioned the parents of the blind man Jesus healed, they deferred to him saying he was on his own. While there is no exact “age of accountability,” as it has sometimes been called, Scripture clearly teaches that at some point in time, people become responsible for their own actions.

I don’t think the Oxford parents should be charged with a crime, but I do think they may have failed to teach their son to properly discern right from wrong. The often-quoted proverb says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” If parents raise their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” as the New Testament prescribes, they can hope their children will mature into morally responsible adults. If parents choose the path the Oxford mother seems to have chosen, the outcome may be disastrous. Whatever the parents do, the child becomes an adult at some point, and at that point, the parents should not be charged with any crime except poor parenting. As far as I know, that crime is not in the books in Oxford or anywhere else.

There is a larger issue beneath this tragedy that none of the media coverage has broached. Ever since the 1960’s, children have been taught by government schools that morality is relative. “Values clarification” leads them to believe they are the arbiters of what’s right and what’s wrong. Common decency would seem to dictate that killing another human being is wrong in any value system, but like common sense, decency has become less and less common in our society. It is no simple coincidence that at the same time the Bible and prayer were removed from government schools, students attending those schools eventually became morally deficient.

The New Testament is peppered with prophecies that in the last days, people would turn away from God and moral degeneration would be the result. In Romans, Ephesians, Timothy and elsewhere, Paul specifically warned that those who reject God would be left to wallow in their own decadent ways. What began as seemingly benign political correctness in the late 2000’s has morphed into the militant WOKE culture that is attacking traditional Judeo-Christian morality on every front.

I pray that the backlash against critical race theory and other elements of the WOKE agenda will prevail. Parents across the country are telling their local school boards that they are not happy with the current school policies and curricula. America’s founding fathers wisely noted that without a moral populace, government of, by and for the people would fail. It is every parent’s responsibility to see that sound moral teaching is provided for their children in their home and in their schools. The multiple tragedies from Columbine to Oxford should be enough to motivate anyone.

Related posts: I Pray for America; Truth Dysphoria; Critical Race Theory; Woke TV; True Lies

The Consolation Prize

There was a time when someone who didn’t get the big prize got something called a consolation prize. An idea has become prevalent in elementary and secondary schools that children will be damaged if they don’t all achieve the same outcomes – get first prize. Instead of providing equal opportunity for all children to succeed and naturally find that some excel, it has become necessary for all children to believe they are excellent. Necessarily, this has resulted in the lowering of standards of excellence. One example of this is the travesty of “invented spelling.” Students need not learn how to spell words properly; they are allowed to make up their own spelling for difficult words. The idea that children cannot be told they are wrong is disastrous.

This tragedy is compounded by the fact that most children spend much of their “free time” in front of one device or another getting little or no exercise, mental or physical. The explosion of cable networks catering to children assures that they have endless hours of drivel, both animated and live, that repeats the mantra that everyone always wins. Computer games allow unlimited retries to achieve whatever passes as success on the screen. This too is reflective of an academic disease: several years ago I was told that a high school teacher allowed students to retake a test as many times as necessary until they could pass. No wonder high school graduates are attaining such high GPA’s.

As a composition instructor of college freshman, I saw the results of this misguided philosophy every term. Being from the cruel old school era where standards existed that must be met, I was forced to give some students less than a perfect score. I remember one young lady who was virtually in tears because I gave her a C on her composition. She whined that she was an honor student in her high school English classes and could not believe I dared to mark her writing so poorly. I still believe a C means average, and to be truthful, her work was actually below what I would call average, but I wanted to soften the blow. Reality bites, they say.

Another result of the school systems’ failure to properly educate is even more distressing. As a composition teacher, I felt it was my duty to teach not just proper writing but critical thinking as well. Rhetoric, as it used to be called, requires the ability to communicate effectively having built a strong case for the chosen position. The ever-increasing pressure to have students achieve high scores on state tests has devolved “teaching” into the process of providing the “right” answer on a test. I found very few students who could reason their way to a logical conclusion and many who simply wanted to know “the answer.”

I was further troubled by the fact that often a student who made a reasonable argument was often challenged by other students who had no support for their argument. To believe something because you have been told it is true is not altogether a bad thing. However, at some point, everyone must examine what they have been told to see if it can stand the test of reality. For example, many of my students were in favor of the “free” college education a certain political candidate was proposing. When asked who would pay for the “free” schooling, none could answer. When informed that taxes would have to be levied that would eventually come out of their paychecks many were forced to rethink the meaning of “free.”

But enough of my college teaching days. What has this to do with Heaven (WHAMM.)? The same sloppy reasoning has infected the church. Rather than studying to show themselves approved, too many Christians are swallowing whatever they are told about the Bible. Some of the misapprehensions are insignificant, but some are not. (See “The Lies We Have Been Told”) Sentimentality, which I believe drives the everyone-is-a-winner philosophy in schools, has caused many to take the pain out of the flip side of the gospel coin.

The good side of the good news is that people can be saved; the other side is that people can be lost. What some have tried to do is remove the painful part of the truth by denying that hell exists (See “Answering Rob Bell” 1-6). Others develop a theology of universal salvation from a desire to make God seem less prickly. Neither of these positions can be supported with proper biblical interpretation. Here again, using standards and applying logic are skills not frequently taught these days. It is much more comfortable to think that everyone goes to heaven (gets the prize) than to believe that some people will suffer eternal separation from God.

Unfortunately, hell is a reality that cannot be wished away. Jesus spent a good share of His teaching time warning about the consequences of unbelief. Logic requires us to believe that there is a penalty for sin; otherwise, God played a cruel joke on His Son by making Him suffer the agony of the crucifixion needlessly. If sin and unbelief have no dire consequences, why take such great pains to educate Israel through centuries of sacrificial worship culminating in the ultimate Sacrifice once for all?

There is one prize available to everyone. In 2 Thessalonians 2:16 Paul tells us that Christ is our eternal consolation (KJV). God so loved the world that He gave us a way to have eternal life with Him, but that life is available only to “whosoever believes on [His Son].” While it is true that God is not willing that any should perish, it is also true that some will perish by their own choice. I don’t know exactly how that will all work out; it is up to God to see that it does.* I do know that in this case, the “consolation prize” is to be desired above all else.

*For more an how this works see “God’s Choice or Man’s” and “Election: God’s Choice”

Delightful Garden of Encouraging Words

I am fairly certain that the administrators of the popular platforms we all know are using automated discovery methods to uncover specific words that may signal views that are contrary to those of the ruling class. Said administrators have admitted publicly that they monitor publications by their users to seek out contrary views. They then either make them go away or place addenda to the contrary publications guiding readers to articles which support the ruling class’ view. I have seen this done to my publications in the past, so I don’t doubt it happens often. For this reason, I am using arcane and unusual language to make a point here.

For over ten years, I have published my views on a platform provided by the popular Internet giant whose name begins with “G.” My only distribution point has been another popular place that begins with the letter “F.” For years, I had a small but steady readership number until the present social condition that has plagued most of the world since early in 2020. Since then, the number of hits I have experienced on the publication site has fallen dramatically. Suspecting some kind of sensoring [sic], I tried an experiment. I am now emailing a link to folks on my contacts list when I publish a new article. Perhaps it should be no surprise that my readership has soared past the previous average. (I would happily add you to that list if you wish to contact me.)

Now to the point of this clandestine epistle. A couple weeks ago, I wrote on the “F” place that recent incidents of the scurrilous infirmity we all know about were increasing. I made remarks contrary to the ruling class’s view about the spike in incidents. The administrators of the “F” place added a box to my post directing readers to a site that offered information in line with the ruling class. I only discovered this because readers had published comments which caused my original post to reappear on my wall. All this got me wondering how a person is going to get knowledge that does not align exclusively to one point of view.

A TV show that is unpopular with the ruling class (host’s initials are TC) recently aired a segment with the co-founder of Wikipedia. The founder revealed that Wikipedia is the number one resource used in educational institutions across the country. He went on to state that because Wikipedia allows articles and edits to be placed by anyone without concern for peer review or even truthfulness, the site has become a tool in the hands of the ruling class, much as the various other popular outlets that people use. In a previous century, we saw Germany and the USSR do this type of thing to control what the public was able to see and know. The founder expressed his shame at this. This is troubling to me as well.

I began to wonder if it is even possible to discover things that are true anymore. It may be. When I was teaching college writing, my main purpose was to force my students to think for themselves and to ferret out the most reliable information possible. I did not allow them to cite Wikipedia in any paper, but I recommended that they use Wikipedia as a tool to uncover original material. Wikipedia often has footnotes that refer to the sources they used to compile their article. I recommended that my students follow the links to those background sources to seek a legitimate expert. It is not foolproof, I know, but it makes a searcher look harder than simply at whatever appears on the surface.

I am going to recommend this same technique to my readers who wish to be better informed than they would be if all they read/watch is the info-ganda of the ruling class. Go ahead and do what millions of people worldwide now do to look for information about anything: use the investigative utility that starts with the letter “G.” The administrators of that popular utility have admitted publicly that they push ruling class views to the top of their list of responses. Views contrary to the ruling class are often completely erased from the record as we have seen recently when our President was not allowed to use several popular platforms.

If you are interested in digging down to the level of knowledgeable experts on a subject, you could try going far down from the top of the list of responses originally provided, or you can read the ruling class articles that rise to the top of the list and see who they are talking about. It may be that you will find references to statements or opinions contrary to the ruling class’ view that you can search for independently. For example, if the ruling class’ article says Mr. So-and-so said this or that, you may be able to locate the original source Mr. So-and-so used. It is likely that if the ruling class disagrees with him, you will find his comments on a site that disagrees with the ruling class. This gives you the opportunity to judge for yourself which view you wish to adopt as your own.

My efforts here may be a complete waste of time because I have previously said so many things that are contrary to the ruling class’ opinions that my IP address and my name may already be on a list for review. I know that at some locations, the equipment that allows Internet access has flagged my blog as suspect, and it will not allow a user to access the blog. This is troubling to me because it clearly violates my rights as granted by the first statement of rights that the men writing in 1789 placed after our governing document. I hope this effort is successful because a democracy cannot run if the people don’t know the things that the experts know about important issues. I wish you success as you seek your own delightful garden of words.

(This has been a test. If this is a real emergency you will have been directed to a safe place where opinions of the ruling class are not challenged.)

The New Iconoclasts

 I was visiting family last weekend, and somehow the question of who discovered America came up. I asked my eight-year-old (“I’m going to be nine.”) grandson if he knew. He shook his head, and to be fair, he may simply have forgotten that lesson if it was ever mentioned. However, when I asked if he knew about Columbus, his Mom informed me that they no longer teach that Columbus discovered America because he is thought to be an evil person. We also discussed the fact that the continent of America was probably “discovered” by Vikings, possibly Leif Ericson, long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. And, of course, the island Columbus first landed on isn’t even American territory.

Columbus did eventually get to the American mainland where he continued his “evil” European domination. I will not deny that the European taking of the Western hemisphere was arrogant imperialism with a large dose of bigotry and condescension. However, to discard all mention of the great explorer is to lose a sense of his truly great achievement: he debunked a false notion that ruled the scientific community of his day. He proved the earth was not flat. He may have miscalculated the planet’s size, but he was correct about its shape. He opened the door for the Age of Exploration.

Columbus also extended the reach of the dominant culture of his day, the consequences of which were not fully positive. Nor were they completely negative. Say what you will about 15^th century Roman Catholic theology, Columbus and subsequent explorers did bring knowledge of the Savior of the world to the “new world.” In his own words, Columbus expressed his desire to bring Christianity to the people of the newly discovered continent. Secular historians, the sanitizers of history, put his evangelistic zeal in the category of arrogant imperialism. How dare he think his religion was superior to that of the natives.

While modern missiologists will no doubt shudder at the tactics of Columbus et al, their motives cannot be impugned. Certainly, the explorers of the Enlightenment day sought riches. Had Columbus not promised to return with ships laden with gold, Ferdinand and Isabella would never have financed his venture as a missions trip. We may never know whether his primary motivation was economic, religious, or simply a burning desire to prove his round earth theory. But if we erase Columbus from the history books, we will never get to have that discussion.

It is a discussion worth having. Just as Israel was commanded to remember her history, America should remember hers. I realize the history of Israel is the story of God’s redemption of the human race and therefore eminently important, whereas America’s history is not inspired Scripture with eternal significance. However, in the same way that the Israelites could track the coming of the Messiah through her past, Americans can trace the development of a nation that is unique in all human history. There are valuable lessons to be learned from a study of the American foundations. We live in an ordered universe where the principle of cause and effect operates not only in the “hard” sciences like physics but in the social sciences as well.

To erase great men from our history because they were greatly flawed is to eliminate the possibility of learning from the ill effects of their actions. To hide their flaws as my grade school history did with Columbus isn’t ideal either. Surely a balance can be found between painting him as the devil incarnate and whitewashing him as God’s righteous servant. Even a third-grade student could be made to understand the man’s sincere religious motivations and his prowess as a navigator and sailor while recognizing his moral and fiscal failures as an administrator.

I know my third-grade grandson can understand the nuances of flawed people. Like too many young children today, he has had live with the consequences of moral failure. Children should not be “protected” from the reality of the mixed alloy of human character; it is valuable information. The Bible certainly does not gloss over its heroes’ moral difficulties. Remember that David and Moses were both murderers. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived according to the biblical record, couldn’t control his carnal desires. Peter denied his Savior at a critical moment while all the others closest to Jesus fled into the night.

I believe it is foolish arrogance to read our twenty-first century political/moral sensitivities back into history. Deleting Columbus or any other person who doesn’t meet a modern, politically correct standard has the same effect as the ancient historians who made up tales that suited their fancy. Mythology makes for entertaining reading, and often it presents moral lessons, but it is not a substitute for a true account of actual events in the past.

This is a big problem, but a committed group of parents could stage a coup at the next school board election and influence a local body to make changes that would lead to an honest history curriculum. Even within the dreaded Core standards now adopted by most states there is room for a local district to supplement their history texts with those that present the real thing. Our children deserve to know where we have come from as a nation. Who knows; maybe if our public schools had been teaching history honestly for the last few decades there would be fewer young people who think socialism is the answer to all our problems.

The Chinese are Coming

What would you say if I told you that you are financing Chinese concentration camps and helping them build ICBM’s? What if I told you that Iran, North Korea and the PLO have benefitted from your financial investments? Despite our Lord’s command to love our enemies, I don’t think that extends to financing their evil intentions. Yet this is exactly what millions of Americans are unwittingly doing through their investment holdings. Private and government retirement plans are buying equities and bonds in Chinese concerns. Many mutual funds and other “basket” investments now include companies that support the Chinese effort to become the next world superpower.

The latest issue of Imprimis has a shocking article detailing the depth to which Americans have gone to finance the Chinese program of world domination. The author of the article is Robert W. Robinson, Jr. Robinson was a member of President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council. He has served in several other high-level positions that give him a clear view of the subject of Chinese plans. Robinson’s article is quite detailed and perhaps too arcane for general consumption. I will summarize what he wrote hoping to wake readers to the eminent danger.

Robertson begins by explaining how important President Reagan’s economic strategy vis-à-vis the Soviet Union was in precipitating their demise in 1989. Simply put, the USSR was using Western capital to finance their plans for world domination. President Reagan used his power to systematically defund Russia’s efforts. Reagan’s plan involved no guns or missiles, but he destroyed the USSR as completely as if he had ordered a nuclear strike on Moscow.

Robertson believes that America is now in the same position with China that Reagan was with the USSR. Robertson goes into fine detail to show how China has been systematically penetrating the American markets through trade deals, clandestine investment, industrial espionage and outright theft. China relies on American dollars to finance its expansionist policies. China gets those dollars in a number of subtle ways, but the most egregious is through investment by American mutual funds and retirement programs, both private and government sponsored.

Once upon a time, I was a Registered Representative. Since that time, I have been more aware of the importance of financial markets to the average person. Back in the 1990’s, we were concerned about responsible Christian investing: no alcohol, tobacco or other “sinful” investments. Several mutual funds were created to meet the need for “socially conscious” investing. These funds typically underperformed, so many languished or disappeared. Money was more important to people than principles.

In this current situation, we may be dealing more with our very existence as a free country than as a “moral” country. If China continues to leverage its control over American markets, they could conceivably create a situation that would make the crash of 1929 look like a church picnic. I’m not an alarmist; I know God is in control. I also know that He expects us to do what we can to promote justice and equity in the world. Promoting China promotes the opposite of our cherished principles.

You are pretty much powerless to change what your company retirement plan invests in. We all have some say in what our government plans invest in. Robertson suggests that what is happening has already run afoul of SEC regulations and government restrictions on foreign investment. As arcane as it may be, I am asking that any of my readers who understand what this all means to make some noise. Call a congressman; lobby your investment counselors asking them to investigate this; check what your mutual funds etcetera are involved with.

This situation may be an example of what Yeats meant when he wrote in “The Second Coming” that the center cannot hold. We may be spiraling into the void. He prophesied, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst \ Are full of passionate intensity.” The “rough beast” he foresaw may be Chinese. Do what you can or don’t be surprised when the second coming is not what you expected.

Values Clarification

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” In our sermon series on the Beatitudes, this is where we are now. I marvel at how timely this message is given the occurrence of another school shooting last week. My other “home church” and I are also feeling it deeply because in one month two dear men went to be with the Lord after battling cancer. “We do not “grieve as do the rest who have no hope,” but still we “weep with those who weep.” These things are one aspect of what Jesus referred to when he cautioned believers that, “in the world, [we] will have tribulation.”

In the midst of mourning the school shootings a post floated across Facebook that really struck me. It said, “Dear God, why do you allow violence in schools? Concerned Student… Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in schools. God.”.” Enough said? For more than a generation our public schools have been preaching (yes, preaching the religion of) "values clarification.” What that phrase actually means is you get to create your own value system because there is no absolute truth. This is also known as moral relativism. Situation ethics is another way to explain what it means. Based on the teaching they have received, the school shooters have every right to express their feelings with violence against others if it fits their “value system.”

The “tribulation” Jesus promised is usually thought of as persecution of believers, and that is not wrong given the context of our Savior’s words. But to fully understand tribulation, one must look behind the curtain of the “world” to which Jesus referred. We should recall that God created a perfect world for His children. They are the ones who messed it up by writing a script totally independent from God rather than dependent upon Him. The Fall must be seen as a historical reality to understand the tribulation through which we now travail.

Immediately after the Fall, God promised redemption through the heel-bruised Seed. Unfortunately, He also promised blood, sweat, toil and tears in the meantime. What I am saying is that the original sin in the Garden set the stage for the tribulation to which Jesus referred. So after a long stretch of history, but a short logical chain, young people splatter the results of values clarification all over their schools. I’m not saying there would be no violence in schools if we had not kicked God out; evil continues to exist. I am saying that we should not be surprised by it after a generation of telling children that they may choose their own version of right and wrong. What was it the Serpent said to Eve? “That you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So we still mourn, but not like those who have no true value system. We value the righteousness that has been lost to a whole generation of our children. We mourn because of the effects of sin in the world. We understand it’s not about a troubled childhood; it’s about a troubled humanity. We experience tribulation because we have a sin-wrecked world. And our mourning should lead us to pray for the only answer, and it’s not gun control (Good grief, again?!).

Believers should be driven to their knees in tears for those who are suffering, and we should be praying for revival. The only way to stop the violence in schools, on the streets, or on the international stage is to change hearts one at a time. Only God can do that. He has in the past; He can do it again. He can replace values clarification with a clear value system. Prayerfully examine your value system; then pray for those who need “clarification” so desperately. I know this is small comfort, but it is what the Beatitude promised.

Pilgrims' Progression

The President of the Divided States of America (as he sees it) has made another gaff (as I see it). In Obama’s Thanksgiving address he compared the Syrian refugees to the Pilgrims: just a bunch of troubled people yearning to be free, so he says. My immediate reaction was to disagree: the Pilgrims were a peace-loving group; they were not driven from their homes by violent military force. Although they did experience a level of persecution, they were not being murdered daily for their beliefs. They  made intentional plans for their future relocation and paid for transportation to a place where they intended to start a new life supported by their own labor.

My first thought was discount the comparison of Pilgrims with Syrian refugees altogether. The Pilgrim’s plan was to start anew with a set of rules they believed were necessary to the proper arrangement of society. They wanted it based on the principles of their religion. They wanted civil government that mirrored their religious beliefs. If you reread those last three sentences and replace “Pilgrim” with “Muslim” there is a frightening likeness.

When I saw the similarity, I began to see things differently. Perhaps Obama was right. Perhaps the Syrian refugee situation is more like the Pilgrims’ than I realized at first. The Pilgrims landed in territory occupied by an established society which had divided opinions about whether to accept the “refugees” or drive them away. The Pilgrims forced their way onto a beachhead and defended their stand with the language of divine right. Eventually the European settlers who followed the original Pilgrims drove the indigenous people from their ancestral lands and claimed them for their own.

How like the current situation in Paris, France or Dearborn, Michigan or Minneapolis, Minnesota this is. Muslim pilgrims have taken over large segments of real estate in Western cities and planted civil/religious communities which have become colonies of sovereign Muslim settlement. Sharia law dominates in these areas almost completely. The police in these cities have for all practical purposes abandoned these zones to the Muslim pilgrims. While this may not be what Obama was trying to say, it sounds like a reasonable comparison to me.

There is one contrast that is quite stark: the Native Americans who faced the Pilgrims were technically backward compared to the invading Europeans. Quite the opposite, we have the technological superiority over the “invading” Muslims, but their crude ways can be strikingly effective. Simply hijack a plane, for example, and fly it into a building. Or build a simple bomb and leave it on a train. It is proving difficult to thwart this intrusion with technology; we must fight it with policy.

If the American natives had favored a policy less like Massasoit in his original acceptance of the invaders from Europe and more like his son, Metacom, who tried to resist with force, perhaps the Pilgrim landing would have been a disaster instead of a miracle of survival. If the tribes of the Eastern coastal regions of America had stood together against the Europeans, perhaps the wave of immigration from Europe could have been thwarted or at least substantially delayed. 

I am not suggesting that as Christians we should take up arms against any refugees, Syrian, Mexican, Cuban, who legitimately seek refuge here. As individual Christians, as the Church of Christ, we have the example of the Good Samaritan; we have Jesus Himself. But as a nation, we have a culture to protect and preserve by whatever means, practical and moral, we can devise. (For more see Man the Lifeboats) What I would propose sounds horribly un-politically-correct: accept a predetermined number of immigrants year by year who pledge to assimilate. By this I mean learn English, obey the laws, and respect the beliefs of others. The great American melting pot experiment has only worked because assimilation was the goal. We cannot be African-American, Mexican-American or Muslim-American; we must all be -Americans.

We will never know what might have resulted had the Americans who greeted the Pilgrims adopted a different policy position. However, from Metacom to Tecumseh to Sitting Bull there were “Americans” who doubtless regretted their ancestors’ actions. Their society was overrun and ultimately destroyed. I hope our great grandchildren don’t have similar regrets.

Outdoor Education Appeal

Full disclosure: this is a fund raising appeal. I belong to an organization called the Muskegon Environmental Research and Education Society (MERES). We operate the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve on the east end of the lake. MERES has been working on the Preserve for almost twenty years, and we now want to sharpen our focus and broaden our appeal.

First some history: anyone who has been around Muskegon for long remembers when the Port City Princess used to dock on Lake Ave in North Muskegon. There was a boat launch ramp and a bait shop there for quite a few years. Just east of there was a piece of lakeshore where road crews, foundries and unidentified citizens dumped their rubbish. In 1996 the effort to reclaim the dump was begun by a group of dedicated visionaries. The beautiful Preserve people enjoy today is the result of years of committed volunteer work and generous financial support by individuals and groups who caught the vision of the early pioneers.

Those men and women who built the Preserve understood the value of an outdoor experience. I was fortunate to have a father who built us a family cottage on a lake where we could enjoy the Michigan water wonderland. He took me salmon fishing and deer hunting and sailing and passed on his love of the outdoors. I also had the pleasure of roaming the fields and woods around our suburban home. There are many young people right here in Muskegon who are not as lucky as I was. My wife taught in a local school district where many of her sixth graders had never seen Lake Michigan, let alone gone sailing or fishing.

The latest research shows that children who regularly experience the outdoors in a meaningful way are healthier and happier. It is not uncommon after a day in the outdoor classroom at the Preserve to hear young students remark that it was the best day of their life. Environmental education is not just enjoyable, it is essential to maintain a force for conservation and preservation in the next generation. A day at the Preserve sparked an interest in one young lady that carried through to a career in environmental education. Many others simply learn that peace and tranquility can be found by stepping into a small bit of nature preserved for their benefit.

This is our cause; this is why MERES exists. We have been able to do this for thousands of people, young and old, every year for two decades. Now we want to do more. Many people who enjoy the Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve think it is a public park funded by public dollars. Only a few of those who experience the Preserve and the River Walk realize that it is completely funded by donations.

To move to the next level of service to the community, we need to build an endowment fund that will allow us to maintain what we have and broaden our outreach. Our goal is to have sufficient funds to keep the outdoor education programs at the Preserve and the River Walk functioning and to construct an education center which will help us bring more programs to the people of Muskegon County. We want to see the realization of the vision of one of the early supporters who said the project could be, “a jewel in West Michigan.”  We have the stone in the setting; now we just need your help to polish it to gleaming brilliance.

To make a donation, visit the MERES website.

  http://www.muskegonlakenaturepreserve.org/

Teachers or Testing?

One of the banner ads on my Facebook page caught my eye today. It asked me to vote "for" teachers and "against" standardized tests. Huh? My first thought was that this is like voting for peaches or winter. (Actually, my first thought was, "How stupid!") There is a ground swell of resistance to certain academic practices that showcases the failure of certain academic practices. Anyone who can place testing and teaching in opposition clearly needs some teaching. Assessment (testing) is an integral part of teaching; this applies to standardized tests as well as other assessments created by individuals or publishers.

I imagine this resistance to standardized tests is a corollary to the backlash against Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Those who oppose CCSS often mistake it for "curriculum" and assume it dictates what teachers must teach. As I have previously written, this is a misunderstanding. CCSS, like any set of standards, merely establishes benchmarks to measure the academic progress of students. Standardized tests are supposed to be the tools to measure said progress (or lack thereof). Admittedly, I have been displeased with much of what has been offered as "standardized" testing, since it is often the result more of political process than academic research. However, the concept of testing students to determine their mastery of certain concepts is sound educational practice and should be encouraged.

I wonder what the detractors of testing and standards are in favor of. The current sorry state of public education in this country should be enough to drive anyone toward efforts to improve. To measure improvement, standards are necessary. Imagine a football field with no yard markers on the field and no goal line. Officials would have no way to award first downs -- no way to call touchdowns. The game would be pointless. Standardized testing puts the yard markers in the classroom. Testing allows easy comparison of teachers, programs, and schools. Testing gives everyone a goal to strive for. 

The misapprehension among the detractors is that standards place onerous demands upon teachers and schools, taking away their autonomy. This is true only in the sense that standards force teachers and schools to show where their students are on a scale that can be used to measure them across district, state, or national boundaries. What I have seen of the CCSS looks like a robust but achievable set of standards for educators. What we need is an appropriate test to measure mastery of those standards. I don't know if such a test exists yet; Common Core is too new for definitive judgment.

In my education classes at the seminary (eons ago), I was taught that God desires the best from each of us -- that excellence is the standard we must establish. I also learned that no human product will ever be perfect, but that striving for perfection is our duty. The Common Core State Standards are not perfect, but they are an effort to prod educators toward excellence. I don't see anything wrong with that. I vote for teachers and testing, thank you.

Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking

I am upset, frustrated, disappointed and bordering on angry. I know I should not let emotion into this, but it is hard to watch my fellow conservatives make donkeys of themselves. The braying I refer to is about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for education. I have written about this before, but I must do so again in response to an article that floated onto my Facebook wall today.

I have been following a news service called the Tea Party News Network (TPNN). They certainly lean toward the right fringe, but much of what they say has been worth reading -- until today. The article in question by Jennifer Burke reports that a school in California following Common Core standards asked students to write a critical analysis of the holocaust deniers. At least, that's the way I see the assignment. Burke sees it quite differently.

Burke went ballistic calling the assignment openly anti-Semitic. According to the article, students were told to weigh the evidence from history using whatever legitimate sources they could find against the argument presented by the deniers. I think this is a wonderful assignment; what better way to convince young people that the deniers are full of hooey. Apparently, Burke does not believe the truth will be evident in an open debate of the facts. I want to ask Ms. Burke how she knows the holocaust is true and the deniers false. I suspect she would claim it is an opinion based on real evidence whereas the opponents' argument is conjecture and contrived conspiracy theories.

The spokesperson for the district involved in the kerfuffle, Syeda Jafri, defended the assignment with a logical assertion: "Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship." Amen. Using this method on the TPNN article reveals that they are on shaky ground rhetorically and logically.

First, I say again that the Common Core State Standards are not curriculum. The school did not get the assignment Burke decried from CCSS. Each district, each school, each classroom teacher makes decisions about what curriculum to use to meet the standards. In this case, the standard calls for teaching critical thinking. The assignment in question is perfect for this: it is current; it is controversial; it has plenty of coverage in terms of source material. 

Elsewhere in her tirade Burke criticizes "Common Core based anti-American lessons that have been reported across the country." These undoubtedly do exist, but they cannot be blamed on CCSS; liberals pervade our education system, so the lessons they teach will appear frequently. Given the freedom CCSS gives to local entities to come up with curriculum, Ms. Burke should be calling on conservatives everywhere to get involved in their local schools. (Ironically, CCCS actually requires the teaching of our country's founding documents, one of the rare curricular demands.)

Second, Burke displays the very weakness the CCSS are trying to strengthen: the lack of critical thinking skills. Besides confusing standards with curriculum, she peppers the article with loaded language (anti-Semitic) that begs the question: the assignment is only anti-Semitic if you assume the students could correctly side with the deniers. Is the truth of the holocaust so fragile that it cannot stand up to critical analysis? I don’t think so; Burke implies that she does.

Sadly, the district succumbed to pressure brought by a contrived media campaign and had Jafri announce, “This was a mistake. It should be corrected. It will be corrected. We all know it was real. The Holocaust is not a hoax. … I believe our classroom teachers are teaching it with sensitivity and compassion.” Burke then blasts Jafri for saying the school's critical thinking approach to the truth has no "sensitivity and compassion." I beg to differ with Ms. Burke; it is terribly insensitive and dis-compassionate to give our students facts but not the ability to distinguish truth from error.

As believers we are called to test the spirits, to judge the fruit, in short, to be critical thinkers. I believe part of the reason so many young people are disinterested in the church today is because they were told for a generation or more NOT to question the faith. They were spoon fed a diet of doctrine which may have been theologically correct, but they were reprimanded for asking questions or "experimenting" with new ideas. I say, give them the tools to do good critical thinking (in this case, good Bible study methods) and let them at it. I know the case for Christianity can stand up to scrutiny. I wonder what Ms. Burke is afraid of.

The Dumbing of America

The College Board announced recently that it will take another step backward on its flagship SAT college entrance exam. The SAT, once the dominant test for high school juniors hoping for a seat in a discriminating college, has lost its numerical advantage. On the coasts of the nation, it is still the test of choice in most schools. In the mid-section of the country, however, the ACT has steadily gained numbers so that it now has surpassed its rival in numbers of test takers nationwide.

It cannot be said for certain that the College Board is changing because of the competition from the ACT, but the fact remains that recent changes will bring the venerable measure closer to its younger foe. The real story of what the College Board has done comes into focus with a little historical perspective. The SAT has been gradually dumbed down to accommodate our increasingly less capable high school population. Back in 1994 the College Board succumbed to pressure to remove the devilish antonym and analogy questions. These questions measured both vocabulary and critical reasoning skills, two elements found dwindling among high schoolers. Anyone who works with college freshman and sophomores as I do can attest to their poor vocabulary and paucity of reasoning skill. To protect them from ego damage, the SAT stopped asking them hard questions. I think that is metaphorically called punting (and I don't mean using a long flat bottomed boat.)

The other major change in the SAT is the removal of "SAT words," a term of derision that has been applied to any word that the hearer does not recognize. In other words, erudition is passe; we be down with dumb. The remarks by one high school student concerning the changes are telling. Commenting on the old test which had, "hard words and stuff," she was relieved to know her vocabulary would not need to grow much to score well on the test. I can't wait to get her in Composition class.

On another front there is a furor over Common Core standards in education. Many conservatives are joining the fight against them. Rachel Alexander of the Christian Post makes a false statement typical of many objectors: "Conservatives are in an uproar over Common Core, an educational curriculum being forced upon the states by the Obama administration." First, Common Core is not a curriculum; it is a set of standards. Curriculum is what and how you teach; standards, like Common Core, are the goals you hope to achieve by teaching what you teach. The Common Core is simply a set of concepts that students are expected to know at a given stage in their education. It is up to the local school, even the classroom teacher sometimes, to decide what materials and lessons to use. Second, Obama is not forcing any state to adopt Common Core. Sure, there is federal money available for those who do, but just like many federal programs, states can choose not to take the money.

Alexander also cites Diane Ravitch, a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, saying Common Core has not been proven. That is not true either. Tennessee has vigorously applied Common Core standards along with a rigorous teacher training and accountability regime and their student scores have rocketed toward the top in national rankings. Meanwhile Michigan dithers over what to do and our student scores are rapidly sinking toward the bottom. There may be honest objections to how standards are applied and how and when students are tested, but objecting to standards is like saying you don't care if students learn anything.

We cannot spank them anymore; that would be abusive, so they misbehave with impunity. They might sue if we make onerous demands on them as teens, so they have freedom without responsibility. Schools purport to teach diversity and end up promoting mindless uniformity. Across the country nearly 20% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Year after year American students fall farther behind students from many other countries. If I didn't know better I would suspect a sinister conspiracy to produce a generation of mindless automatons who will stand for nothing and fall for anything. That sounds suspiciously like the technique used by the Serpent in the Garden. Surely we wouldn't fall for that again.

The Truth About the Truth

I wrote recently that it is important to focus on the truth. Quite obviously this is essential in religious matters, and every major religion has its truth documents. Another sphere in which the truth plays an indispensible role is public policy, more commonly called politics, where truth documents are harder to identify. I frequently hear people say that they pay little attention to politics because they are disillusioned with the lack of integrity they see throughout the system. Yet this very lack should be the driving force to seek the truth and elect those who support it.

In America we have a representative republic. This means that we elect others to make judgments for us concerning public policy. The ultimate reason for believers to demand truth from their representatives is survival. In early post-WWII Germany Martin Niemöller famously said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

There are countless examples of “border skirmishes” that mirror the socialist-unionist-Jew progression Niemöller pictured. The anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week allows pro-lifers to see the dramatic results of losing that battle. As of this writing, the casualty count is over 57 million.  Thankfully support for unrestricted abortion is waning, and there is reason to hope that Roe v. Wade may one day be overturned. The reason for that turn-around is often credited to the use of sonograms, a poignant truth document if ever there was one.

Another sphere where freedom is being slowly eroded is economic. Certainly, material wealth is low on the list of concerns for Christ-followers, but economic equality (socialism) is not biblically supported. However, equal opportunity is in line with the overall teaching of Scripture. We should be concerned when government policies drive down opportunity and drive up unemployment essentially limiting opportunity for large numbers of people.

The current administration likes to say that the economy (and hence opportunity) is becoming more healthy under its policies. The truth does not support these assessments. The figures being used to paint an optimistic economic picture are “massaged” to say it kindly. Most media outlets are reporting a drop in unemployment to less than 7%, when in fact, the number of people not working or working part-time but desiring full-time is closer to 20%. The labor participation rate, a truer measure of unemployment, is at its lowest since 1978.

The rising price of stocks is also highlighted as a sign of economic health, but inflation, a drag on true economic health, is the largest contributor to a rising Dow Jones average. This administration does not use realistic means to measure inflation either, creating a double truth-challenge to the overall assessment. (For an excellent article on this see Marotta.) To become properly informed, to learn the truth, believers cannot trust the major news media anymore, as they have become propaganda organs for the administration.

We should also be concerned with the way the our country’s founder’s plan for a separation of powers is being eroded. The executive branch is usurping powers it was never intended to have. The bureaucracy (think IRS scandals), the judiciary (think court stacking) and even the Senate are complicit with this administration in attempting to whittle away the freedoms our founding fathers wrote into the US Constitution. The head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder, has repeatedly gone beyond the stated purpose of his office. President Obama said blatantly last week that he will [mis]use the executive order provision to create law when the appropriate branches do not cooperate with his agenda.

Gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association are sounding the warning that our Second Amendment rights are under attack. While many people who don’t own guns think this issue does not affect them, it must be viewed in light of Niemöller’s perspective. Second Amendment rights are very closely tied to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. If a majority of people stand by and watch Congress and the administration chip away at the Second, there will be no grounds for resistance when the First is attacked more stridently. It is already illegal to preach from parts of Leviticus in certain jurisdictions (the UK , Canada and the US) because to do so would be “hate speech,” a limit on believers’ speech.

The truth is that the traditional American way of life is under attack. We still have the power of the ballot box to combat this attack. To do so, believers must become informed voters. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Believers need to start noticing and doing something to set things right. If we don’t do it soon, we will find ourselves in Niemöller’s predicament with no one to blame but ourselves.

Testing the Tests

Someone has said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting to get different results. If that's true, then the folks in Washington's education meddling department must be insane. The No Child Left Behind act (NCLB, pronounced Nickelby) was a dismal failure by the estimate of every teacher I know. Yet now, according to the Washington Post, Arne Duncan, Obama's hand-picked education guru, is retreading NCLB and pushing it on schools as the Race to the Top.

Elements of the new program certainly have merit, but then so did NCLB on paper. An effort to help students across the USA master basic academic skills is laudable. Making schools and teachers accountable for the scholastic performance of their young charges sounds like a good idea. The problem with both NCLB and Race to the Top is the instrument used to measure skills and rate performance. Just as it is true that he who makes the rules controls the game, so also he who designs the evaluation describes success.

Neither Kennedy's NCLB nor Duncan's Race to the Top recognize the wide cultural diversity present in today's public schools. Each of these programs uses testing procedures and materials which discriminate against large portions of the population. One need not be an expert in Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory to understand that people have different learning styles and strengths. Add to this the differences between a child from the inner city, a farm, a native American reservation, a metropolitan street and a suburban neighborhood and you may begin to understand why no one test can measure all children accurately.

Two examples of this cultural disconnect will illustrate my point. Inner city children from a background of poverty were asked to write whether they would rather stay at an ice hotel or a regular hotel. Even I had to have the concept of an ice hotel explained (it refers to a hotel constructed entirely of ice.) Few of these children have been to any hotel, let alone something as esoteric as an ice hotel. The same test asked for the ten year olds' opinion of Michigan's beverage container law. Many were unsure what a beverage is; few had an opinion of the law since they didn't understand it was about the return for deposit concept. Under the testing rules, questions from students cannot be answered, so if they don't understand the question, they are not likely to provide a worthy answer.

Another aspect of the testing regime which teachers dislike is the pressure to "teach for the test." Because the test scores effect the amount of funding available to the school, administrators are draconian in their demands of teachers. In the weeks preceding the test, no deviation from preparation is allowed. Teachers feel corralled into dry, unimaginative lessons; the students likewise become quickly bored. One imagines the level of true, worthwhile learning is quite low.

Jay Matthews suggests a solution in his April 25 blog. Matthews notes that the ground shaking book by Doug Lemov is having seismic effects on young teachers. It may sound simplistic, but getting back to the basics may be the best solution to our education woes. As Matthews points out, many young teachers are frustrated by the tried and failed theories of the entrenched leadership. If you haven't seen the movie, Freedom Writers, watch it for an entertaining and enlightening example of this phenomenon. Erin Gruwell, the teacher on whom the movie is based, has continued to inspire students at Wilson High. Her shocking method: treating the students as responsible individuals and providing them with basic skills to cope with a world gone berserk.

What can we do? How about bringing the control of our schools back to the most directly affected people, the parents and local educators who have the greatest stake in the success of the enterprise? How about we send people to Washington who will dismantle the misguided department of meddleducation? We have that choice in the 2nd District in Michigan: Bill Cooper. As concerned parents, we can also become more involved in our childrens' education: attend parent-teacher meetings, PTO, board of education sessions and, most important, teach our own what it means to be responsible, literate citizens in a free republic. After teaching them about God, there is no higher calling.

Intended Consequences

The textbook debate going on in Texas right now is instructive of a larger issue. Greta Van Susteren of Fox News ran a clip of Patricia Henry, Texas Board of Education member, saying, "Well, I think you have made it very clear that the [national] textbooks are the result of what comes out from this standard.... we are the largest purchasers of textbooks. So therefore, we do influence what happens in other parts of the country." California used to hold sway over textbook content, a fact which partially explains why content has become increasingly liberal. If the move to digital or on demand books takes over the textbook industry, one-state influence may cease to be a determining factor in curriculum content.

Until the digital revolution comes, the debate will continue. The big flap in Texas is that conservatives want certain things taught in their schools, radical things like American exceptionalism, individualism and the value of limited government, according to another Texas board member. These are indeed radical ideas, radical in the original sense of the word, coming as it does from the Latin, radix, meaning root. The conspiracy I hinted at in "Informed Consent" is plainly evident in the opposition to Texas conservatives. A picture posted in James McKinley's NY Times article shows protesters wearing shirts proclaiming, "Save Our History." Conservatives would answer that they are doing precisely that.

People might be confused by the progressives' actions if they don't understand the agenda. A teachers' union in California recently spent millions in support of SR1322, a bill which sought to end the practice of having public servants take a loyalty oath. Granted, the oath, a product of the 1950's, smacked of McCarthyism in some details, but on the whole, it was a pledge to defend the state and the nation from malicious influences. Reading the argument of the teachers' union reveals that they took exception to the idea that pride in one's state or nation should be fostered. It appears they believe that defense of and pride in one's country is demeaning to those from other states or countries. Even the RINO "Governator" Swartznegger saw clearly enough to veto the bill when it reached his desk.

Under its tiny brown cap, the little acorn hides the mighty spreading oak. The seed of tomorrow is planted by the deed of today. An article in Suite 101 says, "The dearth of knowledge in what is considered basic in Arts and Science classes is [increasing] every year among college freshmen and may be traced to earlier education... Part of the blame lies with high school teachers that [sic] often have only a rudimentary understanding of their subject area." College teachers today are themselves the product of the dumbed-down curriculum that plagues academia.

I don't know how the textbook debate in Texas will turn out. In a hundred years (if we last that long) the dominant ideologues may report their version of the squabble as "History." No generation is exempt from bias, yet there are those today who claim the exclusive right to invent the truth as they go along. Solomon once said, "Truth will continue forever, but lies are only for a moment." (Proverbs 12:19 NCV) If progressives have their way the truth may soon lie alongside Gutenberg and his children. Perhaps if Google succeeds in digitizing everything ever written, some future Ezra will electronically resurrect the authorized version. (See Nehemiah 8)