The More Things Change

Last night I spent a few hours with a hundred of my closest friends. Okay, so they weren’t all that close. They were all from my high school graduating class, and with only the rare exception I had to peer at their name tags (which incorporated a senior photo) to put names to faces. It struck me that there were only a few of us (me included, I am told) who look enough like our forty year-old photo to be recognizable. And yet, once the identity of a person was established, it was uncanny how many of us still bore the remnants of our former selves. The hippies still had that 60’s love child look; the geeks still had the pocket protector look; the jocks and the cheerleaders still seemed to float together on the balls of their feet; the wallflowers were probably still there, although I didn’t notice.

I think the Catholics used to say, “Give us a child until he is five, and we have him for life.” Child psychologist pretty much agree that basic character is formed by then, if not soon after. That being the case, at seventeen or eighteen in our I-don’t-want-to-grow-up society we are all little more than larger versions of what we were in knickers. At that point we head into the “real world” of college or the workplace and forge our identities relative to what’s out there. Free spirits wander more freely and pencil pushers decide who they want to provide them with pencils. Then somewhere around the mid to late twenties our brains stop maturing, so say the psychologists. From that point on, it’s more or less like Mad Max wisely opined, “Wherever you go, there you are.”

I always used to chuckle at how all the “old people” had hair styles and fashions from the 1940’s or 50’s. Looking around the room last night, I realized that, by and large, we all sported coiffures very similar to the photos on our name badges. It causes me to wonder if the class of 2010 will gather in 2050 with the men in spiky dishevelment and the ladies in meticulously messy “beach hair.” Will the guys still be wearing their pants halfway to their knees displaying their boxers for all to see? Will the girls have on skinny little too-short tees with just enough skirt or short to keep you guessing about their underwear? Fashions come and go, but don’t we all snicker at the forty-something moms who dress like their daughters, a who’s she kidding smugness in our attitude?

If there is a message in this it would be for parents of young children: shape your kids carefully; you are molding them for life. It reminds me of that verse from Proverbs, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The music at our reunion was provided by a reunited garage band, not assembled as such in forty years, doing a remarkably good job bashing out “Wild Thing” and “G-L-O-R-I-A” and tearing me up with “Don’t Let the Sun Catch You Crying.” My high school sweetheart and I even got onto the dance floor and gyrated with the rest of the “kids” from our class. Which made me realize that I spent the night the same way I spent most of my high school years, hanging out with the girl I love, pretty much oblivious to what’s going on around me. The more things change…

Responsibillity: Take It!

I heard it again over breakfast just last week. It’s the question on so many minds: what’s happening to my country? Where is the America we used to know? The discussion generally turns to another question: who is responsible for the radical changes taking place in the fabric of our republic? The easy answer is to point to Mr. Change B. Obama and his merry band. However, I think this is too simplistic, and perhaps it even approaches the banks of denial.

I am of the opinion that the true cause of our devolution lies closer to home. For at least a couple decades I have been watching the mindset of the baby boomers work its way through our culture and in their offspring. Uber-boomer, Bill Clinton, provides a perfect example. His claim not to have had you-know-what with you-know-whom and then parsing the meaning of “is” when his bogus declamation was discovered is classic. The response of his supporters was purely sycophantic. His behavior formerly would have been called irresponsible; now it is no one’s business but his own.

Whence responsibility for one’s actions? As I write this I am enjoying some vacation time on my boat in a marina. Examples of irresponsibility abound. Loud parties continue past midnight a few feet from the berth where I am trying to sleep. Drunken sailors bounce off boats and docks as they try to return to their slips. The baseball game blares from a set of cockpit speakers blanketing the basin with the play-by-play. Boaters “exercise” their pooches in the grass next to the sign prohibiting dogs. US flags fly unattended through rain, sleet, hail or dark of night.

That last one may have flown over some heads. I feel almost alone in my efforts to show proper respect for the flag of our country. Maybe it is my Boy Scout training or my son and father of a veteran status that makes me more sensitive. Most people respond with a blank stare when asked about flag etiquette. I say if you are going to fly the flag, you are responsible to learn how to show the honor due the colors.

But why am I surprised when Presidents don’t honor their marriage vows; revelers don’t respect the rights of their neighbors; no one seems to care about the stewardship of public places. The lack of knowledge about our founding principles is abysmal. No one should be surprised that our country is slowly slouching towards Gomorrah. We’ve given up caring about so many little things (that really do matter,) it’s no wonder the big things are falling apart at the seams.

I'm Not What I'm Not

Victor Davis Hanson observes in a recent blog that Obama’s, “Bush did it” declaration does not constitute a foreign policy. It is consistent, however, with his I'm not Bush response to the troubled economy. It also remains true to his entire presidential campaign theme: Change (from those dreadful Bush policies.) I think history will record his handling of the Gulf oil disaster as very un-Bushlike as well: the Bush response to Katrina, though clumsy at times, was operational within seventy-two hours; Obama took fifty-two days to get rolling on the spill (in equally clumsy fashion, it seems.)

One third of the way through his first term as President, Obama is still defined largely by what he is not. He is not, for example, patriotic. He chose to spend Memorial Day vacationing in hometown, Chicago, rather than appearing at the ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery (another sad story sits there.) While he did bend to pressure to wear a US flag pin occasionally, he still displays the “crotch salute” while others around him either salute or place their hands over their hearts honoring the flag in public ceremonies. He continues to apologize for American exceptionalism like a lonely schoolboy craving acceptance whenever he speaks abroad.

Nor is Obama demonstrably Christian by biblical standards, despite his assertions to the contrary (see his 2008 interview in Christianity Today.) Again, he is certainly not Bush. Whatever one thought about Bush policies, there was no doubt as to the role his faith played in his governing. Obama seems to consciously avoid linking faith to actions. This may be due to the nature of his faith; though he denies affinity with Reverend Wright, he did spend twenty years listening to militant black liberation theology. Perhaps he shields the public from his faith because it would alienate about ninety-seven percent of the population. Or perhaps we should pay more attention to his statements that Islam and Christianity are equally worthy of respect. Perhaps he cannot act on faith because he does not have one.

This defining by negation is quite normal. People used to define Christians as those who “don’t smoke; don’t chew; don’t run with girls who do.” More recently Christians seem to be defined in our culture as those who are not tolerant, not politically correct, not modern, and not open-minded. I wonder if we took pains to be more proactive to define ourselves by actions if we could change that perception. What if we were gracious, forgiving, kind, loyal, hardworking, and truly loving in the I-did-this-just-for-you Jesus kind of way? What if the fruit of the Spirit was the taste we left in our wake? What if we elected people who stood FOR something instead of embracing change for change’s sake? “Throw the bums out,” is a popular sentiment these days. I agree that we need to clean house; let’s just be careful about whom we put in their place.

Think or Swim

The current trouble in Arizona raises the question, "Is there a Christian view of illegal immigration?" I believe there is, but it is not simple. The most obvious starting point is the word “illegal.” The Bible teaches us to be subject to the powers that rule us. We are a nation of laws, without which our society could not exist. Therefore, Christians should not support law breakers unless the laws they break would force the law keeper to violate a higher law, namely, the teaching of Scripture. After the founding fathers, Martin Luther King is our country’s most renowned civil disobedient; his campaign to remove segregationist laws stands of firm biblical ground in my opinion.

But one must ask what higher law is violated by requiring immigrants to follow a prescribed method to enter the United States. Proponents of relaxed immigration laws play on public sympathy by detailing the sad plight of many people in Mexico. They need the financial opportunities provided by the US economy to support their families, so the argument goes. Christians have two options in response: charitable giving, a core principle, can be directed to truly needy people, and informed debate can be held regarding current immigration policies to see if allowing more immigrants or shortening the wait to emigrate would be beneficial to all parties concerned. Neither of these choices condones or supports law breaking.

There is a deeper issue implicit in this discussion. All societies have defining characteristics, primary among them are borders, language and culture. Borders define the extent to which societal expectations govern; language is the vehicle by which expectations are transmitted; culture is the text which describes the society. Our current problem at the Mexican border tramples all three of these. Illegal immigrants ignore the border crossing rules, speak primarily Spanish, and form culturally segregated barrios when they settle here. If you listen to the most radical among their number, they do not desire to assimilate; they have invented the term “reconquista” to imply not a friendly melting pot, but a forceful take-over.

The only nation that ever belonged to God was ancient Israel. God no longer chooses nations; he chooses individuals. Yet as His people in this nation, we have every right to order our society by standards which reflect biblical values if we have the votes to accomplish that. Set aside the fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the law simply by coming here; they are taxing an already overburdened system to the breaking point. Schools, hospitals and the courtrooms are being overrun by illegal immigrants in many parts of this country. This is costing legal citizens billions of dollars, a sum which we do not willingly pay. This is robbery. This is not something we need to condone, no matter how destitute the immigrants might be.

Christian charity does not require that we relinquish all rights to private property. Yet the move to allow unlimited numbers of immigrants into our country or to forgive those already here illegally effectively does this. The debate over Arizona's effort to curb the cost of illegals in their state suggests some people believe only the illegals have rights. Although we are a rich country, we do not have unlimited resources. If we don't limit the number of people we invite in to eat at our table, soon there will not be enough food for anyone to make a meal.

When the Titanic went down, there were not enough lifeboats for all the passengers who were cast into the sea. The people who did have seats in the lifeboats had to make a terrible choice. Either limit the number of people in the boat or keep adding swimmers until they swamped the boat and everyone ended up back in the water. The world economy hit the iceberg some time ago; if we don't start making some hard choices, we may learn the answer to the old question, "How long can you tread water?"

A Bomber Too Far

James Carville must be a brilliant man. I say this because so many politically powerful people have called upon him for counsel. His brilliance is exhibited by his rise to such lofty status in spite of remarkably unpleasant vocal characteristics and a face made for radio. He has also shown outstanding cleverness, or perhaps just dumb luck, in his choice of a spouse, Mary Matalin. Clearly his equal or better intellectually, she brings to the marriage a kind of insurance no one can buy. If Carville’s policy suggestions are implemented to ill effect (as I believe they must be) Mary’s position on the opposite side of the political boat will prevent a family capsize.

I further respect James Carville for his present willingness to address the goose as he has the gander. Carville was quick to cast blame on George W. Bush for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yesterday, in true bi-partisan spirit, Carville screamed at George Stephanopoulos that Obama needs to, “Git down h’yah. We are dyin’ down h’yah.” He insisted that the unfolding tragedy of the Gulf oil spill demands nothing less than direct Presidential intervention. He went on to predict political disaster if the oil reaches Florida’s beaches. We all remember how important Florida can be in Presidential politics: hanging chads and all that.

I see a WWII B-17 bomber, flames enveloping both wings, smoke trailing ominously behind as it arcs relentlessly down into the war torn landscape. Carville sees it too. An increasing number of Democrats see it as well. The independents who fueled its maiden flight averted their eyes weeks or months ago. The irony in this failed bomber mission is that enemy fire did not bring it down; perhaps it was the effort to climb too high too fast or the refusal to throttle back the engines after take-off that brought disaster. Whatever it was that doomed this flight, it happened because of the actions of those on board.

I wrote some months ago of rats deserting a sinking ship. I like the bomber analogy better. In the 1970s there was a war movie called A Bridge Too Far. The movie I am imagining might be called A Bomber Too Far. This seems to be the opinion of many decent, well-meaning folks who voted for Barak Obama. He has gone too far. But lest we Christians get too smug, we should recall the Jimmy Carter fiasco. Many believers thought it was going to be wonderful to have a Sunday School teacher in the White House. That turned out not so well.

I would rather have a wise atheist running our government than a foolish Christian. The President of the United States is not a ministry position. The man in the White House is the CEO of the world's largest operation. Would I prefer someone there who shares my values? Of course. But let us not be foolish this November. From the Oval Office to the Drain Commissioner, let us elect men and women who hold to the uniquely American expression of a democratic republic and have experience suitable for the job. Certainly, we can assess their understanding of the divine nature of their appointment. But we must not again stumble into electing an incompetent. If we leave men like Barak Obama at the controls much longer, we may not pull out of this dive in time.

I Don't Believe in God

Shocked? A former chaplain at Harvard reportedly responded to students who said they did not believe in God in this manner: tell me about the god you don't believe in; it may be that I don't believe in such a god either. He then proceeds to describe the God in whom he does believe, the God of the Bible as represented by the God-man, Jesus. This prompted me to think about the "gods" today's atheists don't believe in.

The kindly grandfather god. Picture a white-bearded old gentleman with a warm smile rocking on some heavenly porch. He looks down on us with unconditional approval, perhaps shaking his head forlornly when we mess things up badly.

The angry stepfather god. This stern visage glares at our every move. He waits for the moment he can whip us mercilessly for any misdeed he chooses. He lives to whip us; he enjoys whipping us. Nothing is ever good enough for this perfectionist.

The absent landlord god. There is no clear picture of this deity, for he is not around. He put the universe together quite some time ago and took off for parts unknown. He may have left some rules behind, but one need not be too concerned about them in his absence.

The capricious mythological god. Imagine Zeus casting thunderbolts from high on Mount Olympus. If he doesn't like your hair style today, he will drive the humidity into triple digits to destroy it. If you aren't prepared for a quiz, this will be the day he prompts your teacher to pop one on you.

The eastern mystic god-is-everything god. This unknowable universal life force mysteriously influences everything and everyone, assigning consequences to the actions of all creatures. No personal attributes can be described because there is no person.

The vending machine god. This is the god of the gift. Make the correct prayer, say the proper chant, complete the required task and this cosmic Santa will slide everything you need down your chimney. Need to know the future; drop your token and wait for your own personal palm reading.

I don't believe in these gods either. The God I believe in is the God-with-skin-on, Jesus of Nazareth. This God forswore his divine prerogatives for one lifetime in order to walk about dusty Palestine and demonstrate who God really is. This God, in true iconoclastic fashion, demolished the misguided notions and practices of the religious leaders of his day. (Read any one of the Gospels for a blow by blow report; start with John if you are unfamiliar.) For three years he said if you would see the Father, look at me. Then, after the religio-political institutions put him to death, he was brought back to life to validate all he had spoken. Scores of once atheists have set out to prove this God false, their conversions bearing witness to the power of the One who is Truth. I too believe in this God.

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.