More on the War on Education

In this article of the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/cps-set-to-lay-off-1000-t_n_885298.html), the reporter states that 1000 teachers are to be laid off from Chicago's Public Schools.  This follows 3000 layoffs last year.  "The layoffs come after several weeks of protests and controversy surrounding changes in CPS leadership. First, the Board of Education voted to rescind teacher raises due to budgetary concernswhile approving relatively large executive salary increases."


Sadly, this has been the trend across the USA for the past few years.  Money is tight, so make cuts to education.  Then, as the educational system doesn't work (because of lack of teachers and funds), blame the schools that the students aren't learning...And, as "logic" would have it, if the student's aren't learning, punish the schools by making more cuts.


As people of faith, and as Americans, we can no longer allow this to happen.  In our nation's system, the ONLY way to rise is through education.  Even then, there are class/cultural issues that can get in the way.  But, we'll leave those issues alone for the purposes of this argument.


It's time we look at education as a fundamental right, just like the right to free speech, the freedom of the press, etc.  When we deny a child education, or when we give a limited education, we are in fact denying that child the chance to have a productive adult life.  Sadly, this denial of education seems to be geographical.  Not geographical in the large sense, but mostly in the smaller sense.  Larger cities are facing bigger cuts than the suburbs of the same cities.  Rural areas are facing more cuts than more populated areas.  So, what we see is "geographical discrimination."


But, let's take a closer look at that "geographical discrimination" to see what is truly happening.  In the USA, according to the 2010 Census, the racial makeup was roughly as follows:  All White (Includes some Hispanic), 72%; Black, 13%, Hispanic 16%.  Larger cities (with only a few exceptions) have a larger concentration of minorities by percentage than the suburbs.  Rural areas differ in racial makeup by geographical area, but in these areas, the typical family is working class and a substantial number is below the poverty line.


Having our statistics, does the problem look obvious?  We are committing institutional discrimination on our minority and poor populations.  We are taking away what voice is left among the voiceless and justifying it by saying "there just isn't enough money."  To that, I answer (and pardon my language here, but this is quite personal for me): "Bull$#!+"


"But people in cities and rural don't provide enough in tax revenue to support their children's education."  That's what is often said (or at least implied).  The fact that they don't provide the revenue that a suburban area does is true.  But, why is it true?  Since the dawn of humankind, people have always feared "the other."  People have forgotten that God created humans "in God's image."  That means ALL humans (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Mixed Race, etc.).  If it is a person, "it" is made in the image of God.  Sadly, those of the majority have always seen "the other" as something to be feared.  As a result of fear, the majority has always tried to dominate the minority.  


"Well, that's just democracy in action...right?"  NO!  The idea of majority rule may work for elections of political candidates and what TV shows are on and which get cancelled, but this idea must be stopped when it provides "legal" discrimination against another human being.  


Look at our urban areas with all the "project housing," "slums," and "crime," and ask why.  At one time, cities were inhabited and run by the majority with the minority (though the minority usually had to face discrimination, intimidation, and segregation).  When the minority was recognized legally as deserving of human rights, the majority left the cities and formed their own "utopian" communities.  They drove up prices of housing/rentals that only the elite of the minority class could follow.  This action put the minority races and the less-elite of the majority race into greater concentration in our cities.  


Few will disagree with that account, but many will say "it's legal."  They are right, but we need to ask, "Is it moral?"  People can (and should) be able to live where they choose, but because of their choices, those who live in other areas should not be denigrated.  Because Person A chooses to live in a suburb does not take away the fundamental rights of Person B who stays in the city (by choice or because he/she cannot afford to move).  


As this "segregation by attrition" happened, the flow of money also became concentrated where the majority reside.  Again, that's an indisputable fact well within the rights of those who have their money.  But, that still does not mean that the government does not have the obligation to make sure that education is a priority for all people.  


In order to prosper as a nation, we cannot be divided by issues of "my side of town vs. your side of town."  We cannot be divided in "my race vs. your race."  Because at the end of the day, we are ALL of one nation and creations of one God.  


The money to fund public schools is there despite what politicians say.  In fact, the money could be distributed more equally without hurting anyone.  Get rid of outdated weapon systems.  Get out of the 2 (or 3) wars which receive hundreds of billions of dollars (we never had an objective for any of the wars, nor did we ever have an exit strategy).  Have everyone pay their fair share of taxes.  Don't overburden anyone, but make the system fair.  


This war against education must be stopped, or we will be a nation bankrupt of money, morals, and educated people.  The time of lies and half-truths needs to be finished.  As a nation, we need to accept no less than the best for OUR children who have no voice to advocate for themselves.

2 Books on Salvation: Review

Before reading this, some may think: "This is just going to be a review by one of those Duke Liberals..."  To quash that point of view let me point out that I thoroughly reject the labels of "liberal," "conservative," and pretty much anything in between.  Here's why:  Liberal by definition means that one does away with resources or traditional belief systems.  Ronald Reagan is known as a "conservative," but his military policies and spending were so "liberal" that they bankrupted the competing USSR.  But he's a "conservative?"  Conversely, people who try to "conserve" natural resources are often labeled as "liberals."

Rather than being definitions, these words have turned into being accusations of people by someone who disagrees with those people.  "Liberal" and "Conservative" are terms that I thoroughly reject and dismiss because they have lost their meaning.  I refuse to define myself by either term.  

With that said, let me delve into the 2 books above.

Both Love Wins by Rob Bell and Who Will Be Saved by United Methodist Bishop Will Willimon  at similar in content and message.  While Willimon's book is written mainly to an academic audience, Bell's book tackles the same topic with language for an everyday audience.  To review one is to review the other.  So, I will look at both of them as one (Yes, there are differences, but the main message is the same).  

These books look at salvation from a biblical point of view.  They challenge modern beliefs of salvation without rejecting them.  Quite honestly, both books leave some questions for the reader by him/herself.  By challenging our view of salvation, they don't say what many Christians believe is wrong, but they ask the question if we limit God in our minds.  I found both books to be intriguing and even at times frustrating; which, I believe is the purpose.

The modern view of salvation is that in order to "go to heaven," one must "confess to being a sinner" and "ask Jesus to be one's personal savior." (quotation marks are not intended to trivialize this belief, but to accentuate the point).  This view then leaves one to wonder: what about the billions of people who have never (or in the future, will never) hear the gospel of Jesus?  What about those who have heard but for some reason couldn't understand?  What about those who understand but reject the gospel?  In the modern view, if you understand and reject the gospel, the thought is you "go to hell" when you die.  There is much debate and argument for those who haven't heard or haven't understood, and there are many theories.  Some say these people will "go to hell," while others say "God will judge them based on their circumstances."

Let me digress and point out why I say "modern view of salvation."  Our doctrines of salvation have always been changing since the time of Jesus (and even before).  I'm only going to deal with post-Jesus salvation for the purposes of this review.  Some early Church thinkers (Origen, for example) believed that Jesus' sacrifice redeemed all of creation, and he believed more or less in universal salvation (all are saved).  As time went on, it was believed that salvation only came through the church and sacraments of the church.  People also throughout time added our actions (are you a "good" or "bad" person) to determine salvation.  The Protestant Reformation led to the foundation of modern views that salvation is by grace (a free gift from God) through faith (believing in Jesus' sacrifice).  From there, some theologians discussed "predestination."  Some say God predestined some to salvation and some to non-salvation (hell).  Other's say God gives the opportunity to all to be saved and it's our free choice.

These books look seriously at all these arguments.  They challenge them without disrespecting them or ruling them out.  Both point out that God can handle our tough questions.  That's why God is God, after all.  

Both of these books point to the saving nature of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.  They use scripture to point out that Jesus came to "save" not "judge" ("judge" meaning condemn).  That is a very strong argument supported by scripture.  Jesus' very nature was to "save" humanity and creation.  That's why the Gospels are "Good news." 

Neither book denies hell or says that all will be saved, but leaves open the possibility.  That is not entirely unorthodox in that scripture states that God does not want any to perish.  Neither book advocates universalism, but both allow that God has the power to save all, should God choose.  And, by God's very nature, that would be within God's power.  

Both books stick to Christian doctrine that "Jesus is the only way," but they ask very important questions about that statement.  Can one go through Jesus without knowing it is Jesus?  Will Jesus be as he was in the story of Zaccheaus?  In that story, Jesus "went as low as a person (or God) could go" to bring salvation to a person.  Zaccheaus was a chief tax collector, and therefore a supporter of the brutal Roman Empire.  Tax collectors also were known to "over-collect" and "skim money for themselves" from that "over-collecton." Will Jesus go to the lowest of the low and at least try to save them?

Both books point out that scripture says that God will at least attempt to save everyone.  This is also in line with scripture.  Because of God's love, God wants to spend eternity with all.  Because of God's love, we have free will.  We can choose to reject God's love.  Can God reject our rejection?  That's a question left open.  

While Willemon doesn't go into definitions of "heaven" and "hell" as much as Bell does, both still assert that both exist.  Bell goes to great lengths to define each.  "Heaven" is not just the "sweet by and by," but rather "full communion with God."  "Hell" is not just a place of eternal burning, but "complete separation from God."  With the evidence Bell gives from scripture, his definitions seem plausible if not convincing.  Both point out that salvation is not just "going to heaven," (though that is a part of it), but salvation is also for the "here and now."  Salvation is the communion or relationship with God that we can have at any time.

Neither book gives definite answers, and I think that is exactly the point.  We can't totally know the ways  of God.  We can know that God is love.  God wants all to be saved.  Somehow, as both point out, God will offer salvation to all people.  After that offer (in whatever form it takes - probably different for each person given differences in personalities/cognitive abilities/culture/etc.), it is each individual's choice to accept salvation or to deny it.  Both also give hope that we don't have to worry about those who never heard the Gospel or those who didn't understand the Gospel, but that we should still minister in a way to spread the Gospel so people can attain salvation immediately.  

I found both books to be scripturally accurate but they also brought up many important questions.  The modern "ask for forgiveness of your sins and ask Jesus into your heart" way is not wrong.  Neither is believing that "Jesus is the only way to God the Father."  Both of those ways ARE valid means to salvation according to both authors.  They divert from this in that billions never have or will have heard the Gospel (or hear it but don't understand).  When it comes to these people, they emphasize that God is a God of love first and judgement second.  They emphasize that while God must judge, God judges out of love.

An illustration by Willemon sums up both books.  Here is a synopsis of his illustration:  A pastor had to preach a funeral of a man who lived a sinful life, didn't know (or even care) about God, and committed suicide.  In order to give comfort to the family, while still acknowledging this man's faults, the pastor made a statement how God may be saying what the pastor himself was thinking.  "I'm mad as hell at you for how you lived your life.  But, I love you..."  The illustration goes on.  It doesn't say this man is "saved," but it leaves the possibility open.  

As Christians, we know that Jesus is the only way to God.  What that looks like to God we cannot know for sure.  We can only know that our job is to bring people to God through Christ.  God will deal with the rest, and however it is done, it will be fair and loving.

The War on Education

Education in America is under attack.  It is under attack by lies, half-truths, and misinformation by the hands of those who wish to dismantle the public education sector and keep education for the privileged few who can afford a private education.  This attack is nothing less than class-warfare and the victims are not only our children, but the future of American society as we know it.

Before outlining my argument, there are a few "givens" that people must understand:
1. Education is run by people who have no experience in education (other than they may have attended school).  This makes absolutely no sense.  People who know nothing about psychology of learning, child/adolescent development, statistics in testing/IQ's, etc. are making all the decisions.  Think of it this way.  I have a bank account.  Can I become the president of a bank based on that qualification alone?

2. Education is used as a tool by politicians of both sides of the aisle to advance their cause.  Everyone is the "Education Candidate."  But, as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding."  Those who are elected most often immediately put education on the back burner and give little more than lip-service.

3. We have a disgusting disparity of the quality of education between our richer and poorer populations.  This is not a simple matter of the rich being able to pay more in taxes as school money is often doled out by the State and Federal Governments.  This disparity is not always in the quality of education provided, but in the support of that education.  "Rich" areas have daycares where there is homework help, enrichment activities, and family support.  "Poor" areas do not have these luxuries (Yes, there are exceptions, but as a general rule, this is how it is).  In general terms, in "poor" areas, day cares are merely babysitting services, enrichment activities are minimal if they exist at all, and while families may support their children's education, they may not have the knowledge as to how to do that effectively based on past failures of the system.  Most, of this disparity is racially based.  Many people will say, "that's just the way it is," but the truth of the matter is that racial segregation is alive and well in America, especially in our urban areas.

4. Only through education can America compete in the global market.  We need scientists, doctors, business managers, etc.  BUT, we also need musicians, poets, writers, athletes and other culturally educated individuals to promote pride and unity to our nation.  We cannot separate the so-called "utilitarian" subjects (Math/Science/Reading) from the "cultural" subjects (Music, Art, PE, Drama).  Both go hand in hand to give a proper education to the total student.

With those understandings, we can look at the problems of the American educational system as it exists today.  I will outline some of the arguments and propose solutions.

1.  PROBLEM: Teachers are NOT the enemy.  Teachers go out each day for the love of preparing the next generation for adult life.  Yes, there are "bad" teachers.  But, there are many more dedicated teachers who serve not only as teacher, but as pseudo-parent, counselor, mentor, and role model.  These teachers more often than not spend hundreds of dollars (and in many cases thousands of dollars) of their own money to have basic educational supplies (pencils/paper/notebooks/educational materials/etc.) for their classroom.  Do we expect doctors to purchase their own needles for their patients in the hospital?  We would never think of such a thing.  So, why is it acceptable and even expected for teachers to purchase their own materials.
SOLUTION:  Teachers should have ready access to not only the basic materials of education but also to the materials which will make their teaching more effective, including teaching aides/manipulatives, technology, professional development, etc.  People will argue that we simply don't have the money to pay for such things.  I'm not an economist, and I'm not an expert on budgeting principles, but if we truly value our children and their future (and the future of our nation), we will reallocate spending to provide these needs.  If we only spend money on educating our children, we will spend less on imprisoning them when they are adults who feel they have no option except to engage in lives of crime.  Of course, this is not the only cause of crime, but it is a significant one.  Why are we satisfied by paying close to (if not exceeding) $100 Thousand on a criminal per year, but we balk at paying $7,000 per student per year.  With this reallocation of money, teachers deserve a livable wage.  Teachers are professionals who learn the science of education.  They then enter their practice and are paid wages that do not match a professional's salary.  That is a crime in itself.  As parents, we entrust our children to these professionals, these professionals spend the majority of a day with our children, and yet we don't pay them the salary they deserve.

2. PROBLEM: While teachers and schools should not be immune from accountability, as it stands right now, the No Child Left Behind Act and all of its ramifications through ranking schools through "standardized" testing, unfairly targets schools in low-income areas and is doing away with the arts as a core subject.

SOLUTION:  Accountability is a good thing.  Everyone needs to be held accountable.  However, the system to hold teachers/schools accountable is severely flawed.  In fact, "flawed" is not even word strong enough to describe the situation.  The system for accountability is trash.  First, we need to realize that all students do not learn at the same rate.  The NCLB expects all students to perform at a certain level.  This is not only unfair to low-income students who may not have access to learning-enrichment activities and experiences, but it is also unfair to students with learning disabilities as well as for gifted students.  Learning disabled students are expected to perform at the same level as their non-disabled peers.  There are some "loopholes" around this, but this is generally the case.  No one would expect a person who suffered a leg amputation to run as fast as an Olympic sprinter; why would we expect a student with learning disabilities to perform at the same level as a non-disabled peer?  What we SHOULD expect is growth appropriate to each student.  Second, the testing system is flawed.  If we are calling it "standardized," we need to make it standardized.  A true standardized test will yield a "bell-curve" type result (Few ranked high, Few ranked low, and Many in the middle).  To create such a test, it needs to be tweaked over years and years until it produces those results.  It is impossible to create such a test in one year.  Third, the arts, sports, etc. are not "fluff" classes that can just be eliminated.  This is where our American culture is manifested.  We are often fascinated with the culture of other nations, but we are killing our own culture.  Very soon, if the status quo continues, we will be a nation that has the culture of failure and self-loathing.  Third, the ranking of schools is not an accurate measurement of the learning taking place.  If a school has a disproportionately high level of disabled students, they will be ranked lower than another school; even if those disabled students progressed further than the other school.  "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) is a misnomer.  To reach AYP, a school must reach a certain level in all subgroups (subgroups are populations of students based on race, socio-economic class, gender, etc.).  If one subgroup doesn't meet the standard, the school "fails."  We need to focus on progression of learning in all areas rather than every student meeting the same goal.

3.  PROBLEM:  Schools are underfunded and cannot meet the basic educational needs of todays students.
SOLUTION:  As I stated in Problem 1:  We have the money.  We can fund schools adequately if we really wanted.  Some will make people think that taxes need to be raised to do so, but that simply is not the case.  What needs to happen is a reallocation of funds.  Yes, we are in tough economic times, and schools can't be immune, but they should not take the brunt.  We have outdated weapons systems, "pork barrel" spending on wasteful "programs," 2 wars (at the time of this writing we are also militarily involved in Libya though the government claims we are not at war - that would bring the total to 3 wars) with no end in sight, not to mention the cost of rebuilding both Iraq and Afghanistan (and possibly Libya).  We are still running the detention (and torture) center in Guantanamo despite promises to close it several years ago.  We are bailing out private businesses in the name of "national economic security."  If we can bail out private companies, we can fund public schools.

While there are MANY more issues that prove that there is a war on public education, those listed here may be the most obvious.  As a nation, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, we need to put politics aside when it comes to Education.  Children and Teens are the future of this nation.  We can sing "God Bless America" all day long, but if we don't support the future of America, all singing is in vain...Oh, wait...singing is "fluff" and not necessary.................

Funny Church Related Videos

If they had NBA announcers cover a church service...

I wonder if the disciples were really like this???

If only this could be taught in 4 minutes...

Facing my Fears

Being new to the ministry, one of the hardest realities I've had to deal with is death.  Thankfully, except in one case, the people who have died lived full lives.  In the other one, it was after a long battle with cancer.

Coming into the ministry, death scared me.  I didn't like to be around dead bodies.  I didn't want to think about my own death.  I hated when healthy people would openly talk about their own death.

I guess this year, I've gone through a "baptism by fire."  As pastor, one of my major jobs is to be present in all stages of the dying process.  To be honest, I still don't like it and I'm not completely comfortable, but I've come to accept it.  I don't fear it anymore.  Don't get me wrong...I'm not ready to talk about my own death...I'd like to hang around for quit a few more years, but being around death isn't as scary.

I've realized my fear is based on doubt.  What if I'm wrong about all this "God stuff?"  That's the central question.  Then I came across a summary of a theologian (Kierkegard) who said something to the effect that we can't have faith if we don't also doubt it.  In order to believe something, you also have to question it.  I would think that even the person who has the strongest faith at times doubts it, or at least doubts part of it.

The more I've been around the dying, I've been forced to face my fears.  I've come to accept that death is not to be feared nor embraced, but accepted.  Death is not the end, but just another chapter.  The dead person lives on in those whom he/she has touched, and his/her spirit lives eternally with or without God depending on whether the person accepted God's love or not.

The medical community (and probably because of law suits) work so hard to keep a person alive despite their quality of life.  We can't blame them...that's their job.  But I wish they also as an institution would know when to let a person die with dignity.  Merely keeping a person alive with a heart beat and breath assisted by a machine is not life.  But, as I said, we can't blame them.  Families want their loved one for "just another day."  Some people just can't say "good-bye."  I believe that is a sign of our culture.

We put so much reliance on ourselves that we put none on a higher power who just may know more than we do.  Yes, death is sad, and mourning is acceptable.  Tragic deaths are horrible.  But, when life has left a person, we as a society need to come to the acceptance that the person should be allowed to return to the Maker.

We will continue to doubt, but that doubt is also a sign of our belief.  To put it simplistically, how many times have you checked to make sure you turned off the stove or a light when you know full well that you did.  After packing bags for a trip, how many times do we re-check to see if we brought our toothbrush or comb?

I still don't like death, but I'm learning to accept it.  I don't think anyone "likes" death, but we must learn that it's just a stage of life.

The Lost Art of Talking to Telemarketers

It seems they don't call anymore.  Or maybe I just don't answer as often because I have caller ID.  They're my long lost friends....telemarketers.  

Like most people, I used to be annoyed when they'd call.  I'd just hang up on them and feel some sort of resentment because they took me away from something important...like watching TV.  Then, I decided to "befriend" these marketing geniuses.  I decided that hanging up on them was a wasted opportunity for my own self-entertainment.

It started innocently.  I'd ask some questions that really had nothing to do with what they were selling, or I'd give sarcastic comments, but finally, I realized I could have a lot of "real" fun with them.

It all started with a call from an unnamed company trying to sell me insurance on a credit card I had for their store.  Part of the deal was that if I would take the "free trial" of the insurance for 30 days, I would get a free watch.  A free watch????  woo hoo!!!  There was my way in!  As the telemarketer was telling me all about the insurance, I would interrupt him by asking about the watch.  What color was it?  Did it have a metal band? A plastic band?  Was it digital?  Did it have hands?  Did it tell the date?  The marketer was getting obviously upset with my questions, but he answered every one of them, albeit begrudgingly.  He only lost his composure somewhat when I asked if he could just send me the watch and I'd cancel the insurance now.  That wasn't an option, he told me.  Finally I agreed, but I wanted that watch shipped as quickly as possible.  I never got that watch....and I didn't get the insurance either.

Another time, a telemarketer called for my wife.  She didn't enjoy talking to them as much as I did, so I took this one.  The lady asked for my wife (who was sitting on the couch).  Deciding on what character to play, I was silent for a moment.  Then, I used my silence as my tool.  The lady asked for my wife again, and I started breathing heavily feigning a nervous condition.  "Can I talk to your wife?" she asked for the third time...."You could," I answered (sounding upset), "if she didn't just run off with another man." Then I faked the character of a person trying to hold back the tears but not being too successful.  I got an "I'm so sorry" from my new friend before she tried to hold her laughter as I sat silently on the phone.  We had about 10 seconds of silence before she told me "good-bye."  

Another time, I got a call in the middle of supper.  Trust me...DO NOT interrupt my eating!  I wasn't in the mood to talk, so I was going to hang up...but then my better self kicked in.  I don't remember what she was selling.  "I'm eating right now," I told her, "and then I have some things to do, but if you give me your home number, I'll call you later and let you know if I want" whatever the product was.  Didn't go over too well.  She kept telling me she wanted to call back at a more convenient time, but I insisted I'd call her at home.  I think that was the first telemarketer to hang up on me!

My favorite was when a security company called and wanted to install a security system.  I faked a low quality (but believable - at least by this man) voice of an old woman.  I pretended to be the housekeeper. "A security system?  How would I get in?"  He told me there would be a code.  "You mean all I have to do is say the code?"  No...I'd have to type it in.  "You mean it won't recognize who I am?"  No...they don't work that way.  The conversation progressed.  He told me that if they moved, they could take the service with them at no charge.  "They're moving?  How will I make a living?  Where did you hear they're moving?" He told me he didn't know them and didn't know if they were moving or not...it was just a service offered by the company.  It would protect their valuables like money and jewelry.  "But the husband doesn't wear jewelry...he won't even wear his wedding ring."  That's interesting, the man told the "lady."  "Are you married?" my other personality asked.  He told me he has a girlfriend.  "You sound like such a nice young man...and very handsome...you should propose!"  The conversation started to wind down.  But, I like to think that some good came out of my fun.  Maybe they're married with 2.5 children living in a house with a white picket fence.  Just maybe.........