My message to Gian Paul Gonzalez

Dear Mr. G,

I really appreciated the article about you in the latest issue of World.  I am sure I would enjoy knowing you, and that, as teachers, we have a lot in common. But I am also pretty sure there is a lot we don't have in common.  The article implies that you are a Christian (in one direct quote you mention Jesus), so as a brother in Christ, I have the freedom to ask you some hard questions.

You said, "My students want purpose;  they want to know that their lives have value...that they mean something." How do you answer this, Mr. G?   Do you tell them that there really is no enduring meaning outside of life in Christ? Or would that be too negative? Too intolerant? Do you present Christ as one among many ways to find meaning in life - all equally valid and undifferentiated? Or do you honor the implicit contract you have made with the state to be totally silent in matters of faith?

If you do say that meaning is found in Christ, are you above-board with your employer about this? Does your immediate supervisor know that you may be proselytizing on government time? Are you afraid of being found out? Does it cause you to behave deceitfully at times? What does that demonstrate to your students?   

You said, "If a student feels his life matters. [he's] willing to fight for it." On what basis do you tell a student his life matters? Do you tell him it matters because Gian Paul Gonzalez says so? Will that be enough when the student has moved on and forgotten you? Do you tell him his life matters because he's "special," like most public school teachers do? Do you not think he will eventually see through this...see that no one is citing an impeccable authority for such an assertion? Or do you tell him his life matters because the Bible says God formed him in his mother's womb and has plans of eternal consequence for him? If that's what you say, see the paragraph above about integrity before your employer.

Your advocates cite as one of your successes a former student who visits you every day and runs an anti-drug campaign. What is the message of the campaign?  Is it "Just say 'No!'"?  Because I'm pretty sure that failed twenty years ago. Or is it "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me"?  If that's it, then I know a lot of other folks who are fools working for half the salary you make because they thought they would not be able to teach that message in a public school.

When you advocate "staying in school" and "getting your education," are you saying that education alone can redeem? When students see you pulling down a government tax-based pay check, ought they assume that you believe the government controlled public schools teach all that one needs to know for success in life?  I notice you wear a dog tag that says "Truth or Die." Are you sure that the state standards you teach by in history class represent God's truth from a Biblical world view? Or is the Biblical approach only one among many "truths." Does it even matter?

As I said, I would probably like you if we could hang out.  But I can't wish you "godspeed" without knowing your answers to these questions.*

Sincerely,

Tom Askew, Ed.D.
Educator for Christ

* 2 John 1: 10-11
  

Back to school

Veritas Academy of Tucson opens today for its second year. God has provided "increase" in several ways: enrollment, staff, funds, etc. Those of us directly involved in this mission are thrilled with the amazing results we saw in the first year of Christian classical, university-model schoolling here in Tucson.    

These are tough days for those who understand and value Christ-centered, discipleship-oriented education. Veritas is one of the few Christian schools in the whole state which has an increase in enrollment this year, from 25 to 38 - a pitifully small increase by the world's standards.

Not only is the number of children receiving Christian education "small potatoes" in our increasingly secular and God-hating world, but the fact that we elementary teachers spend our days with very young children causes many people look down on our labors as "babysitting." But I thrill with the anticipation of each day that I am allowed to motivate, enervate, inspire, challenge, and astonish the next generation of Christian leaders. I love helping them put in order and master the elements of their universe, and I savor the essence of Christ in every corner of the curriculum.

As my French book in college said, "Ah, j'aime beaucoup le commencement d'une nouvelle annee scholaire!"   (Oh, how I love the beginning of a new school year!)    

Dr. Silver of Princeton: Science facts are superior to religious opinions; Indiana Supreme Court: That's just your opinion, professor

On Friday, June 24, a federal court temporarily suspended portions of Indiana’s House Bill 1210, which contained a provision aimed at defunding abortionist organizations, like Planned Parenthood, within the state. And although this suspension was disappointing, other aspects of the court’s decision were a boon for pro-life groups in Indiana and the whole nation. The reason is because the court upheld a key portion of the bill that requires women seeking abortions to be informed that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.”

In other words, human physical life begins at conception.

And the news gets even better: the court’s ruling came after Lee M. Silver, expert witness for Planned Parenthood, argued that “‘human physical life’ is meaningless” because “it is not a scientific term.”

Silver, a Princeton University professor and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told the court he had considered the opinions of Catholic theologians and bishops who believed life begins at conception but rejected them because they were belief-based. He said the position was “an understandable religious position” but not a scientific one. (Silver was not pressed to explain why he believed it was belief-based.) Silver told us much about the hole which many scientists have dug and fallen into regarding abortion, the beginning of life, and the nature of being human, when he said, “The scientific community does not accept the ‘fact’ that a fertilized egg, let alone a fetus, is human physical life.”

In Search of...."Pretty Good"

From the July 16 New York Times:


"Some parents in affluent suburbs such as Millburn, N.J., are working to keep out specialized "boutique" charter schools, which they say would divert resources and students from public schools. They say charter schools, conceived as alternatives to low-performing urban schools for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, are unnecessary in successful districts. Supporters say the charters expand school choices that should be available to all students."


Since I no longer have a separate blog devoted to education, readers of Dove Mountaineers will have to put up with the occasional rant about education.  And there is so much to rant about!

First of all, the parents in Milford would not have come up with this "objection" if

1. The teachers' unions had not already "alerted " them to this danger and brainwashed them with greedy and irrelevant hysteria.
2. They had not been throughly grounded in collectivism and anti-free enterprise proganda by attending public schools themselves.
3. They themsleves had attended very rare and "boutiquish" schools which teach logic.

Applying said logic, look closely at the two allegations against the charter schools in this article:

They "divert resources" from public schools.    However,

• Charter schools are public schools.   They are government controlled, government funded, and do not restrict admissions, except by virtue of size limitations.
• They have a right to the same resources as any other public school.  The monies ("resources") follow the student.  If the students choose to go to a particular public school, the resources will go there.
• No state that grants charters sets aside special resource provisions for charter schools that are not avilable to any other government funded school.

They "divert students" from public schools.

      And here is the real objection.  According to the political agenda of the teachers' unions, parents and students should never have the freedom to choose a performing school over an underperforming school, because it threatens their job security. 
      How? If charter school A is clearly outperforming neighborhood school B, it will gradually (or rapidly, in some cases) siphon off students from neighborood school B.  And with the students, comes the per/pupil share of that district's tax money.   Since staffing is based on enrollment, some teachers at neighborhood school B will eventually lose their jobs.  They could, you might suppose, just switch over and teach at charter school A, and no doubt some do. 
      However, charter school A probably outperformed neighborhood school B by: 
               (a) hiring only campetent teachers with a willingness to improve at their craft;          
               (b) holding teachers accountable for the performance of their students;          
               (c)  dismissing incompetent teachers;  
               (d)  requiring each teacher to teach to a standard set by the school itself, instead of forming an island of non-achieving autonomy within his or her classroom.

Make this your template whenever you hear or read something about school choice:   Opponents of school choice believe schools exist to provide jobs for incompetent people.  The benefits to students never come into the discussion.   If adults do not want there to be a high-achieving school in their district, these adults want America's future to be lead by marginally educated graduates of mediocre schools. 

But we are in crisis mode, and "pretty good" leadership is not going to get this country out of the mire it is in.  Especially "pretty good" leadership that believes that the state is the only beneficent provider of education, and that a fictional egalitarianism is not only achievable (it isn't), but desirable. (?!)
      

Two paragraphs from my newest favorite book

"How did the early church supplant...diverse and often hostile ideas?  It studied, critqued, argued against, sometimes adapted, and finally overcame them.  Individuals also demonstrated their commitment by authentic living, to the point of sacrifice and even death.  One of the most amazing success stories in history is the way Chrisitanity supplanted classical religions and worldviews to emerge as the leading influence on Western culture.

What does this suggest about the best strategy for engaging global secularism today?  We often hear Christians speak about recovering the vitality of the early chruch.  But which aspects of the early church are they thinking about?  It's a safe bet they are not thinking about the way the early church went on the offensive against the dominant intellectual systems of the age.  Today's churches pour their resources into rallies, friendship evagelism, and mercy missions that distribute food and medicine.  And these are all vital.  Yet if they aspire to the dynamic impact of the early church, they must do as it did, learning to address, critiqute, adapt, and overcome the domnant ideologies of our day."

Saving Leonardo, Nancy Pearcey, p.14.

Christians who believe that only Caesar can educate

My latest article for Presidential Prayer team was a report on the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of Arizona's scholarship tax credit provision.  I have made it a personal policy never to respond the reader comments, which often amaze and perplex me.   SInce I am going to remain consistent to that commitment, and because I realize that Dove Mountaineers may sometimes be assaulted with similar thinking in their conversations, let me respond here to some of the readers' comments on this article.

1.   Lars J, Suzie, and CK, have confused tax credits with voucher programs, and worry about government control which would damage the mission of Christian schools.   I have had this concern as well, in the past, but the wise legislators (including several well-known Christian men) who crafted the Arizona tax credit law intentionally distanced the government's involvement so as to avoid such compromises.  In its fourteen year history, there is no evidence to support the notion that students receiving these scholarhsip from private agencies have compromised the mission or effectiveness of any Christian school.  The Supreme Court decision assures us that the program will continue to be administered in much the same way it has been in the past.  People who are worried about this should come to Arizona, visit our Christian schools, and point out where we have been controlled by the state.

2.  Liz Jones sees the increasing secularization of our society, but opposes anything (Christians withdrawing into "holy huddles," any form of voucher or tax credit, Christians in politics, etc.) but "personal evangelism" as a response.   The problem with this position is the assumption that evangelism alone will stop "secularization," if someone isn't teaching the next generation how to "think" about psychology, sociology, economics, government, and the lessons of history from a Christian worldview.  The public schools make truth claims in these areas.  Oprah and the nightly news all have positions on these topics.  Education cannot redeem, but the redeemed must be educated.

3.  Kathy worries about poor and emotionally disadvantaged children in public schools who are likely to remain "outside" the benefits of school choice.  I have never understood this argument.  In the first place, who can accurately safeguard the future of every living child?   Kathy explains that as a public school teacher, she teaches manners and making wise choices.  While I don't doubt that she may be the brightest hope in many of these children's lives, is it a "given" that no one would do this without government control?  Eventually the "wise choice" argument breaks down when these same children become victims of peer pressure in middle school, and "social survival" (often in the form of gangs) seems a "wiser" choice than obeying the law.  She cannot give them eternal reasons for doing the right thing, and eventually children figure that out.  But Kathy opposes vouchers and school choice for everyone, reasoning that no parent should be able to act on his or her own child's behalf, as long as irresponsible adults are bringing children into the world who may be neglected.  I don't get it.

Over and over it comes down to:  who has the greater claim on lives:  Caesar or God?

Continuing the conversation from WorldMovers on the Chick-Fil-A incident

Proposition A:   marriage is the union of male and female.....only.

Proposition B:  marriage is the union of male and female OR male and male OR female and female.

Can both propositions be true at the same time?

No.

If Propostion A represents the law of the land, then two of the three possible unions mentioned in Proposition B are disallowed....as legal marriage.

If Proposition B is the law of the land, it effectively nullifies Proposition A (because of the "only" part). While one my argue (and plenty do) that Proposition B generously allows (still) for the marriage of male and female, that is not the same as saying the Proposition A is still true.  It is no longer true when Proposition B is allowed to be the law of the land. Proposition B subverts the meaning of marriage in the eyes of those who believe Proposition A to be true.

If God says Proposition A is true, and Caesar says Proposition B is true, who has greater authority when Proposition B becomes the law of the land?  While many Christians lived, and even flourished, under the thumb of Caesar, it is also true that many died for their faith. Caesar was shrewd enough to realize that he could not be the final authority in a true Christian's life.    

When a Christian says something is true according to the Bible, then it is true everywhere and at all times.  The Christian who believes the Bible cannot say "This proposition is true for me because I have faith, but it is not true for you because you have no faith."  He can only say,"This Biblical proposition is true for all men at all times, whether they believe it to be true or not."

It has already reached the point in our nation where Caesar doesn't like it when people say things like that.

Bin-Laden revisited: best comment yet

"In moments such as this, secularism leaves us bereft of any appropriate response. If there is no God above us, who trains our Seals for battle (Ps. 144:1), then we are left with two options, both of them bad. We are left without an appropriate vocabulary for our victories. Either we get a glorying in American military prowess, of the chest bumping variety, which is just obnoxious -- what Obama called spiking the football -- or we mistreat our warriors the way David did after the defeat of Absalom. But the only real alternative is to give glory to God. But that turns it into a religious war, and the secularists can't have that. So we are left with hubristic Americanism, or skulking home after the triumph. Gakk."           Douglas Wilson     (read the article here)

Christians in the Workplace

D. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University, recently completed a study of Christian leaders in the workplace, focusing on what role religion plays in busines decisions-making, particularly the motives which drive those decisions.  His conclusion is that leaders fall into four general categories regarding the role their faith place in their business life:  pragmatic, heroic, circumspect, and brazen. 

The "pragmatic" leader, exemplified by PepsiCo executive Steve Reinemund, defines himself as evangelical, but admits that he doesn't have all the answers.  Self-reflection by such a leader reveals that his decision-making is largely pragmatic;  they end up hoping they have made the right decisions.  Sometimes, Lindsay notes, they feel they are choosing between "the lesser of two evils - or the better of two goods."

Lindsay's "heroic" evangelical believes his or her faith is not "checked at the door," but rather drives the moral philosophies by which decisions are made.  He notes Sherron Watkins, the Enron wihistleblower, as an example of such a leader - one who would "do the right thing," even if it costs her her job or eventually brings down the company.

A "circumspect" leader is one who is "deeply religious, but isn't outward about it."   Like John Aden, a senior vice-president at Walmart International, such a leader is generally attracted to a workplace where the company's values resonate with faith convictions the leader already embraces.  While not always vocal about their faith, such men and women do peform their duties and make personal decisions that are based on faith convictions.  

An example of a "brazen" leader would be former Arizona Cardinals' quarterback and NFL Most Valuable Player Kurt Warner, says Lindsay.  These are the ones who are most unabashed about their faith alignment, and feel that their religion and jobs go hand in hand.  For these Christians, anything less than complete openness about their faith would be a matter of "being ashamed of the gospel."

Linday's conclusion is that "there is a lot more Christian commitment in the corner office than people think...it is entirely possible to be faithful and yet sensitive to the context of where God has placed you."

I find ths study encouraging, and its implications for our lives as Dove Mountaineers in the working community of Tucson are multifold.  I pray that we will be self-reflective about the impact we are making for Christ, regardless of which of the four categories we may most comfortably fall into.

Caring for the proper things

I assume many Dovemountaineers have been following, as has my family, the media coverage of the royal wedding. I like what radio commentator Dennis Prager had to say on Friday:  "This was a celebration of all that is excellent in human achievement."  He also commended the fact that the wedding was decidedly non-secularist in the worldview and cultural impact that it had.

I later found the paragraphs below by a blogger identified simply as "hogan."   His reflections are worth paying attention to:

"But whatever one thinks of the Monarchy, in an increasingly pathetic MTV world - the ceremony today was extraordinary, and a good thing for the world to see. It was nothing short of impressive - timely, carried out with precision, dripping with military, Christian and royal traditions. The music was magnificent - there were actual hymns rather than gaudy “praise music” rock bands, a church that looks like a church, and the participants and guests were dressed not just appropriately, but perfectly… The procession was extraordinary, with hand-sewn uniforms and white and black horses leading the carriages - the Union Jack lining the streets.

The event was broadcast to an estimated 2 billion people. And in my view - that is a good thing. It can hardly be bad - for whatever flaws of the people involved - to remind people through the broadcast of a high religious ceremony that Christ is Lord. It can hardly be bad to have 2 billion people hear a Christian reminder of the importance of marriage in furthering mankind. It can hardly be bad to remind people that for all its flaws, the Anglo-influence has indeed made the world a far better place. And it is hardly bad to remind people that tradition matters - that carrying ourselves the proper way matters."

And I say, "Amen."

Secular Salvation Gets its Come-uppance

For those not familiar with the story, in 1993 mountain climber Greg Mortensen was stranded in a  remote village in the Himalayas and developed a passion for providing schools for this and similar villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Eventually, Mortensen founded the Central Asia Institute which has reportedly started over two hundred schools in remote villages.  Okay, I'm leaving out a lot of details, to get to several points....

The impact of Mortensen's first book, Three Cups of Tea, was a triumph for secular salvation through education.  Finally, secular government educators had their own "missionary" hero, and Mortensen's book was touted at very teacher convention for over a decade. He sold tens of thousands of copies, particularly among those empty secularists who had been jealous of Christian mission stories for over a century.

Not only did Mortensen tout secular education as salvific for these poor villagers, he emphasized the need to educate girls, an idea novel to these Muslim communities, and one so politically correct that it enhanced his appeal to the left even more.

A recent Sixty Minutes episode (you can read the transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/15/60minutes/main20054397.shtml) "exposed" what they allege are untruths and exaggerations in Mortensen's story, as well as alleged improprieties in the running of his non-profit Central Asia Institute.  The CBS report was not completely convincing, but will probably do some harm to Mortensen's relentless fund-raising. 

One of the entertaining sideshows in this hullabaloo is watching the attempts by avowed secularists to drum up "moral indignation," both in opposition to Mortensen and in defense of him, as well. It fascinates me that those with no absolute basis for truth claims in their philosophy can borrow Christian ethics when it suits them, and pervert said ethics when it suits them. Circular arguments with no resolution dissolve into rhetorical volume contests, and battles over who can get in the last word.  A whole host of "end justifies the means" advocates are having a heyday saying that what Mortensen has accomplished should have no relation to whether or not his story is true.  Really.  These are Brian McLaren and Rob Bell's parishioners, for sure.

When the general public criticizes Christians for not living up to our own moral code, we deserve it.  We responded to Christ's call, and that means living to a higher standard, and it also means being falsely judged at times, as Passion Week reminded us last week.  Now that the cynical public is pulling down the left's heroes, we should not rejoice.  We should continue to repent daily, and continue to support Christian missions - missionary efforts which have, over the last two hundred years, founded and developed thousands more schools than the CAI, in scores of third world countries that Greg Mortensen has never heard of. 

A Primer on Political Dualism

Pastor Douglas Wilson has been reviewing James Davison Hunter's book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. In a future blog I would like to share some of his insights on this important work, but some clarifying definitions might be in order first.

The general topic of political dualism should be of interest to all Dove Mountaineers just now because of Pastor Allen's recent expositions on justice from Micah. It should be even more interesting to WorldMovers becuase of our experiences in applying scriptural analysis to contemporary social issues.

It is difficult for me to give a decent explanation of the dualistic position,since I don't personally espouse it, but I'll give an attempt here. As Christians, we know that what the world needs more than anything else is the gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope none of us would disagree with that. Dualists would say that we must emphasize the kingdom to come over the kingdom of this world. Again, most Christians would agree, but this is where differences in emphasis begin to emerge. How much is too much emphasis on this world? Extreme dualists would say that since the world is going to hell in a handbasket anyway, we should see this world only as a stage on which we prepare the way of the Lord for the kingdom to come. While we might engage with the culture and politics of this world when necessary, we must not have the illusion that anything we can do would actually change (improve) it. Therefore, it would be bad stewardship of time and wealth to devote serious energy or resources to cutural and political causes.

Many Reformed Christians would counter the extremes of dualism with what we call "the cultural mandate," the responsiblity of thinking and caring Christians to apply the wisdom of the scriptures in every venue of life. This position is especially important to those of us who labor in Christian education. We know that the children we teach will end up in a variety of life callings, most of which would not be classified as vocational ministry. We delight in teaching every academic discipline in harmony with the revelation of scripture, so that our students will remember - as they work in banking, real estate, law, medicine, construction, and commerce - that they can apply God's wisdom to not only "making a living," but to portraying the gospel through the redemptive qualities of their work.

Again, many who call themselves dualists would agree with some aspects of the cultural mandate, but as we go farther down the two roads of dualism and integrational living, differences begin to appear which are more than matters of degree or emphasis. I will comment further on this in future posts. But for the time being, think about these two positions and some of their implications in light of your own life priorities.