A Truth of the Universe

My son Jacob is 8 years old. A year ago he was reading Captain Underpants and later this year he had moved up to Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Journal of a Cardboard Genius. His sister, Kathryn, had recently finished The Lightning Thief and was looking forward to the movie. She was watching the movie trailer online and Jake became interested.

"Can I see that movie?" he asked.

Jake's mother and I have been pretty protective of his young eyes. A movie like that would not be one we would let him see at this age, so the answer was no. However, we had a weak moment when he proposed a deal to us - If he read the book, could he see the movie? To be honest, we felt the book was too high a reading level for him, so it was a safe bet.

"Sure, why not?"

Jacob all but inhaled the book. He read for longer periods than I had ever seen him do; tucked into the couch with his little bowl of goldfish crackers. Mary Lee and I quickly realized that he was, in fact, going to complete the book.

NOW what do we do....

We tried to persuade him otherwise, but in the end, he wanted to see the movie. From his readings, he pretty much knew where the scary parts were and would cover his eyes as necessary. For the Medusa scene, he wanted out of the theater all together.

At the end of the show he had a smile on his face and a spring in his step. He had read his first big-boy book and seen his first big-boy movie.

"So," I asked Jake as we walked out of the theater. "What didja think?"

"I liked it," Jake responded as he continued walking. Then he looked up at me and smiled.

"But the book was better!"

Persecuted For Being Annoying

I grew up in charismatic /evangelical circles. One of the mantras a young person in that subculture often hears is that "the world (non-Christians) will hate you because of what you believe!" or some variant on that theme.

So, it was quite a shock to me when I took my first real "secular" job (Wendy's) at the age of 16 and found that all of my pagan co-workers were quite pleasant. Rather than persecuting me, they were as polite and as friendly as could be. In fact, over the month's I discovered that their level of kindness and courtesy was actually better than many of the Christians I knew. I have seen this truth played out again and again over the decades.

Now that I am older and have those 20/20 rearview spectacles, it is clear to me why various religious people struggle with discourteous behavior. You simply can't spend your life thinking of others as being less than you, misguided and corrupt, being bound by sin, etc.. without damaging your ability to love and be lovable. In addition, any resistance a religious person might receive for their bad behavior is often misinterpreted as persecution. Negative social cues that would normally help correct poor conduct often rather serve as fuel for the religious person. As I read on a facebook comment today:

" I am always amused when (Christians) literally annoy the bejeezus out of others, get flack for it, and then attempt to claim they were "persecuted" for their faith."

Reading that comment made me laugh out loud, and cringe a little, because I have been guilty of having been absolutely obnoxious for my faith, got shunned for it, then walked away with the pride of the persecuted.

Obama Continues The Myth

Last year I wrote an article about why I believe inner-city schools score more poorly than their suburban counterparts. In the article, I referenced President Bush who said he wanted to "liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools".

Now, a year later, I find President Obama is continuing to spread the ill-conceived notion that inner city schools are to blame for the educational outcomes of the kids they serve. In his state of the union address, President Obama declared that he wanted to turn "around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans!"

Stealing the future of young Americans?!! Gee, I didn't realize that was what I was doing!

As one who has taught both the wealthy and the poor, I can testify that the inner-city teachers of America's schools are not stealing anything from anybody. They pour their lives daily into children who have every disadvantage. They work hard against incredible odds, trying to beat a system that is designed to work against them. Many of the kids they serve are dealing with constant chaos at home, where their studies are not even considered. These teachers often work in communities that do not know how to support them, with legislators who are hostile to them, and with a president who insults them.

Yet when the kids walk in the classroom door, some who have been wearing the same clothes all week, they set all those realities aside and smile. Today, the teacher will again teach all that he or she can.

Warning! Solicitation Ahead!

For the past few years, I have been slowly building my collection of books by Graphic Library. In the beginning I was using super-hero comics to encourage my reluctant readers (I teach in an inner city environment and most of my students are years below grade level). Then I discovered this series which does short comic stories of World History, American History, Biographies, Science, etc. So in addition to encouraging the students to read, they are building needed background knowledge (a very weak area for English Language Learners). The graphic novel approach helps my emerging readers contextualize their reading. These books are very popular with my students.

If you are one to make charitable donations, perhaps you might consider donating one or more of these books to my classroom. No pressure! :) But in a time of shrinking educational budgets (a third of mine vanished this year), I am trying to think of some ways to keep my collection of these books growing. You can click on my Amazon wishlist here. These items can be shipped from there straight to my school. :)

*UPDATE: Thanks to Cody, Krista, Chris, Barbara, and Mary who have donated books to my classroom!!

You can cut and paste this URL to get to my classroom wishlist:
https://www.amazon.com/wishlist/3U9179PXM8NJD/ref=cm_reg_rd-upd?_encoding=UTF8&msgid=updated

Love My Car Lighter MP3 Player

Here is my tech tip of the week. If you are like me, you have some old USB drives or SD cards that are less than a gig sitting around in a drawer. With one of those, and about 10 bucks, you could have a really nice car MP3 player. You slap some of that memory (loaded with Mp3s) in one of these, and you are good to go.

The player plugs into your car lighter and broadcasts to an empty FM station. It can easily be moved from car to car. I keep a drive of music and a drive of books and lectures in the glove compartment. I got the one in picture for less than 10 bucks from Meritline.com . So if remembering the ipod is touch and go, or you are tired of having discs all over the passenger seat.... here ya go.

If That's Winning, I'd Hate To See What Losing Looks Like.

Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked!! ~ Hudson (Aliens)

Often, it is not until you step outside a situation that you can look at it objectively. Having renounced certain religious, political, or societal views, you then look back to see glaring inconsistencies that are so obvious, it makes you wonder how you spent so many years stepping over them.

I had one of those moments of realization yesterday. I began abandoning popular evangelical theology years ago and along with that, their interpretations of an eternal Hell. It seemed to me that evangelical theology only allows for two interpretations of eternity, either:

• God is in control, and his design was such that the vast majority of humanity will be consigned to eternal torment.

• God’s original plan was thwarted and although he has provided an escape route (which for some unknown reason favors people of white European descent or those who have been conquered by them); nevertheless the vast majority of humanity will be consigned to eternal torment.

I am wondering how, in either of these scenarios, God gets to claim a victory? Under most circumstances, when Team B destroys the vast majority of Team A’s interests, we would consider Team A “surviving” at best, even if they got the final blow.


As I see it, under typical evangelical theology, "god" gets his ass kicked.

Hmmmmm..... and they say what I believe is heresy...... ;)

Dr. Beck on Justification Theory

I regularly read Dr. Richard Beck's blog. He has the ability to take Ph.D level theological issues and write so a layman like me can understand. I have been enjoying his review of The Deliverance of God by Douglas Campbell.

The focus of the review is Justification Theory. The book asserts that common defenses of this theory are based on mis-readings of Paul. Dr. Beck states that "Justification Theory is, at root, a rhetorical device for evangelism."

Therein is where Justification Theory started to fall apart for me years ago. As I began to see the case for Universalism being made throughout scripture, Justification Theory eroded. In this new context, what was the point of evangelism? For me, Justification Theory and the Christianity it had spawned showed it Achilles's Heel. I have actually heard Christians articulate it "What is the point of telling people about Jesus if there is no Hell?"

What point indeed....

Here is a piece of the review:

Recall, for Justification Theory to work the human person must complete a tortured inward journey culminating in the realization that he stands condemned before God. But if the doctrine of election is operative this introspective and epistemological journey seems to be a bit irrelevant. Further, given the condition of total depravity how could humans even begin or complete the journey? And here's the deal. Most of us are well aware of these problems. Justification Theory is, at root, a rhetorical device for evangelism. Through bible study or preaching you lead the listener through the critical realizations:

1. I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And this includes you! "All" means all.
2. The wages of sin is death.
3. In light of the aforementioned realizations, you're screwed.
4. But you can have grace if you accept, through faith, Jesus as your Savior.

But if faith is a matter of election it seems that evangelism is problematized. Evangelism presupposes a clear head and a clear heart. It presupposes the ability to volitionally respond. But if faith is a matter of election is any of this necessary? And if total depravity is in play is any of this even possible? Depravity and election throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of Justification Theory, rendering most of the theory irrelevant.

These are very old debates. Witness the tensions between the Calvinistic and Arminian attempts to resolve these questions. The point is, Luther and Calvin were no simple and consistent advocates of Justification Theory. Important aspects of their theology (e.g., their anthropology, the role of God in granting faith) greatly complicated their espousal of Justification Theory, so much so that the children of the Reformation are still debating the issues. The tension between evangelism and election is still very much with us. Consequently, it would be silly to assume that Justification Theory has been handed to us by Luther and Calvin as anything other than a partial and incomplete soteriology.

More Facebook Trouble 2

There is a fair amount of hub-bub on the Facebook side of this conversation. There are folks who are glad I said something about the initial statement made by "Sam" but there are plenty of others who think it is unkind to publicly disagree with someone's point of view (particularly if it is one they agree with).

However, here is THE perfect example for why I wrote what I wrote. One commentator said on a later status update of "Sam's" concerning this issue:

"Are you talking about the comment you posted about dial 1 for english? If so then I am 100% in agreement w/your comment. In fact, I copied it and posted it myself and had to step back and laugh at the ruckus it caused. The thing that got to me was that the comment was true and so many people took offense to it."

Copied it and posted it herself.... glad the love is being spread around the world.

Here's the thing, if someone is making bigoted comments, does it help to point it out? Probably not. You will go blue in the face trying to alter that worldview. However, if there are a group of people listening and these ideas are being spread..... Yes, I believe it is a moral imperative to speak. Keep it calm, be polite, .....

.... but speak.

_________________

On a related note, I find this video extremely funny. It is a great example of how people can talk past each other concerning racism and bigotry. F-bomb and racial slurs dropped regularly, so you have been warned.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM

Stuff Fundies Like

Stuff Christians Like is a very funny site. If you grew up in the Christian subculture, it is sure to bring a chuckle or two.

I thought of their site because of a video that Bruce put up. In it, Pastor John Piper is trying to convince the audience that the bible is exciting and interesting. If we don't find it so, it is because the "world" has inverted our perceptions - it is Avatar we should actually find boring.

This is something fundamentalist pastors like to do : find whatever the overall culture is enjoying at the moment and try to bring it down a couple of notches. They can never just enjoy it with everyone.

Their god has insecurity issues.

More Facebook Trouble

Yes readers, my predilection to offer a question or commentary has once again taken me to the dark end of Facebook. Not an actual defriending (like happened recently), but my comments were deleted and observers have suggested that I be "hid" (Facebook lingo for keeping you as a friend, but blocking everything you say).

In this new era of electronic conversation, it is sometimes unclear as to what would be proper conversational etiquette. Should one throw controversial subjects into the ether? How should others respond? Are they allowed to respond? Is it an attack on the person if their idea is questioned or contradicted?

It all started this way....

Let's call my Facebook friend Sam, since I don't know any Sams. Sam stated in his status (a status is a short commentary similar to a Tweet):

"WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Press 1 for English. Press 2 to disconnect until you learn to speak English. And remember only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, JESUS CHRIST and the AMERICAN SOLIDER. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom. If you agree... copy and paste in your status"

Now, in the interest of full disclosure I have to state that I have a tendency to roll my eyes at anything that wants me to "copy and paste into your status", particularly if it has a religious subject. I took issue with both of the statements. I teach immigrant families, so I didn't care for the first and I blanched strongly at the religious insinuation of the second.

I debated whether I wanted to get into this. I don't like to argue for arguments sake, but I also think ideas like this need to be challenged. So often people who make statements like this are very insulated in their experiences with people outside their group. Therefore, they have a hard time even picturing what this might sound like to someone not in their frame of thinking.

So I simply commented below:

"What does one do if they disagree?"

To which Sam replied:

"Vote."

Again, I debated responding. I knew I was not going to change Sam's view, so why bother? But then I considered that there are tens if not hundreds of people who read Sam's comment. Maybe they had a bad experience recently with someone struggling with English. Maybe they have been led to believe that militarism and Christianity have no contradictory philosophies. Sam's comment may stir them up and embolden them along this path if they never hear a counter proposal.

So I responded:

"Voting may help deal with what I perceive as the bigotry of the first statement, but I am not sure what I could do with the blasphemy I see in the second."

Sam replied:

"Explain why you feel this to be blasphemy? The second statement that is. As for bigotry, I stand strong on my beliefs and will refrain from commenting as to keep the peace."

At this point, an observer commented that my use of blasphemy and bigotry "are pretty strong words. We must learn to respect the feelings and opinions of others and reign in our own." I am not sure whether his closing comment was to the two of us or to me alone.

So I responded (this is probably 95% accurate, the original was deleted. I had kept a rough draft in Word, but I know I made a few changes as I was posting it):

"It is not simply a matter of keeping the peace or respecting the views of others. When we make public declarations, particularly if they are made against a group of people, we have to expect that it will generate controversy. As a friend of mind reminded me recently - there is no such thing as free speech - our words have consequences. I occasionally blog on topics which people will disagree with. If I am going to put my statements out to the public, then I should expect that my words may be challenged.

I believe the first statement is bigoted. I teach many students who are second generation Americans. Their parents are working 2-3 jobs. They live in a community that is primarily Spanish speaking. The reality is, those first generation folks are always, generally speaking, going to be weak on English regardless of which culture they came from. Conversational English is one thing, academic English is another. Most public documents and legal exchanges require an academic level of English. How many of us know more than one language at an academic level? It is an enormous amount of work even if you are fully immersed (which they are not). Statements like the first are said flippantly and repeated to stir up anger and frustration amongst the dominate culture. I think this kind of talk is damaging to our national outlook.

As to blasphemy, yes I do think it is disrespectful to compare the two. People have MANY varying feelings about the use of the military (the discussion of which I will leave for another time), so I do not think it should ever be hinted at that one must keep their views of Christ in tandem with certain feelings about the military (if Christian). Overall, I think it displays a troubling trend in many strands of Christianity. God is no longer over all, but is rather a plank that is used to buttress one's arguments of politics and American exceptionalism. God/Guns/Country becomes a set of interchangeable words used to express one's worldview. This, I believe, is a blasphemy.

Facebook is not a private affair. Most of the things we write are read by hundreds of people. Such quips may be said unchallenged when one is with their homogeneous group of friends over a beer, but these things are being said in a larger context. I do not say this in a mean-spirited way or to stop conversation; rather, I hope this generates conversation. I believe we all hold many ideas based on hearsay and popular, but unfounded, notions. Unless our ideas are challenged, we become intellectually inbred. I am in high disagreement with both statements, and want to argue for another view, but that doesn't translate to anything more than that."
_________________

I meant my last statement to clarify that I did not take any of this personally; it was a disagreement of ideas. I don't think it was received that way though. Soon after, Sam deleted the comment and the ensuing discussion. He later put in his status that our conversation was a contentiousness that he did not want to have as part of his Facebook experience.

This has left me again pondering how we go about talking to one another... how we agree, how do we disagree?

For the most part, I have always enjoyed being contradicted (unless the person is being rude). I remember some of my first college political science classes. I would make some sweeping cliched generalization that I had learned to parrot as an evangelical. My professor, Marv Surowitz, never failed to challenge my presumptions. I remember once he smiled at me after I made some trite statement and said, "Hackman that is pure HorseSHIT!" and then using history he completely deconstructed my argument. I was shocked; in my religious subculture homogeny of thought was expected. However, instead of being offended or embarrassed (well, maybe a little embarrassed), I found those experiences invigorating. I felt like I was moving into open fields. (As a side note, I took Marv for 3 classes over my first two years and he was a large component of why I went into teaching).

Those experiences (and many since) have taught me to hold views, but hold them loosely... always ready to change as new experiences offer more information. So I think I have a hard time understanding folks who tie their beliefs up with their ego. To deconstruct their argument is to deconstruct them. What I interpret as a challenging of ideas, the other interprets as a personal attack.

Which leaves me wondering how to address people when they make pronouncements that I highly disagree with or find destructive.

How do you handle it?