Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Sydney Grace 2/4/07
5 lbs 5 oz. 18 inches long... one beautiful representation of Providence and his favor.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Critical Condition.
Well yesterday was the big 29 for me. It's crazy, because I do feel older. Perception is crazy. But I digress...
I found this post to be very interesting yesterday and I'll quote the source of inspiration below. I've heard Jonathan Martin preach once at Renovatus in Charlotte. Very passionate and inspiring. Straight from the hip--a lot of what the church needs. Life. Direction. Truth. Unfortunately those things are absent in too many cases. Martin says:
And as Becky puts it "Jonathan’s overriding point was that according to Christ and the whole ethic of the New Testament, our responsibility is to love and care for people and it is God’s responsibility to judge. At the root of the cynical critical gossip we engage ourselves in so much of the time is a sense that we somehow have the right to judge people and categorize their faults, which then gives us a feeling of power and control over them. It is that desire for power which drove Adam and Eve to the original sin, Jonathan points out."
2 things: 1-I tried to consciously avoid criticizing other people today. It is a very difficult thing to do. Not because I'm overly mean, but just because sarcasm and criticism is so much of a second nature in conversation. I am sure there were moments of criticism today that I didn't even notice. They don't even stick out when I am attempting to notice them. Interesting. Maybe that gets easier with more practice.
2- When I first saw the scripture used for reference by Martin dealing with Jesus saying he didn't come to condemn the world, my immediate gut reaction was to attempt to recall scripture which would contradict such a sentiment. You know the one about how Jesus came to bring division and a sword. As if that one phrase that I'm sure I misrepresent in my mind could detract from the overwhelming message of the New Testament of loving God and loving others. I realize that Satan used scripture in a similar vein when trying to tempt Christ in the desert. What a reflection on my mind. "Get thee behind me" was almost the name of this post...
Thanks for the thoughts on this Becky and Gabe.
dt
I found this post to be very interesting yesterday and I'll quote the source of inspiration below. I've heard Jonathan Martin preach once at Renovatus in Charlotte. Very passionate and inspiring. Straight from the hip--a lot of what the church needs. Life. Direction. Truth. Unfortunately those things are absent in too many cases. Martin says:
What I have found is that within the church many times the people who are angry, the people who are cynical, are not only not discouraged from being that way, they are actively promoted. Who are the people who are most holy? Well, the people who are maddest at the world, right? How do you know a person is holy? Well there just mad as hell all the time about everybody and everything! It must mean that they just really are close to Jesus. We can justify that with spiritual language in a lot of different ways...my reading of scripture is ...that the posture of Jesus to the world is, as he says explicitly himself, “I have not come to the world to condemn the world—but so that the whole world may be saved.”
And as Becky puts it "Jonathan’s overriding point was that according to Christ and the whole ethic of the New Testament, our responsibility is to love and care for people and it is God’s responsibility to judge. At the root of the cynical critical gossip we engage ourselves in so much of the time is a sense that we somehow have the right to judge people and categorize their faults, which then gives us a feeling of power and control over them. It is that desire for power which drove Adam and Eve to the original sin, Jonathan points out."
2 things: 1-I tried to consciously avoid criticizing other people today. It is a very difficult thing to do. Not because I'm overly mean, but just because sarcasm and criticism is so much of a second nature in conversation. I am sure there were moments of criticism today that I didn't even notice. They don't even stick out when I am attempting to notice them. Interesting. Maybe that gets easier with more practice.
2- When I first saw the scripture used for reference by Martin dealing with Jesus saying he didn't come to condemn the world, my immediate gut reaction was to attempt to recall scripture which would contradict such a sentiment. You know the one about how Jesus came to bring division and a sword. As if that one phrase that I'm sure I misrepresent in my mind could detract from the overwhelming message of the New Testament of loving God and loving others. I realize that Satan used scripture in a similar vein when trying to tempt Christ in the desert. What a reflection on my mind. "Get thee behind me" was almost the name of this post...
Thanks for the thoughts on this Becky and Gabe.
dt
Monday, January 22, 2007
On Iraq.
i guess i'm just trying to make sense of this whole war... the reason the nation agreed to go to war was because of WMD. 9/11 had just happened and the specter of a terrorist with a nuke/bio/chem weapon was raised over and over and perhaps even legitimately so; because of that fear we decided that it was the responsible thing to do to remove a dictator who wouldn't cooperate with disarmament.
i know there are still some skeptics out there--my father in law for one--who believe that there really were WMD in Iraq that were hidden or something like that, but the overwhelming facts say that there were none. now, did they have the capacity to make them after we stopped watching... perhaps.
but the rationale for the war has morphed so many times. what is the objective? do we want to militarily defeat the extremists and empower the moderates so as to help establish western style government and economics? if so, won't that require a force much larger than 150,000? 200,000? 500,000?
and i understand the ramifications of withdrawal. i'm not advocating that... we have gotten ourselves into a royal mess. meanwhile, north korea is testing nukes and iran is building their program with increasing power and prestige--whatever message the iranian voters may have sent to ahmenidijad was probably undermined by the overt threats that have been made byW. and the gang.
we may need to do something about Iran... but what credibility is there to carry something out like that? with what forces do we carry out such an action? and what happens after we take them out as well? do we not think that more and more extremists will be bred out of these clashes? just like the britons fighting the romans--people don't like to be occupied.
the only solution, in my view, is to make a real effort to end our dependence on their oil. we pay their governments money that goes to fund the people who want to kill us... how logical is that? it will take real sacrifice. it will probably cause significant pains in our economy as we adjust to whatever innovation or innovations will be used to replace the "black gold." but that's where this country is great, isn't it? don't we talk about the sacrifice of the founding fathers, and the brothers in the civil war, and the great depression and the great wars... that was sacrifice. we are urged to continue to shop. i understand the sentiment behind that request, but we are made of more than that. we are--or should be--about more than personal comfort and increased ease of life.
let's remove our dependence on their oil, allow them to establish their own natural balance of power--and then if they want to fight then we can fight as a unified nation. then we can take all of this energy,blood, and treasure and spend it on figuring out education, health care, poverty here at home and in the world. i don't mean just throwing money at those problems, but engaging in a genuine, statesmanlike, dialogue that will help to ensure that our kids and grandkids can talk about our generation the way we revere the "greatest" generation. not because we desire fame in history, but because by doing so we will be doing what is right.
whew... sounds like a sermon.
dt
i know there are still some skeptics out there--my father in law for one--who believe that there really were WMD in Iraq that were hidden or something like that, but the overwhelming facts say that there were none. now, did they have the capacity to make them after we stopped watching... perhaps.
but the rationale for the war has morphed so many times. what is the objective? do we want to militarily defeat the extremists and empower the moderates so as to help establish western style government and economics? if so, won't that require a force much larger than 150,000? 200,000? 500,000?
and i understand the ramifications of withdrawal. i'm not advocating that... we have gotten ourselves into a royal mess. meanwhile, north korea is testing nukes and iran is building their program with increasing power and prestige--whatever message the iranian voters may have sent to ahmenidijad was probably undermined by the overt threats that have been made byW. and the gang.
we may need to do something about Iran... but what credibility is there to carry something out like that? with what forces do we carry out such an action? and what happens after we take them out as well? do we not think that more and more extremists will be bred out of these clashes? just like the britons fighting the romans--people don't like to be occupied.
the only solution, in my view, is to make a real effort to end our dependence on their oil. we pay their governments money that goes to fund the people who want to kill us... how logical is that? it will take real sacrifice. it will probably cause significant pains in our economy as we adjust to whatever innovation or innovations will be used to replace the "black gold." but that's where this country is great, isn't it? don't we talk about the sacrifice of the founding fathers, and the brothers in the civil war, and the great depression and the great wars... that was sacrifice. we are urged to continue to shop. i understand the sentiment behind that request, but we are made of more than that. we are--or should be--about more than personal comfort and increased ease of life.
let's remove our dependence on their oil, allow them to establish their own natural balance of power--and then if they want to fight then we can fight as a unified nation. then we can take all of this energy,blood, and treasure and spend it on figuring out education, health care, poverty here at home and in the world. i don't mean just throwing money at those problems, but engaging in a genuine, statesmanlike, dialogue that will help to ensure that our kids and grandkids can talk about our generation the way we revere the "greatest" generation. not because we desire fame in history, but because by doing so we will be doing what is right.
whew... sounds like a sermon.
dt
Saturday, January 20, 2007
80 is the new 69.
We just finished up our semester's round of testing this week. It'd be a funny psychological/sociological study to observe the teachers--myself included--posturing and playing the expectations game. Few of us even give lip service to the reality that it shouldn't be a competition because there are so many factors involved, but the pressure of high test scores remains a fact, and so as teachers, we want to have as high if not higher test scores than our colleagues. Nothing wrong with competition as long as it doesn't turn devious.
But that brings me to my point for this post. Testing. Starting with the class of '10 the students have to complete a graduation project as well as pass* 5 core EOC's: English 9, Algebra 1, Biology, Civics/Economics and U.S. History.
I teach Civics and Economics. My honors class this time posted a 91.3% passing rate. That means that 21 out of 23 scored at Level 3 or 4 proficiency. Now, your guess is as good as mine as to how they psychometrize those tests to figure out what constitutes such a proficiency level. But the fact remains that I have 2 students in an honors level course one with a B- and the other with a C during the regular year. Now the state equates their level 2 proficiency with an 80 and a 78 for their exam grade--which is to count 25%. That's good news for these two students. Our grading scale is the standard 7 point variety. So as long as they are above a 70 they pass the course--and of course both of these students remain at a B- and a C.
BUT... under the new guidelines neither of these students would pass Civics. They would be required to undergo remediation and be retested until they get a Level 3. If they don't then they don't graduate... well at least that's the company line--there will, of course, be ways around this particular "standard."
So, why shouldn't I (we) change our class grading scales to reflect those of DPI. If a student can score an 80 on the EOC and yet it is still classified as a Level 2--which is failing--aren't we doing the students a disservice by allowing them to pass with anything less than an 80 during the regular course?
When did common sense leave the educational arena?
dt
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Mongo Like Candy
I'm no pawn. Especially not to all of those Heady Lamar's and govs. (see comment for pawn reference)...
First: I have created a new blog which will be used for my AP Psychology classes. I will link to it on this blog--I used myspace last year, but I have since removed myself from that crack wagon.
Second: I thought more about my democratic-republic idea while proctoring for a test this morning. First day we will write and ratify our class constitution. I will outline a couple of areas. We will address class rules and regulations and I will allow the students some say so on the issues--of course I will be the chair of the convention and they know nothing about rules of order so I will dictate a lot of the policies:)
I want to establish a system of justice in the class. Upon violating a rule, the student will be served with a subpoena. They can plead not guilty and hire a lawyer from the class and we will conduct a trial with a jury of his/her peers... maybe not for each offense, we'll see...
We will establish the separation of powers. I am the Executive. I have veto power. If they want to override my veto it will take 2/3 of the class. We will decide on the amendment process of our constitution and the ratification process. Election periods will be determined. My thought is that there will be 2 class senators serving 2 week terms and 5 class reps. serving 1 week terms. I'll let the class decide on term limits.
A couple of safeguards: As the Executive I will be able to invoke the War Powers Act and suspend the powers of Congress up to 10-15 days at a time. Furthermore, upon being absent it will be written into the Constitution that the substitute is absolute monarch.
I understand the testing game. I don't think that I will be sacrificing content for interest. I think that if I can make this work, then the interest/ownership of the class will lead to higher thinking about the content and perhaps even better scores. I think that factions will emerge in the class that will want to succeed and therefore my veto power over laziness and apathy will be sustained. Still thinking...
dt
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Thoughts on Learning and Teaching
In reading for Current Trends and Issues in Education I stumbled on two opposing theories on curriculum. 1) The Paideia school which is supported by Mortimer Adler. 2) is complete school choice by students--meaning to go or not to go, where, how, how much, how fast, etc.
Perhaps, I'll post my reflections on the various theories upon completion of my assignment, but for now I want to reflect on a common theme. The divergence is found in ideas about core knowledge, but the similarities are that learning should be active: that student discovery is the key to education.
The idea discussed below was spurred after reading the selection by John Holt a proponent of the natural right to decide what enters our minds--in fact he calls compulsory education authoritarian, anti-democratic and a violation of civil rights.
Anyway, I'm wondering if establishing a democratic-republic within my Civics classroom would be advantageous. They could elect representatives from the class who would determine the course of the day/week/unit/etc. If they choose to do nothing, then we do nothing--of course they will still be required to master the content to be assessed and graded. Perhaps a class constitution could/should be written before hand. I of course would be the Executive--but an override provision would be written into the Constitution. I wonder if factions would develop? Or would the struggle be between Legislative and Executive. The Supreme Court could be made up of the other Civics teachers on the hall. Each side could prepare an argument should a constitutional crisis occur...
How would the content of the class be delivered? Is it enough for the representatives to choose method or should they be able to decide angles and perspectives of content as well? Maybe at the beginning of the course I would offer them options (ie lecture/notes, performance, discussion/debate, etc) and then allow them to branch out on their own as they gain trust and confidence in our experiment.
What about assessment? Should that be democratic as well? I have to make sure that they are learning the content--the state doesn't give me much latitude in that area.
I like. It would take constant refining and retooling just like our own government.
To be continued...
dt
Perhaps, I'll post my reflections on the various theories upon completion of my assignment, but for now I want to reflect on a common theme. The divergence is found in ideas about core knowledge, but the similarities are that learning should be active: that student discovery is the key to education.
The idea discussed below was spurred after reading the selection by John Holt a proponent of the natural right to decide what enters our minds--in fact he calls compulsory education authoritarian, anti-democratic and a violation of civil rights.
Anyway, I'm wondering if establishing a democratic-republic within my Civics classroom would be advantageous. They could elect representatives from the class who would determine the course of the day/week/unit/etc. If they choose to do nothing, then we do nothing--of course they will still be required to master the content to be assessed and graded. Perhaps a class constitution could/should be written before hand. I of course would be the Executive--but an override provision would be written into the Constitution. I wonder if factions would develop? Or would the struggle be between Legislative and Executive. The Supreme Court could be made up of the other Civics teachers on the hall. Each side could prepare an argument should a constitutional crisis occur...
How would the content of the class be delivered? Is it enough for the representatives to choose method or should they be able to decide angles and perspectives of content as well? Maybe at the beginning of the course I would offer them options (ie lecture/notes, performance, discussion/debate, etc) and then allow them to branch out on their own as they gain trust and confidence in our experiment.
What about assessment? Should that be democratic as well? I have to make sure that they are learning the content--the state doesn't give me much latitude in that area.
I like. It would take constant refining and retooling just like our own government.
To be continued...
dt
Friday, January 12, 2007
Teachable Moment.
The question posed during review had something to do with the most effective way to change a law. The correct answer was gathering signatures for a petition. But I asked about one of the incorrect answers... I asked "is it ever okay not to obey a law?" There were several "no's" murmured from the class, so I asked why we were out of school on Monday. Many of the students answered and so I asked what Dr. King did. They began to catch my drift answering that he broke the law on purpose. What followed was probably the best conversation that has occurred in 2nd period all year long. We were supposed to be reviewing for the EOC, but instead education began to happen. After a brief explanation of the Greensboro 4 and the marches led by King somehow we got to a question from a student: "Why do so many white people want to act black?" Then there was a flurry of discussion in the classroom--mostly from the black students (we discussed it in class and that's the term they prefer). "What does acting black mean?" Probably 2 or 3 minutes of internal discussion that would have probably looked like chaos had someone been looking in from the outside. But I dared not jump in too soon--after all, how often do you hit on a topic that so engages students? Near the end of this chaos one of the students remarked that he wondered what the other students thought--"you know the white students; i'm not trying to be racist or anything."
I wanted to say that the white students were probably hesitant to join in such a discussion because of how careful people have to be these days with such topics. I didn't. But I'm sure that was the case. The white students realize the sensitivities and offense that can be stirred up if they were to say the wrong thing. That's too bad that it is that way... but I'm afraid it is that way.
Nevertheless, the conversation continued. I got carried away for a while on a patented Mr. Thomas rant concerning melting pot vs tossed salad as a metaphor for America. I went on about the difficulties of maintaining cultural identity and assimilating fully. The discussion picked back up with that. How can we be Americans and yet maintain African American or Hispanic or Asian cultural values and customs? I gave my 2 cents worth by saying that there are good aspects of cultures and bad aspects--whether Thug Life or Nascar or in between. I stressed that the difficulty with being human is our tendency to generalize. Generalization is built into our minds as a positive thing. It keeps us away from danger. But when we apply that to human groups based on a few individuals...well that's where prejudice and racism are born.
It was striking as well, that after discussing the black/white issue for a while, I mentioned that the new challenge was to realize that Hispanics are just as equal as everyone else. It is striking to see white and black students respond--I don't know if I wanna say negatively but they certainly don't seem to understand the irony of their stereotypes and attitudes towards hispanics--to this challenge.
Somehow or another we ended up discussing whether or not W. had "flipped his lid". And how important it was to learn to think critically because the left and the right are interested in labeling and establishing their ideas as the ONLY ideas. They are interested in branding the other side as the enemy. Isn't that crazy? Other Americans as the ENEMY? Name calling rules the day and it's sad that so many--me sometimes too--get caught up in that garbage. I try to think of others in history who tried to make one way of thinking the only way. More on this particular topic in my next post.
All in all, it was the best 2nd period class of the year. Too bad that all that is left is a few review days and then the dreaded EOC. Maybe some personal momentum that will carry over to next semester's Civics Class. I've got a few ideas up my sleeve for that one...
dt
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Well, Damn.
I know there are a lot of positives that I can focus on. I have a beautiful family of almost 4, a great job with wonderful hours and days, I own my own house and I'm only 28 years old--29 here in a few days. But I'll be damned if my truck didn't blow a timing chain/belt on the way home from school today. That wouldn't be so bad if one of our other cars hadn't been in the shop since October. What day is it? I know, I know I do have a nice new minivan; but this just happens to be the month that Big Daddy wants his money for me being able to own property. That, despite the fact that I've already paid the man once when I bought the stinkin' thing in the form of sales tax.
I'd be excited about earning my Master's Degree in School Administration because of the professional opportunities and especially the 10% raise that comes along with it. But the raise that I will receive will go towards repaying my student loans. All of those folks who proclaim college to be a great investment and student loan debt to be good debt... I think they must not have become public school teachers. And, oh yeah, did I mention that the standard test that I have to take to get the license required to get the raise is costing me $465 clams. Screw you ETS.
And one more thing before I cease bitching and moaning. $400 each month from my paycheck goes to fund my health care premium. That's right, $5000 a year just for the premium... just for the opportunity to have coverage. I still pay hundreds of dollars in deductibles and other out of pocket expenses. By making the responsible decision to have one parent stay home with our children I am penalized in a couple of ways. Is there a tax credit for stay at home moms? No. But there is a tax credit for people who decide not to and then send their kids to daycare. So I pay high premiums for those irresponsible enough--or less fortunate enough, whatever your slant--to have health insurance but are still having children while those same people get the tax credits for sending their kids to day care.
Ok, through venting--maybe.
It's just all triggered an avalanche of thoughts. What do we spend our money on? Is it possible/practical to be a one car family? When did individual mobility become such a need in our society? How much money would I save on gas/maintenance/repair/insurance if we only had one vehicle?
We're already pretty frugal (I misspelled that word in the 5th grade spelling bee--mallet in the 6th) with our funds. Eating out and traveling are all we really do extra. Ok, ok and crown royal for me. There just aren't that many other corners to cut and maintain the same standard of living that we have. Don't get me wrong, I know we live like kings compared to most of the world. But I'm working my butt off trying to finish school and teach school; my wife is carrying our second child, teaches part time at GWU, works as a freelance editor for HA, cares for/educates/disciplines/puts up with our 3 year old on a daily basis... kinda makes my job look simple... but we do all that and--look I'm glad the minimum wagers are going to get a 2 dollar increase--but well, what about folks like me? I'm not asking for the government to step in and give me stuff--hell we'd probably qualify for medicaid if we applied. I just want fewer penalties. Please do something about the Health Care costs. Give me a break on paying property taxes on my van after I've already paid sales taxes on it. Give me the option to pay into Social Security if I want to... and Medicare for that matter.
I wonder what our grandfathers and great grandfathers would say/do to me after reading this rant. Probably something like "come back and see me when you're forced to pull the head off your only chicken to make it through the winter and work 60 hours a week just to get by..." You know, back when "times was rough."
dt
I'd be excited about earning my Master's Degree in School Administration because of the professional opportunities and especially the 10% raise that comes along with it. But the raise that I will receive will go towards repaying my student loans. All of those folks who proclaim college to be a great investment and student loan debt to be good debt... I think they must not have become public school teachers. And, oh yeah, did I mention that the standard test that I have to take to get the license required to get the raise is costing me $465 clams. Screw you ETS.
And one more thing before I cease bitching and moaning. $400 each month from my paycheck goes to fund my health care premium. That's right, $5000 a year just for the premium... just for the opportunity to have coverage. I still pay hundreds of dollars in deductibles and other out of pocket expenses. By making the responsible decision to have one parent stay home with our children I am penalized in a couple of ways. Is there a tax credit for stay at home moms? No. But there is a tax credit for people who decide not to and then send their kids to daycare. So I pay high premiums for those irresponsible enough--or less fortunate enough, whatever your slant--to have health insurance but are still having children while those same people get the tax credits for sending their kids to day care.
Ok, through venting--maybe.
It's just all triggered an avalanche of thoughts. What do we spend our money on? Is it possible/practical to be a one car family? When did individual mobility become such a need in our society? How much money would I save on gas/maintenance/repair/insurance if we only had one vehicle?
We're already pretty frugal (I misspelled that word in the 5th grade spelling bee--mallet in the 6th) with our funds. Eating out and traveling are all we really do extra. Ok, ok and crown royal for me. There just aren't that many other corners to cut and maintain the same standard of living that we have. Don't get me wrong, I know we live like kings compared to most of the world. But I'm working my butt off trying to finish school and teach school; my wife is carrying our second child, teaches part time at GWU, works as a freelance editor for HA, cares for/educates/disciplines/puts up with our 3 year old on a daily basis... kinda makes my job look simple... but we do all that and--look I'm glad the minimum wagers are going to get a 2 dollar increase--but well, what about folks like me? I'm not asking for the government to step in and give me stuff--hell we'd probably qualify for medicaid if we applied. I just want fewer penalties. Please do something about the Health Care costs. Give me a break on paying property taxes on my van after I've already paid sales taxes on it. Give me the option to pay into Social Security if I want to... and Medicare for that matter.
I wonder what our grandfathers and great grandfathers would say/do to me after reading this rant. Probably something like "come back and see me when you're forced to pull the head off your only chicken to make it through the winter and work 60 hours a week just to get by..." You know, back when "times was rough."
dt
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
So Maybe.
Education is the key. Maybe that's what Matt was talking about Sunday. Encouraging a young'n who has artistic interests to remain interested--even funding camp/school/training for that particular student. That's the model we are seeking to create in the public arena--if at a snail's pace. The sentence that has taken me on this line of thought speaks to this area in many ways.
In Cahill's latest work, the remark is made that with the invention of the printing press and the subsequent flood of ideas that began to penetrate the minds of Europe, that the influence of the church was diminished.
How can that be? Why do the ideas of the church not stack up to the ideas of the world? They do. So the influence of human hypocrisy has had a devastating effect on those ideas? Then what chance do we have, for I fear that in professing Truth I will always appear a hypocrite. I do not do what I want to do and I do what I don't want to do. So weak and fragile.
Maybe it's more. Maybe it's the fact that education among believers has waned. What is the thought level in mainstream churchland? How has the influence of worldly thought patterns influenced those of the church? Is it even valid to speak of "the church"? Aren't there really many different churches? I know the scriptures about being One, but is that a reality? If so, isn't it much smaller than we imagine. Startling.
Cahill says there are three things worse than the transformation of the early church to that of Constantine's dominion: 1-the separation of Judaism from Christianiy and vice versa, 2-the breakup of the church into many different divisions, and 3-the creation of a professional clergy and the common laypeople diluting or eliminating the Truth that we are all priests and "responsible to all for all."
dt
In Cahill's latest work, the remark is made that with the invention of the printing press and the subsequent flood of ideas that began to penetrate the minds of Europe, that the influence of the church was diminished.
How can that be? Why do the ideas of the church not stack up to the ideas of the world? They do. So the influence of human hypocrisy has had a devastating effect on those ideas? Then what chance do we have, for I fear that in professing Truth I will always appear a hypocrite. I do not do what I want to do and I do what I don't want to do. So weak and fragile.
Maybe it's more. Maybe it's the fact that education among believers has waned. What is the thought level in mainstream churchland? How has the influence of worldly thought patterns influenced those of the church? Is it even valid to speak of "the church"? Aren't there really many different churches? I know the scriptures about being One, but is that a reality? If so, isn't it much smaller than we imagine. Startling.
Cahill says there are three things worse than the transformation of the early church to that of Constantine's dominion: 1-the separation of Judaism from Christianiy and vice versa, 2-the breakup of the church into many different divisions, and 3-the creation of a professional clergy and the common laypeople diluting or eliminating the Truth that we are all priests and "responsible to all for all."
dt
Monday, January 08, 2007
"Churchianity"
"The attitude that I see repeatedly from churchianity is one of being isolated in our religious ghettoes with no comprehension that there is not sacred-secular dichotomy and having a slightly veiled holier-than-thou contentment which is constantly pointing a finger at bill clinton and hollywood..."
Above is a snippet from a response I got from the previous post. Does this really classify the majority of church goers in America? I've been quite critical of the church myself. I worked in one in which I could not believe the political nature of the proceedings. But even in that body there were folks who were sincere. There were people who seemed to be genuinely interested in learning what the Lord had to say and wanting to show love towards each other. Were they interested in feeding the orphans in Africa--not with anything more than their money. But they brought in kids from the area. I know that they went and picked these kids up weekly for different church functions. I know they collected money and made Christmases brighter. There were divorced people, and people with children out of wedlock, even a gay kid. Did they openly discuss it? Of course not. This is Foothills, NC. But they made an attempt.
At another church in which the building is lavish--they recently remodeled their sanctuary and installed stadium seating--an easy target for criticism. And I'm sure there are many Constantine Christians in that body (whatever that means). And I'm sure there are people who enjoy blasting the morality of Bill Clinton and Rosie O'Donnell, but there are people there who thirst after Truth. People who dedicate their lives to the church, who spend hours upon hours sacrificing their time so that other people may know love. They spend millions I bet on missions--if not then certainly in the 100s of thousands.
"I'm all for being included in intelligent discussions about the world, and being included in fine art, music and movies..."
The idea that quality products will land Christian philosophy in a place of influence in these arenas of media is wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Perhaps over two or three generations it could be possible. But if you take a look at the top 5 movies, tv shows, and Billboard's Top 5 singles, what you won't find much of is quality. You will find lyrics filled with sexual content--not sexual inuendo, not sexual allusions, but sexual filth. Like Akon's contribution to the art of music: Smack That.
CSI makes it's living by being as gory as possible in the mask of crime solvers--they're only here to save the day after all.
I guess the question comes down to the issue of whether or not in a democratic society values can be imposed via government action. The free market has its role as well. Sex sells there is no question about that. But is there a desire for the consumer to see ads with sex and hear lyrics with sex and violence, or is that pushed on them by those who control the airwaves? Is it too paranoid to think that the media and advertisers have the ability to control our minds--or if not control at least heavily influence?
Maybe I'm just bouncing these ideas around to see if they hold any water... Maybe I will dismiss these cultural warrior notions and be on with the social gospel. More than likely, I hope, I will discover that golden mean. Moderation.
dt
Above is a snippet from a response I got from the previous post. Does this really classify the majority of church goers in America? I've been quite critical of the church myself. I worked in one in which I could not believe the political nature of the proceedings. But even in that body there were folks who were sincere. There were people who seemed to be genuinely interested in learning what the Lord had to say and wanting to show love towards each other. Were they interested in feeding the orphans in Africa--not with anything more than their money. But they brought in kids from the area. I know that they went and picked these kids up weekly for different church functions. I know they collected money and made Christmases brighter. There were divorced people, and people with children out of wedlock, even a gay kid. Did they openly discuss it? Of course not. This is Foothills, NC. But they made an attempt.
At another church in which the building is lavish--they recently remodeled their sanctuary and installed stadium seating--an easy target for criticism. And I'm sure there are many Constantine Christians in that body (whatever that means). And I'm sure there are people who enjoy blasting the morality of Bill Clinton and Rosie O'Donnell, but there are people there who thirst after Truth. People who dedicate their lives to the church, who spend hours upon hours sacrificing their time so that other people may know love. They spend millions I bet on missions--if not then certainly in the 100s of thousands.
"I'm all for being included in intelligent discussions about the world, and being included in fine art, music and movies..."
The idea that quality products will land Christian philosophy in a place of influence in these arenas of media is wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Perhaps over two or three generations it could be possible. But if you take a look at the top 5 movies, tv shows, and Billboard's Top 5 singles, what you won't find much of is quality. You will find lyrics filled with sexual content--not sexual inuendo, not sexual allusions, but sexual filth. Like Akon's contribution to the art of music: Smack That.
CSI makes it's living by being as gory as possible in the mask of crime solvers--they're only here to save the day after all.
I guess the question comes down to the issue of whether or not in a democratic society values can be imposed via government action. The free market has its role as well. Sex sells there is no question about that. But is there a desire for the consumer to see ads with sex and hear lyrics with sex and violence, or is that pushed on them by those who control the airwaves? Is it too paranoid to think that the media and advertisers have the ability to control our minds--or if not control at least heavily influence?
Maybe I'm just bouncing these ideas around to see if they hold any water... Maybe I will dismiss these cultural warrior notions and be on with the social gospel. More than likely, I hope, I will discover that golden mean. Moderation.
dt
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Constantine's Curse
A few months ago Gabe D. produced a work of art which he entitled Constantine's Curse. The steeples are buried in what seems to be a wasteland. It is of course an allusion to the union of the church and political power in the 300s when the Emperor stopped the persecution of Christians and began to use the emblem of the cross on his battle shield--God told him to in a dream.
Currently I am reading Thomas Cahill's latest work in his hinges of history series. I would highly recommend reading the entire series--now 5 books (1,2,3,4,5.)
This morning Matt O. taught on being salt and light. The great paradoxical question for believers: how to be in the world but not of the world.
All of these are contributing to this post. The current thought pattern or trend is to hold the church responsible for the darkness in the world. The line goes that if there is darkness in the world then what needs to happen is for the church to look inward and not cast judgment on the culture at large. Logically, I'm not sure this holds much water, because there was darkness when Jesus was physically present in this world. So... Was it his fault? I think not.
My attempt here, is not to sloganeer and rally the masses to my side in the debate. I don't think there is a question that as believers we should always look inward. As a human, I am in constant need of reform. Desperate need. But if I wait until the point at which I am perfected to be critical of the culture and the society in which we live, then I will be waiting beyond my years.
I do believe that believers should be known for their excellence, for their virtue, and perhaps above all for their service. I'm just not sure that criticism of the culture need come as a sacrifice for those ideals. We have created a society in which Truth has all but disappeared. "Whose truth?" is a devastating question that is unanswerable due to our cherished 1st Amendment...
Anyway, I'm sure I will follow up on this post in the coming days as my thoughts become clearer and more refined. But I'll end by answering the question about whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative? He was both. There is no question that the Church has failed in many respects and one of those is the lack of real, genuine service to humanity--Behind on the AIDS crisis, behind on the environmental crisis, behind on issues of greed and poverty. JC was clear on our duty and devotion to our neighbor. But just as clear are his declarations of who He is. I AM rings throughout the New Testament--see John. He left no room for alternate versions of Truth. I'm gung ho to change my own existence. I crave reform. Radical reform. I want to help other people and be salt and light. I'm just not sure that should limit my voice of opposition to the darkness of our society...
dt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
