I've been thinking more about the History of American Education. While I wouldn't doubt that public education was begun with mixed motives (creating unity/conformity from diversity, making good workers, benefitting the poor, etc.), I think that the history of public education is highly flavored with reactions to a changing culture. Our family life has broke down considerably in the last 150 years. The collective ability to focus has been severely eroded by entertainment and leisure. The concept of discipline has been vilified. The traditional leadership of a. men and b. adults is openly scorned. While these changes have brought some good things, the cumulative effect has been to dump a lot of kids in the school system who are insecurely rooted in their families, accustomed to information presented in flashy 15 second soundbites, and burdened with "let the children lead" pressure. The public schools have scrambled to deal with these realities, but there is no way for them to fix these problems. It is neither within the appropriate place of government to address them, nor within its effective power, because they are matters of the heart.
We, the people of America and the parents of the next generation, have the responsibility to create stable homes, to provide meaningful work, and to bring our kids into the freedom of healthy submission. So, if I were running for president, that's what I'd angle for. ;-)
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Agenda of State Schooling
I am having a mini crisis over schooling my kids. My oldest two daughters participate in a state run school at home program. They are loaned laptop computers which run a fairly inane curriculum with click the bubble questions after each reading. A teacher comes to our home every few weeks to chat with us—she monitors their progress remotely the rest of the time, much more loosely than I do myself.
The problem is that I have begun reading The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. It is a scathing indictment of the American compulsory school phenomenon, holding that public schools took a population that was nearly completely literate and dumbed them down to the point where average spelling is at the level of text messaging abbreviations. Gatto’s opinion appears to be that this was no accident: a large number of dumb, minimum wage workers are required to make the U.S. economy go, so the schools produce them in quantity. The thought makes my stomach turn. It makes me want to avoid every trace of participation in “school” as the government conceives it.
I have believed all along that I could easily fulfill the government’s goals along with my own. But if the goal of state schooling is to sap passion for learning from my kid’s brains and take away their time for real life, then that is a conflict of interest I can’t ignore.
My 12 year old gets up before everyone else in the family because she likes the quiet morning hours for doing her schoolwork. I require her to do her math work before she logs on to the online textbooks, and she is often done with all of it by 8:30 in the morning when the rest of the house gets up and begins breakfast and chores. She spends the rest of her day doing as she pleases: doing crafts, reading, making butter and cheese, cooking things, reading to her brother, sewing, etc.
My 10 year old is a sleepy head and is often last up. She milks the cow, and mosies through breakfast and is often just starting school at noon. Her math takes her forever, and she zooms through her computer school. She reads plenty. She is reading the Lord of the Rings Trilogy for about the fourth time in two years, and grabs other quicker reads as I bring them from the library. She spends her spare time making clay pots, frolicking with her pet goat, playing songs with her sister on her guitar, and most recently, working with a hide she is tanning.
All that to say, I don’t think the inane curriculum time has caused their brains to leak out of their ears yet. I am afraid if I read the rest of this book, however, I may be utterly unwilling to participate with the system at all. In any case, I think it is time to revisit my goals for these children again.
The problem is that I have begun reading The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. It is a scathing indictment of the American compulsory school phenomenon, holding that public schools took a population that was nearly completely literate and dumbed them down to the point where average spelling is at the level of text messaging abbreviations. Gatto’s opinion appears to be that this was no accident: a large number of dumb, minimum wage workers are required to make the U.S. economy go, so the schools produce them in quantity. The thought makes my stomach turn. It makes me want to avoid every trace of participation in “school” as the government conceives it.
I have believed all along that I could easily fulfill the government’s goals along with my own. But if the goal of state schooling is to sap passion for learning from my kid’s brains and take away their time for real life, then that is a conflict of interest I can’t ignore.
My 12 year old gets up before everyone else in the family because she likes the quiet morning hours for doing her schoolwork. I require her to do her math work before she logs on to the online textbooks, and she is often done with all of it by 8:30 in the morning when the rest of the house gets up and begins breakfast and chores. She spends the rest of her day doing as she pleases: doing crafts, reading, making butter and cheese, cooking things, reading to her brother, sewing, etc.
My 10 year old is a sleepy head and is often last up. She milks the cow, and mosies through breakfast and is often just starting school at noon. Her math takes her forever, and she zooms through her computer school. She reads plenty. She is reading the Lord of the Rings Trilogy for about the fourth time in two years, and grabs other quicker reads as I bring them from the library. She spends her spare time making clay pots, frolicking with her pet goat, playing songs with her sister on her guitar, and most recently, working with a hide she is tanning.
All that to say, I don’t think the inane curriculum time has caused their brains to leak out of their ears yet. I am afraid if I read the rest of this book, however, I may be utterly unwilling to participate with the system at all. In any case, I think it is time to revisit my goals for these children again.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Church Life
We had a great day today. We went to a farm that was having an open house. The owners had sent word out on our homeschool communication loop, so there were a number of familiar faces there. The kids had a blast competing in sack races, throwing raw eggs, painting pumpkins and eating soup and milk shakes. I enjoyed the live music and quality conversation with a friend from high school.
From there, we visited friends that allowed us to use their cider press (and apples!) to make cider, while our kids helped and played. More good conversation and just life sharing.
This is what I want my kids to think of when they hear "church." The community of Called Out Ones. But without the religious structure, they don't seem very "called out." It has a sanctified feel to me, but if there are no worship songs, praying or bible stories, will the kids realize God's role in it?
From there, we visited friends that allowed us to use their cider press (and apples!) to make cider, while our kids helped and played. More good conversation and just life sharing.
This is what I want my kids to think of when they hear "church." The community of Called Out Ones. But without the religious structure, they don't seem very "called out." It has a sanctified feel to me, but if there are no worship songs, praying or bible stories, will the kids realize God's role in it?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Please, Not Hell!
"Oh, PLEASE! Don't go looking into whether Hell is real! If we question hell, we will NEVER find a church!" This was my response to my hubby bringing home printouts on the history of the ideology of hell.
How sad for me. What are we coming to if we can't look honestly at the faith we profess and promote? What is the point of our gathering if we can't talk about ideas like these? I think that the branding of Christianity is one of the biggest stultifiers of growth. Branding--the idea that you can put a Baptist or Episcopal or Presbyterian sticker on a church and know what they believe. There can be little dynamic growth and revelation. It is assumed that by the time a man is old enough to graduate seminary that his beliefs are in line with orthodoxy and will not require any major adjustment until Jesus returns. This idea borders between optimism and arrogance.
The creeds that we all mouth do little for maintaining orthodoxy. What do you mean by One? What do you mean by Created? And what the heck is up with "I believe in God the Father, maker of Heaven and Earth" when John says Jesus was the creator--and without him nothing was made that has been made?
The real application of this is the idea that if you are part of a body, and discover the denomination is "holy cow" wrong about some big things, what do you do? If love and unity are the highest laws, perhaps it does not then matter if we functionally preach "another gospel," so long as we are generous and kind to one another.
This all hinges on what the Main Things are. Obviously, Christ is central. It is the essence of being in Christ that makes a Christian and creates fellowship. But there are lines around what this means. A Mormon will tell you that they believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins. Does that mean we have fellowship with them? They may go on to quote you the book of Mormon where it says that once you are REALLY good, THEN you will be given the Holy Spirit--a complete violation of the gospel, as I understand it. And shades of this same heresy are ubiquitous in religious circles. God can only act if you do X. To receive the Holy Spirit, you must not eat for three days, then pray for six hours, then mumble incoherently for an hour to prove you are serious. And make sure you really are sincere, because like a horse, God can smell fear.
In more conservative circles, independence is encouraged by books like The Purpose Driven Life, which tells you figure out why God made you and walk in it. Christians cry for this kind of book, like the Israelites chafed against the theocracy God gave them. They want a King: a visible standard to follow so that they can follow and measure how they are doing. God would lead our hearts, but we want something we can see. It's the difference between feeling the beat of the music and moving to it and following the numbered footsteps on the floor. If we are possessed by the Great Dancer, why are we stomping through numbered footprints?
I believe Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. Most people believe the Bible teaches that if you don't put faith in Him, the result is eternal, conscious suffering. Is this a main thing? If I look in the Bible and find more evidence that the damned are destroyed, do we have fellowship? In my mind, we have fellowship if we remain grounded in Christ. If we are more attached to our denomination than we are to seeking what is true, we will be torn. If we are more attached to being right than we are to loving each other, we will be torn. If you believe in hell and I don't, we can still share Christ. And really, it ends up being a very secondary issue. Because the foundation is faith: are we walking in our own strength and wisdom or by the Spirit's leading and power. You can violate or fulfill that AND believe or disbelieve in hell, I think.
It feels very vulnerable and dependent to stay open to God rewriting my inner story. I would like to camp on a denominational standing--or even my own--and stop asking if it is true and how the pieces fit together. I just don't think I have that freedom.
How sad for me. What are we coming to if we can't look honestly at the faith we profess and promote? What is the point of our gathering if we can't talk about ideas like these? I think that the branding of Christianity is one of the biggest stultifiers of growth. Branding--the idea that you can put a Baptist or Episcopal or Presbyterian sticker on a church and know what they believe. There can be little dynamic growth and revelation. It is assumed that by the time a man is old enough to graduate seminary that his beliefs are in line with orthodoxy and will not require any major adjustment until Jesus returns. This idea borders between optimism and arrogance.
The creeds that we all mouth do little for maintaining orthodoxy. What do you mean by One? What do you mean by Created? And what the heck is up with "I believe in God the Father, maker of Heaven and Earth" when John says Jesus was the creator--and without him nothing was made that has been made?
The real application of this is the idea that if you are part of a body, and discover the denomination is "holy cow" wrong about some big things, what do you do? If love and unity are the highest laws, perhaps it does not then matter if we functionally preach "another gospel," so long as we are generous and kind to one another.
This all hinges on what the Main Things are. Obviously, Christ is central. It is the essence of being in Christ that makes a Christian and creates fellowship. But there are lines around what this means. A Mormon will tell you that they believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins. Does that mean we have fellowship with them? They may go on to quote you the book of Mormon where it says that once you are REALLY good, THEN you will be given the Holy Spirit--a complete violation of the gospel, as I understand it. And shades of this same heresy are ubiquitous in religious circles. God can only act if you do X. To receive the Holy Spirit, you must not eat for three days, then pray for six hours, then mumble incoherently for an hour to prove you are serious. And make sure you really are sincere, because like a horse, God can smell fear.
In more conservative circles, independence is encouraged by books like The Purpose Driven Life, which tells you figure out why God made you and walk in it. Christians cry for this kind of book, like the Israelites chafed against the theocracy God gave them. They want a King: a visible standard to follow so that they can follow and measure how they are doing. God would lead our hearts, but we want something we can see. It's the difference between feeling the beat of the music and moving to it and following the numbered footsteps on the floor. If we are possessed by the Great Dancer, why are we stomping through numbered footprints?
I believe Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. Most people believe the Bible teaches that if you don't put faith in Him, the result is eternal, conscious suffering. Is this a main thing? If I look in the Bible and find more evidence that the damned are destroyed, do we have fellowship? In my mind, we have fellowship if we remain grounded in Christ. If we are more attached to our denomination than we are to seeking what is true, we will be torn. If we are more attached to being right than we are to loving each other, we will be torn. If you believe in hell and I don't, we can still share Christ. And really, it ends up being a very secondary issue. Because the foundation is faith: are we walking in our own strength and wisdom or by the Spirit's leading and power. You can violate or fulfill that AND believe or disbelieve in hell, I think.
It feels very vulnerable and dependent to stay open to God rewriting my inner story. I would like to camp on a denominational standing--or even my own--and stop asking if it is true and how the pieces fit together. I just don't think I have that freedom.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Searing the Conscience
Sometimes in Christian circles, you hear the phrase "a seared conscience" and it is used as the result of ignoring God's word and disobeying. The concept is that if you ignore God enough, you lose the ability to hear him, you become insensitive. That may be true. But the actual scripture that this phrase comes from has a rather different lesson:
1 Tim 4:1-54:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
So those with a seared conscience, are they ignoring godly boundaries? No, they are creating a stricter morality. How can being stricter sear the conscience?
1 Tim 4:1-54:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
So those with a seared conscience, are they ignoring godly boundaries? No, they are creating a stricter morality. How can being stricter sear the conscience?
Woe
The kids and I are reading Luke at breakfast time (on a good day). I read a section aloud, then each person gets to ask a question, and answer a question. It's fun.
Today we read part of Luke 6. The kids are pretty familiar with "Blessed are the hungry, for they shall be filled," because that's the scripture I quote to them when they whine for snacks. This section comes after and stuck with me today:
Luke 6:24-26
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. "
I don't know what Joel Osteen does with this passage. Is this a passage that is flatly against being happy? Is it fair to take this as spiritual instruction, or is it more literal? I feel a sense of dread when I read this, for fear that I will lose all good things I currently enjoy. But I have to believe that if it says "Woe to you" that there must be some way to repent. Being rich, well fed, and laughing are morally neutral. Being well spoken of is a good thing throughout scripture--proverbs says that a good name is to be desired above all things, and a NT requirement for an elder/decon is that they have a good reputation in the community. So surely these things are not actually bad.
What's wrong with all those things? I think it must be self-sufficiency. Rev 3:17-18 says "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see."
So how do I "buy" gold? I think the white clothes are righteous acts...but what is salve for the eyes?
Today we read part of Luke 6. The kids are pretty familiar with "Blessed are the hungry, for they shall be filled," because that's the scripture I quote to them when they whine for snacks. This section comes after and stuck with me today:
Luke 6:24-26
"But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. "
I don't know what Joel Osteen does with this passage. Is this a passage that is flatly against being happy? Is it fair to take this as spiritual instruction, or is it more literal? I feel a sense of dread when I read this, for fear that I will lose all good things I currently enjoy. But I have to believe that if it says "Woe to you" that there must be some way to repent. Being rich, well fed, and laughing are morally neutral. Being well spoken of is a good thing throughout scripture--proverbs says that a good name is to be desired above all things, and a NT requirement for an elder/decon is that they have a good reputation in the community. So surely these things are not actually bad.
What's wrong with all those things? I think it must be self-sufficiency. Rev 3:17-18 says "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see."
So how do I "buy" gold? I think the white clothes are righteous acts...but what is salve for the eyes?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Lessons in Housekeeping
Six weeks ago when the weather was still balmy, I was snuggling my 4yo off to sleep. Her six year old brother was wandering around the room getting ready to be snuggled too. He picked something up off the floor and asked me what it was, handing it to me. I didn't really know, but when someone hands you something vaguely furry next to your face in the dark, you throw it--far and fast. And turn the light on. What was it? A bat. We have cats, and they drag things in. And this kitty gift was a tiny fruit bat that had breathed its last.
Well, we homeschool, and we were currently doing a unit on flying things. After looking at the little bat briefly (since it was bedtime), I promised the kids we would study bats "tomorrow" and sealed the bat in a ziploc baggie and put it in the fridge to preserve it until then.
You know where this is going, don't you? Well, tomorrow never came. And this morning, while cleaning out my fridge, I got a lovely lesson in "Do it Now." If you ever wondered what a bat that died six weeks ago looks like, let me tell you, you don't want to know. Ziploc baggies and refrigeration only go so far in preserving small mammals. Another lesson: never wait so long to clean your fridge that a bat could rot in there. Someone should put that on one of those helpful plaques.
Well, we homeschool, and we were currently doing a unit on flying things. After looking at the little bat briefly (since it was bedtime), I promised the kids we would study bats "tomorrow" and sealed the bat in a ziploc baggie and put it in the fridge to preserve it until then.
You know where this is going, don't you? Well, tomorrow never came. And this morning, while cleaning out my fridge, I got a lovely lesson in "Do it Now." If you ever wondered what a bat that died six weeks ago looks like, let me tell you, you don't want to know. Ziploc baggies and refrigeration only go so far in preserving small mammals. Another lesson: never wait so long to clean your fridge that a bat could rot in there. Someone should put that on one of those helpful plaques.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
