Friday, October 25, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
In Defense of Public Schools
Many people like to beat up public education. And, of course, public education can use improvement. But I've always objected to comparing public school scores to private school scores as a measure of success. It's apples and oranges.
Private schools can kick you out. Public schools can't - not easily. Private schools you have to work to get in - there has to be at least parental effort involved, if not student effort. And do you know what studies indicate the #1 predictor for student success? Not socioeconomic factors (although that plays a big role). Not parental education level. Not even student aptitude. The #1 predictor for student success is parental involvement and concern.
So of course, it is not surprising that private schools tend to score higher than public schools. But, as noted, it's an apples and oranges comparison.
I just read some research that gets to this point and concludes that, pound for pound, public schools are the heavy lifters and better value for education. Read on...
Sarah Theule Lubienski didn’t set out to compare public schools and private schools. A professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, she was studying math instructional techniques when she discovered something surprising: Private schools—long assumed to be educationally superior—were underperforming public schools.
She called her husband, Christopher A. Lubienski, also a professor at the university. “I said, ‘This is a really weird thing,’ and I checked it and double checked it,” she remembers. The couple decided to take on a project that would ultimately disprove decades of assumptions about private and public education.
Studying the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, they have found that, when controlling for demographic factors, public schools are doing a better job academically than private schools. It seems that private school students have higher scores because they come from more affluent backgrounds, not because the schools they attend are better educational institutions. They write about these conclusions—and explain how they came to them—in their book, The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools. Here’s an interview with the Lubienskis about their work, edited and condensed for clarity and length.
Summarize your work:
CAL: We already know that scores for students in private schools tend to be higher. The question is, is that because they’re from more affluent families…or is that because the schools are doing better? If you go back for a generation the research suggests that there is a private school effect, that even when you control for background factors, private schools seem to be more effective, particularly for certain populations, at boosting their achievement.
So what we did, controlling for these background factors, we actually found that the opposite appears to be true and that there is actually a public school effect. Which was a surprise… We were not expecting that at all, but then digging deeper into the data, using multiple data sets, that actually held up. And since that time, other researchers—people at the Educational Testing Service, Notre Dame, and Stanford—have looked at these data sets and come to similar conclusions.
Read more.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Beware the Meddlers...
I've been discussing the notion of Meddling with Craig and others over at another blog. The question was raised by the blogger, "Why do people object to people saying 'That behavior is wrong...'?" and I had responded that, at least in some cases, it's because we don't want to meddle. And why don't we want to meddle? Because meddling is wrong.
And, since this was a Bible crowd (ie, folk who like to be "convinced" by Bible passages), I pointed out that St Paul includes "meddlers" in with a list of sinners including murderers and evil-doers. Biblically, and just rationally, meddling is wrong, it's annoying, we should avoid it.
Craig allowed that, okay, that is a legitimate verse, but still, he said...
If I truly cared about my friend or family member wouldn’t it be more caring and loving to encourage and support moving toward behavior that is as minimally sinful/harmful as is possible?
And, after some back and forth (my answer was, "Generally, No, it's not more caring."), I tried another approach...
Look at it this way: There's a whole world of behaviors that are potentially right/wrong... good/bad. We feel more certain on some behaviors and our opinions are less strong on other behaviors.
Should I use a gas mower to cut my grass?
Should I move to a house/apartment that is so far away that I have to drive to work?
Should I move to a city with no public transit?
Should I buy a coke and popcorn at a movie when there are so many people starving?
Should I go to a movie at all, spending money frivolously when people are starving? How about a matinee for $3? What if I rent it for $1??
Should I divorce my abusive spouse? What if the abuse is only verbal?
Is smoking cigarettes sinful in God's eyes? The Bible never says so, so is it okay???
You get the idea. There are a multitude of choices and behaviors that we make each and every day. Any and all of those choices are potentially "sinful," if you are of that mindset, right? And if we don't speak up on "sinful" behavior of others, then are we being loving?
Where would you draw that line? Surely you don't spend all day offering your opinion to a variety of strangers and friends or acquaintances on what you think God thinks is wrong, do you? Because, "IF you truly care for a friend, isn't this the right thing to do... to offer my opinion on the hundreds of daily choices we make that might be sinful...?"
No, I don't think being loving requires us to offer our opinions about what WE think God thinks. For one, I think that is presumptuous - these friends and neighbors are free moral agents, created in God's image, just a little lower than angels. Do they really need me to guide their each step, in my effort to love them?
No, I don't think so.
When you look at it like that, Craig (and anyone else), can't you at least agree a little bit with me? If you can't, then where do you draw the line? Or do you NOT draw a line and you truly go around all the time offering your opinions on all these potential "sins..."?
Of course, God hasn't told any of us what is meant by "meddlers," so I'm entirely offering my opinions here, but I think the whole problem with meddling - why it seems to be treated so seriously - is the presumption it implies on the Meddler's part.
The word translated Meddler in the Bible, according to the Bible Dictionary website...
Allotriepiskopos literally means “not one’s own overseer.” “Not one’s own” is one word and “overseer” is the other. It means, thus, “one who oversees others’ matters or affairs.”
Which is pretty much the same as the Merriam Webster English definition...
to become involved in the activities and concerns of other people when your involvement is not wanted
The idea is that it's taking a place of Overseer, or The Authority over another person, unasked and un-welcomed, and this just seems presumptuous. Who am I to decide for you how you spend your days? Who am I to speak authoritatively as to what God wants for you?
From a Christian point of view, this presumption appears to be putting us in the place of god over another person and I think we can see how that could be terribly troubling.
Now, I did make it clear that I think there are limits to "bad" meddling. That is, if I'm part of a community/group that is asking one another to help hold one another accountable, then I HAVE given permission for someone to tell me when I'm in the wrong. For a simple example: The alcoholics group, where they have agreed to be accountable to one another to help them all succeed in getting away from their addiction. And so, mutual accountability is not meddling.
And, of course, an intervention in the case of someone harming someone else, that is not what we would typically call meddling, or, if it is meddling, it is a righteous/acceptable meddling.
But assuming no overt harm is being done to someone else and assuming that they have not invited me to tell them when they're wrong, then I'd lean pretty heavily AWAY from meddling because, well, meddling is wrong. It's to be avoided. We can't afford to put ourselves in the place of God in someone else's life. That just won't help.
Seems to me.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
A reflection
...and sometimes what I see
in you is upside down and
backwards from reality...
...or is that me?
Monday, October 7, 2013
At Liberty!
My church, Jeff St Baptist Community at Liberty, has begun a crowdsource funding effort to raise money for the At Liberty Hospitality Program. At Liberty is a day shelter open every morning, Monday through Friday. It provides a welcome and safe place where our homeless friends can get out of the weather, have a cup of coffee and a bit of breakfast, and receive medical assistance, social service assistance, clean up, make phone calls and generally get help and friendship.
We have been running At Liberty for ~30 years on a shoestring budget and, with funding getting tighter, we've decided to try to help keep it funded with this crowdsourcing campaign.
Check it out...
http://igg.me/at/AtLiberty/x/4613332
Please visit there, link to it, share it with friends, like it on Facebook, give it a pat on the head and send it on its happy way! And, if you like the idea of supporting At Liberty, consider becoming a supporter for this wonderful place of welcome and service for our homeless brothers and sisters.
And, if you're not in a place to support it financially, then please pray/think helpful thoughts for the ministry, visit it (if you're in Louisville) and mention it to your friends. It really is an amazing and vitally needed (unfortunately) ministry.
Thanks!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
What You Did...
This last Sunday, our pastor talked in her sermon about our homeless ministry. For nearly 30 years, we've had a day shelter open, Monday through Friday, where our poor and homeless brothers and sisters can rest for a few hours, receive medical assistance, social assistance and where, most of all, they can be truly welcome. For many of our homeless friends, they tend to be pushed away, shunned and encouraged to move on... they are simply not welcome most places.
It may be a small thing, but we strive to at least provide for them this one small place of welcome. Thanks be to God for the faithfulness of our Minister with the Homeless and the volunteers who've kept this going. And I'm thankful for Cindy, my pastor, for preaching another great sermon.
Here's an excerpt from the sermon. She was preaching on the biblical text about the Shumannite woman who welcomed the prophet, Elisha, into her home...
...The Shunammite woman was able to recognize Elisha as a holy one, and to treat him accordingly. And I, of course - on this morning when we are celebrating our ministry of hospitality as a community - am thinking about how we recognize the holy ones in our midst, how we make room for them.
As I see the Shunammite woman in my mind’s eye, I can’t help but think of David and Tim, who come to this building while it’s still dark, to begin to cook, of Clifford, who comes in and rolls out the coffee and creamer and sugar, and makes sure that there’s plenty of it throughout the morning, of Diane, who opens the doors at 7:00 am, and invites in the holy ones. Now, they don’t look holy, mind you. They look like our society’s refuse, some of them, raggedy beards, disheveled clothing, shoes that don’t fit. No, they don’t look particularly holy. They look like they haven’t had a place to lay their head for the night, and many of them haven’t.
According to our records, about half of the men who come to our Hospitality Program “sleep out,” meaning that they lay their heads wherever they can, down by the river, under a bridge somewhere, in an abandoned building. No, they don’t look holy, and some of them don’t act so holy, either: “Sorry, Diane,” they say in between profanities.
But because Jesus was able to recognize the holy in his midst, and gave us some clues to look for—“whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me,” he said—we know, on our best days, anyway, deep in our gut of guts that these men and women are somehow holy, are somehow him. And so at 7:00 a.m., Diane opens our doors to the holy, welcomes them into this place that she, like the Shunammite woman has so carefully prepared, and they shuffle in like Elisha, deeply appreciative of the coffee and newspaper and telephone and space and place that has become like a second home.
How blessed we are, as a community, to have been able to provide this ministry, this great gift of hospitality for the last 30 years…Of course, hospitality doesn’t just happen on weekday mornings. I’m wondering, who are the other holy ones in our midst, the holy ones that might not look so holy or act so holy, but who, like our homeless friends, are in need of a tender touch, in need of a welcome word, in need of a conversation that feels like home? The Apostle Paul tells the church that we should be “given to hospitality.” Given to hospitality.
Who are the other Elishas in your world? May we recognize them, and make for them a special place.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Anta Adhimun/Ordinary Days
Last year, a very talented friend at my church wrote and performed this song for Ordinary Time (with Paul and Luis accompanying her to great effect). She played it again today and I thought I'd repost this version from last year. I love this song, she does such a great job.
She wrote it starting with a traditional Arabic hymn, "Anta Adhimun" as the chorus, and then added in her own verses about extraordinary "ordinary" daily things. She also includes a few lines in Spanish.
Around this song, then, we constructed this slide show, with photos and movies from every day life here in the States, and in Morocco and in Latin America. Thanks, Kate, for sharing!
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
A Strange Brand of Bragging....
So, last year, the band my kids are in (Beadyhad their first official album produced - Youngest Days... and that was exciting.
This year, one of the songs from their album is being used as part of an independent movie soundtrack. It sounds like a relatively small scale movie, but it has Shirley "Momma Partridge" Jones in the cast, which makes it pretty big in my eyes. That movie opens THIS (September 13th) weekend in limited theaters around the US.
The movie is called, " A Strange Brand of Happy, and is self described as a "faith-friendly romantic comedy..." Looking at the trailer, it looks pretty fun and hopefully won't be too preachy (in that negative "preachy" way).
It's opening in Louisville and around the nation in theaters this Friday and we'll be there. Another neat thing, for us in this area, is that the soundtrack for the movie is populated with many local bands besides Beady. Way to go sonaBlast! Records!
Done bragging for now.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Jesus and Reason
In the previous post, the point was raised that Jesus often cited Scripture in support of his points. And, of course, he did. I found one source that suggested that Jesus cited Scripture up to 78 times. Another source says 180 times.
No doubt, Jesus often did so. Now, does his frequency of citing Scripture suggest that this means that Jesus, therefore, called Scripture the Primary Source (or, the SOLE source) for knowledge about God? No, of course not. That suggestion doesn't follow. It COULD be the case, but the text does not demand or really even suggest it. It just doesn't.
But that got me to thinking: How often did Jesus cite other sources of knowledge?
For instance, in the story of Jesus healing the paralytic man lowered through the roof of a house, we find this exchange...
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
In that story, Jesus does not respond to the Pharisees charge with Scripture, but with real world reasoning. "Which is easier, to say 'your sins are forgiven' or to say 'walk...'?"
It's a simple rational argument in response to accusations of violating their interpretations of Scripture.
Or consider another response to Pharisees complaining (and note: they were complaining because Jesus was violating THEIR UNDERSTANDING of Scripture)...
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Again, no scriptures offered in response, just simple real world reasoning.
Same point in this story (again, with the Pharisees raising objections to Jesus' behavior...)
They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.”
Jesus answered, “Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast.”
Simple real world reasoning.
Jesus goes on to tell a parable...
He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”
In fact, as we all know, Jesus told many parables - simple stories usually featuring real world, natural circumstances to illustrate a point, to make a case.
Parable upon parable, offering natural world observation and learning about God given real world situations and observations...
He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?
The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Three real world observations and analogies in a row. Pow, pow, pow.
"Consider the lilies of the field..."
"Consider the birds of the air..."
“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
And not just the parables, his teachings are jammed with these sorts of observations, illustrations and analogies...
Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”
He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
Simple real world reasoning. Using our/his God-given reasoning. Appealing to God's Word, written upon our hearts.
I'll close with one more, another instance of a Pharisee being self-righteously indignant that Jesus was not abiding by their interpretation of the Law...
When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.
Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.
Simple real world reasoning. Natural world observations and illustrations. Over and over and over.
Does that mean that I think God is telling us that Reason is the Sole Source - or even just The Primary Source - for knowledge about God? No, God hasn't said that to me and I'm not going to claim God has. But clearly, folk who value what the Bible says can acknowledge how important real world reasoning and observations were to Jesus.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Listen
I'd like to raise a question I've asked before in various ways and have never received an answer. I bring it up because, most recently, I've seen it argued at Stan's blog (the aptly named?), Winging It. The point of the post is his rather dubious and hole-y notions of Christian "essentials," but as part of getting to his essentials, Stan says, and I quote...
The Bible we have today is a translation of original texts that are, of a necessity, God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). They were not merely "inspired" as we might use the term today, but actually breathed by the Holy Spirit to His authorized messengers who, in their own words and under the supervision of the Spirit, wrote down what God wanted His people to know. As such, these texts were infallible -- could not be wrong -- and inerrant -- had no mistakes.
The Bible is the only source of authority in matters of faith and practice for Christianity.
As I have asked repeatedly: Would SOMEONE please answer the question:
WHERE does the Bible claim that "the Bible" is the sole authority?
IF the Bible is the sole authority for matters of faith and practice in Christianity, then SURELY the Bible makes this claim about itself, right?
Otherwise, you have an utterly self-defeating argument:
"The 66 books of the Bible - which is the SOLE source for knowing what is "right and wrong" for Christians and their practice, never makes that claim about itself, so IF it is the SOLE source, then it CAN'T be the sole source because it does not tell us it is the sole source. Indeed, someone REASONED that idea extrabiblically and, thus, they used an EXTERNAL source (their own reasoning) and thus, that opinion can't be trusted or at least, validated. IF the Bible is the sole source."
Do you see the problem with this argument? Can SOMEONE please address this huge gaping hole in the reasoning here?
Perhaps the problem is in what advocates mean by "the sole source of authority in matters of faith and practice for Christianity." I'd entertain definitions of that notion, if anyone wants to tackle it.
But allow me to spell out the problems that I see with this notion, as I understand folk like Stan are making it...
1. If "The Bible is the sole source of authority in matters of faith and practice of Christianity" [SS], WHERE in the Bible does it specifically say this?
2. If it's not in the Bible specifically and literally (and clearly, factually, it simply isn't), then where does the Bible objectively and demonstrably even HINT at it?
3. Knowing that advocates will say that, while the Bible doesn't speak of the 66 books of the Bible (ever, not one time, never), it does speak of "Scripture," and that the Bible is "as Scripture" to us, the reasoning person would say, "Okay, if 'the Bible' is SS, then where does 'the Bible' say that the 66 books are 'as Scripture' to us?" The answer? The Bible does not say the 66 books are "as Scripture" to us. That is, in itself, an extrabiblical conclusion made by fallible humans (the Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken) to call these 66 books "as scripture."
4. Since that was an extrabiblical decision, how can we authoritatively know the 66 are "as Scripture," since it comes NOT from SS but from an extrabiblical, human decision? [Mind you, I accept the Bible "as Scripture," I'm just noting that this is not compliant with SS, as far as I can see.] Clearly, saying "We can know with authority that SS is true, why? Because of this EXTRABIBLICAL authority..." is not consistently logical. Indeed, it's a self-defeating argument.
5. Beyond that, the Bible (which is our SS, comes the claim), itself makes the claim of MULTIPLE ways of knowing about God. The Bible claims we can know about God...
a. Through the world itself (all of Creation tells of the glory of God)
b. Through God's Word/God's Law "written on our heart" (which could be interpreted as our conscience, our inate sense of God, and/or our reasoning)
c. Through the Holy Spirit of God revealing God to us ("these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.")
d. Through our God given reasoning (come, let us reason together")
...For instance.
6. So, if the SS TELLS us that there are other sources of knowledge, then how could "the Bible" or "Scripture" be SS, since Scripture itself contradicts that claim?
7. As an aside, IF the Bible is the SS, then claims that "the Bible" is inerrant and infallible can not be justified because the Bible does not make that claim, either about "the Bible" or about Scriptural text. As always, this falls apart - even if you thought the text was somehow inerrant or infallible (which, again, is not a biblical claim) - as SOON as you have human eyes reading and human brains INTERPRETING the text. If "Love your enemies" is a teaching ENTIRELY without error, but someone reads it and finds justification for killing their enemies, then you have human interpretations of texts and human interpretations are, of necessity, fallible.
I'm open to polite, respectful discussion about this topic. I'm not open to comments about people. IF you think people who advocate such things are hypocrites or goofballs or inconsistent or irrational, I don't want to hear that. That may well be the case and that can be obvious if no rational answers are forthcoming, but I don't want to hear that. (Indeed, the one individual I recently tried talking to about this made extremely weird strawman arguments one after another rather than dealing with the questions I was asking - but maybe he was just on the immature side, that happens.) But I am open to direct answers to my direct questions.
WHERE does the Bible make the claim of SS?
WHAT of the passages within the Bible that claim other sources of knowledge/authority?
How about it?
Monday, August 5, 2013
Friend of Dexter
You have to be some kind of industrial grade creep to pick on a two year old kid and his momma at the Walmarts. But, of course, there are people out there ready to step up and prove just how very large a creep they can be...
source
I gladly stand with young Dexter, his mother and anyone else who chooses to dress however they wish. Mind your own business, people.
Monday, July 22, 2013
What Have You Dismantled Today?
In Adult Sunday School last week, we discussed Ched Myers’ book, Sabbath Economics. He talks about the disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and he says that the Biblical witness refuses to stipulate the injustice is a permanent condition, and, this is the line that caught some of our attention, “Instead, God’s people are instructed to dismantle, on a regular basis, the fundamental patterns and structures of stratified wealth and power, so that there is enough for everyone.”
[and here, he is speaking specifically in reference to the Sabbath and Jubilee laws - as well as touching on the Manna story, but he would argue that it extends beyond that... ~dt]
One thing that we liked about that sentence is, “God’s people are instructed to dismantle, on a regular basis…” We talked about how we have to continually remind ourselves that what we think we own is not really ours, but rather, God’s. About how hard it is when you grow up in this culture to really get that into your head and heart, how hard it is not just to dismantle an unjust system, but to dismantle predominant beliefs and values.
What have you dismantled lately? What are you in the process of dismantling?
When you look around, what is it that you see that needs to be dismantled?
This morning’s scripture reading is the first of a series of five stories in less than two chapters where Jesus, whose ministry and sudden rise to popularity has been briefly introduced by Mark, clashes head on with the authorities. There are many more confrontations to come, but it begins with this series of clashes.
In Jesus’ day, a physical illness or disability was seen as a consequence or punishment for a sin. If someone was healed from an illness, then in order to be pronounced clean, or forgiven, they would have to follow a certain procedure, in a lepers’ case, for instance, go before a priest, sacrifice an animal, pay some money.
But in this story, Jesus, upon seeing the paralyzed man, pronounces him forgiven, clean, before he’s even healed, before he’s seen the priest, before he’s sacrificed the animal, before he’s paid the money, before the scribes have had a chance to reclassify him.
“Your sins are forgiven,” Jesus says, and in those words, Jesus restores him to social wholeness. He’s welcomed back into the fold: You are no longer an outcast, you are no longer unclean. You are brother, you are father, you are son, you are restored to your position as a child of Israel.
Jesus restores him before he’s even been healed. The scribes go ballistic, and "for good reason,” says Ched Myers. “Their complaint that none but God can remit debt is not a defense against the sovereignty of Yahweh, but of their own social power.”
They accuse Jesus in the strongest language possible: “He blasphemes,” they say, which as you’ll remember, is the charge that will eventually be used to execute Jesus.
Jesus restores the man before he’s even been healed. “You can’t do that,” they say. At which point, Jesus heals the man, this time actually restoring his body as well. And so the scribes have been “out-dueled,” and Myers points out that the next time they appear, it will be in the person of government investigators from Jerusalem...
What have you dismantled lately? What are you in the process of dismantling...?