In the last post by the same title, I attempted to give a reconciliation between the truths of God's perfect love and His perfect omnipotence as it relates to human pain (alongside a much better explanation by C. S. Lewis). This understanding is merely a jumping off point for coping with life's suffering and is wholly inadequate if divorced from God's own Word.
Pain -- physical, emotional, spiritual -- has purpose in God's economy. (How that in itself testifies to God's goodness that He should reappropriate the suffering a sinful race brings on itself for our own benefit!)
And although pain entered the world willfully by Adam's sin bringing death, God has seen fit to express His mercy by not allowing our suffering to be purely punitive in nature, redeeming even our very deserved suffering for His glory and our good.
As far as I can understand it, pain (beyond its genesis in Adam) has three causes. In each case, God illustrates His Godly character to us.
First, and most obviously, we suffer as a result of the natural consequences of our sin. God has designed us to function best within certain boundaries, and that for our own safety. Just as no one truly loves his child whom he also allows to run freely into traffic, God prescribes limits to what His creatures can and should do physically and spiritually. When we second-guess His wisdom and insinuate ourselves into the place of His authority, we inevitably get hurt. This is true of the child who rebels against his father's rule and runs into the street, relishing his supposed freedom before disaster strikes, and it is true of all of us who test the limits by tiptoeing (and sometimes flinging ourselves headlong) over God's boundaries.
We are created to glorify God, but in our sinfulness are bent on glorifying ourselves. Herein we find most of our suffering -- as creatures foolishly pretending we can govern ourselves better than the Creator, substituting our rules in place of His.
The natural expression of this truth is all around us. God instructs us toward purity before and fidelity within marriage. Outside these loving parameters we find deep emotional fears, rampant disease, broken homes, poverty, and anchorless, insecure children who, more often than not, are described as "troubled". The same is true of those who have embraced homosexuality against God's warnings, ignoring its devastating physical and emotional consequences, the details of which I do not even want to describe here.
The point is not that God rains down these consequences purely to punish wayward humankind, but to allow the sting that would drive us back into safety, under the umbrella of blessing He promises to the obedient. Even as a child is conditioned to avoid a hot stove once he has burned his hand, God allows the pain from our sin to condition us to avoid what is destructive (even though we, like children, often don't appreciate our Father's wisdom until we've been burned).
"My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor detest His correction; for whom the Lord loves He corrects, just as a father the son in whom he delights." (Proverbs 3:11, 12)
"Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)
The second type of suffering is that which results from doing what is right, which may seem contradictory to my earlier comment that God blesses obedience. But Scripture is clear on both points: that the righteous will suffer for doing good and that God promises good to those who are obedient to Him. One might also wonder what motivation there is for doing good if only to suffer for it. This is where I will pick up next time.
(There is, of course, a kind of pain that we learn to appreciate because it strengthens us -- sore muscles that become strengthened through exercise, hard work that rewards an honest living, an immune system strengthened by illness, etc. -- but it could be argued that this is true of all three kinds of pain discussed here. But that discussion will be included in the next post.)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
High Self-Esteem, Low Test Scores
Excerpt from Burt Prelutsky's article "High Self-Esteem, Low Test Scores":
There are new studies and new polls that strongly suggest that we are breeding increasingly stupid kids here in America. Like our tasteless tomatoes, they merely look good and healthy.
But of course there is more than one way to test intelligence. So, while only 43% of our 17-year-olds know that the Civil War took place between 1850 and 1900, as opposed to, say, 1750-1800 or after 1950, they are very good at text-messaging. They also probably know the names of Britney Spears’ kids, which is more than Ms. Spears does at any given moment, but they have no idea why December 7, 1941, was a day of infamy. They also don’t know what “infamy” means.
What makes the situation even more pathetic is that these kids, for the most part, have a terrifically high opinion of themselves. To be fair, nothing much has ever been asked of them, let alone demanded, and yet they are constantly being told how special they are. Hardly any of them are expected to do chores, and as teachers have been ordered by craven school boards to pass along any student who’s breathing, D’s are frowned upon and F’s are verboten. As a result, 18-year-olds, who can barely count up to 18 without taking off their shoes, automatically get their high school diplomas.
Read the entire article at http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/07/07/high_self-esteem,_low_test_scores.
There are new studies and new polls that strongly suggest that we are breeding increasingly stupid kids here in America. Like our tasteless tomatoes, they merely look good and healthy.
But of course there is more than one way to test intelligence. So, while only 43% of our 17-year-olds know that the Civil War took place between 1850 and 1900, as opposed to, say, 1750-1800 or after 1950, they are very good at text-messaging. They also probably know the names of Britney Spears’ kids, which is more than Ms. Spears does at any given moment, but they have no idea why December 7, 1941, was a day of infamy. They also don’t know what “infamy” means.
What makes the situation even more pathetic is that these kids, for the most part, have a terrifically high opinion of themselves. To be fair, nothing much has ever been asked of them, let alone demanded, and yet they are constantly being told how special they are. Hardly any of them are expected to do chores, and as teachers have been ordered by craven school boards to pass along any student who’s breathing, D’s are frowned upon and F’s are verboten. As a result, 18-year-olds, who can barely count up to 18 without taking off their shoes, automatically get their high school diplomas.
Read the entire article at http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/07/07/high_self-esteem,_low_test_scores.
Straight Talk from Bill Gates
Found this gem online. Not sure if Bill Gates actually said all this, but whoever did -- they were right.
Some things Bill Gates thinks kids (and adults) should know.
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2 : The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were . So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Some things Bill Gates thinks kids (and adults) should know.
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2 : The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were . So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Stumped by a 2-year-old
Heimer: Mommy, do peas like to run?
Mommy: ?????
Mommy: ?????
(Any philosophers out there who can help me out?)
Where do homeschooled kids end up?
Not sure what becomes of most homeschoolers; but, here are 4 that did alright...
Click here for their stories:
http://learninfreedom.org/Founders_free.html
More famous homeschoolers and homeschooling parents:
http://www.knowledgehouse.info/famous.html
Click here for their stories:
http://learninfreedom.org/Founders_free.html
More famous homeschoolers and homeschooling parents:
http://www.knowledgehouse.info/famous.html
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Are Parents Really Necessary? A Guide to Preschool Education
Read the entire article at http://www.crosswalk.com/homeschool/11575357/page1/.
Socialization: A Great Reason Not to Go to School
Copyright © 2006 Karl M. Bunday, all rights reserved.
Excerpts (with emphasis added):
"...self-esteem is a concept that was born in the school system, and it is best for parents not to overemphasize the self-esteem of their children. Professor Martin E.P. Seligman, in his helpful book The Optimistic Child, discusses how self-esteem has been more and more emphasized in schools during precisely the same years that the youth suicide rate has increased in the United States. Seligman suggests "optimism," a concept he defines in The Optimistic Child, is a better thing for parents to develop than self-esteem. I have read, and am still trying to confirm in other sources, that Seligman is himself a homeschooling parent. Whether or not he is a homeschooler, I know that he is a highly respected psychologist, as I have read many books and articles that cite his research, and have confirmed that Professor Seligman was recently the president of the American Psychological Association. A different perspective on self-esteem is offered by Jay E. Adams, the author of many of my favorite books. Adams, in his refreshingly accurate review of Biblical concepts, The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image, points out that persons who honestly follow Biblical teachings don't seek to build self-esteem, but to build love for others that denies self and loves God first.
"And Shyers, from the secular perspective of his research, looked at how homeschooled children treat other children. Shyers found no significant difference between his two groups in scores on the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale. But direct observation by trained observers, using a "blind" procedure, found that home-schooled children had significantly fewer problem behaviors, as measured by the Child Observation Checklist's Direct Observation Form, than traditionally schooled children when playing in mixed groups of children from both kinds of schooling backgrounds. This observational study was reported in some detail in the 1992 Associated Press article. Shyers concluded that the hypothesis that contact with adults, rather than contact with other children, is most important in developing social skills in children is supported by these data.
"The same year that Shyers completed his doctoral degree thesis research on homeschooling socialization, Thomas Smedley completed master's degree research at Radford University in Virginia, with a similar experimental design. Smedley compared twenty home-schooled children to thirteen public school children, matching the children as best he could by relevant demographic characteristics. His study used the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, which evaluate communication skills, socialization, and daily living skills. Smedley found that the home-schooled children were more mature according to the scoring rubrics of the Vineland scales, scoring in the 84th percentile, while the public school children scored in the 27th percentile. Thus the Shyers finding supports a nearly simultaneous finding by a different researcher, who used a different social science evaluation procedure on a different sample population. Such a replicated finding is unusual in social science."
For the entire article, go to http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html.
Excerpts (with emphasis added):
"...self-esteem is a concept that was born in the school system, and it is best for parents not to overemphasize the self-esteem of their children. Professor Martin E.P. Seligman, in his helpful book The Optimistic Child, discusses how self-esteem has been more and more emphasized in schools during precisely the same years that the youth suicide rate has increased in the United States. Seligman suggests "optimism," a concept he defines in The Optimistic Child, is a better thing for parents to develop than self-esteem. I have read, and am still trying to confirm in other sources, that Seligman is himself a homeschooling parent. Whether or not he is a homeschooler, I know that he is a highly respected psychologist, as I have read many books and articles that cite his research, and have confirmed that Professor Seligman was recently the president of the American Psychological Association. A different perspective on self-esteem is offered by Jay E. Adams, the author of many of my favorite books. Adams, in his refreshingly accurate review of Biblical concepts, The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image, points out that persons who honestly follow Biblical teachings don't seek to build self-esteem, but to build love for others that denies self and loves God first.
"And Shyers, from the secular perspective of his research, looked at how homeschooled children treat other children. Shyers found no significant difference between his two groups in scores on the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale. But direct observation by trained observers, using a "blind" procedure, found that home-schooled children had significantly fewer problem behaviors, as measured by the Child Observation Checklist's Direct Observation Form, than traditionally schooled children when playing in mixed groups of children from both kinds of schooling backgrounds. This observational study was reported in some detail in the 1992 Associated Press article. Shyers concluded that the hypothesis that contact with adults, rather than contact with other children, is most important in developing social skills in children is supported by these data.
"The same year that Shyers completed his doctoral degree thesis research on homeschooling socialization, Thomas Smedley completed master's degree research at Radford University in Virginia, with a similar experimental design. Smedley compared twenty home-schooled children to thirteen public school children, matching the children as best he could by relevant demographic characteristics. His study used the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, which evaluate communication skills, socialization, and daily living skills. Smedley found that the home-schooled children were more mature according to the scoring rubrics of the Vineland scales, scoring in the 84th percentile, while the public school children scored in the 27th percentile. Thus the Shyers finding supports a nearly simultaneous finding by a different researcher, who used a different social science evaluation procedure on a different sample population. Such a replicated finding is unusual in social science."
For the entire article, go to http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html.
Home-schoolers threaten our cultural comfort
From the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, June 8, 2008:
You see them at the grocery, or in a discount store.
It's a big family by today’s standards - "just like stair steps," as the old folks say. Freshly scrubbed boys with neatly trimmed hair and girls with braids, in clean but unfashionable clothes follow mom through the store as she fills her no-frills shopping list.
There's no begging for gimcracks, no fretting, and no threats from mom. The older watch the younger, freeing mom to go peacefully about her task. You are looking at some of the estimated 2 million children being home schooled in the U.S., and the number is growing. Their reputation for academic achievement has caused colleges to begin aggressively recruiting them. Savings to the taxpayers in instructional costs are conservatively estimated at $4 billion, and some place the figure as high as $9 billion. When you consider that these families pay taxes to support public schools, but demand nothing from them, it seems quite a deal for the public.
Home schooling parents are usually better educated than the norm, and are more likely to attend worship services. Their motives are many and varied. Some fear contagion from the anti-clericalism, coarse speech, suggestive behavior and hedonistic values that characterize secular schools. Others are concerned for their children’s safety. Some want their children to be challenged beyond the minimal competencies of the public schools. Concern for a theistic world view largely permeates the movement.
Indications are that home schooling is working well for the kids, and the parents are pleased with their choice, but the practice is coming under increasing suspicion, and even official attack, as in California.
Why do we hate (or at least distrust) these people so much?
Methinks American middle-class people are uncomfortable around the home schooled for the same reason the alcoholic is uneasy around the teetotaler.
Their very existence represents a rejection of our values, and an indictment of our lifestyles. Those families are willing to render unto Caesar the things that Caesar’s be, but they draw the line at their children. Those of us who have put our trust in the secular state (and effectively surrendered our children to it) recognize this act of defiance as a rejection of our values, and we reject them in return.
Just as the jealous Chaldeans schemed to bring the wrath of the king upon the Hebrew eunuchs, we are happy to sic the state’s bureaucrats on these “trouble makers.” Their implicit rejection of America’s most venerated idol, Materialism, (a.k.a. “Individualism”) spurs us to heat the furnace and feed the lions.
Young families must make the decision: Will junior go to day care and day school, or will mom stay home and raise him? The rationalizations begin. "A family just can't make it on one income." (Our parents did.) "It just costs so much to raise a child nowadays." (Yeah, if you buy brand-name clothing, pre-prepared food, join every club and activity, and spend half the cost of a house on the daughter’s wedding, it does.) And so, the decision is made. We give up the bulk of our waking hours with our children, as well as the formation of their minds, philosophies, and attitudes, to strangers. We compensate by getting a boat to take them to the river, a van to carry them to Little League, a 2,800-square-foot house, an ATV, a zero-turn Cub Cadet, and a fund to finance a brand-name college education. And most significantly, we claim “our right” to pursue a career for our own "self-fulfillment."
Deep down, however, we know that our generation has eaten its seed corn. We lack the discipline and the vision to deny ourselves in the hope of something enduring and worthy for our posterity. We are tired from working extra jobs, and the looming depression threatens our 401k’s. Credit cards are nearly maxed, and it costs a $100 to fuel the Suburban. Now the kid is raising hell again, demanding the latest Play Station as his price for doing his school work … and there goes that modest young woman in the home-made dress with her four bright-eyed, well-behaved home-schooled children in tow. Wouldn’t you just love to wipe that serene look right off her smug face?
Is it any wonder we hate her so?
Sonny Scott a community columnist, lives on Sparta Road in Chickasaw County and his e-mail address is sonnyscott@yahoo.com.
You see them at the grocery, or in a discount store.
It's a big family by today’s standards - "just like stair steps," as the old folks say. Freshly scrubbed boys with neatly trimmed hair and girls with braids, in clean but unfashionable clothes follow mom through the store as she fills her no-frills shopping list.
There's no begging for gimcracks, no fretting, and no threats from mom. The older watch the younger, freeing mom to go peacefully about her task. You are looking at some of the estimated 2 million children being home schooled in the U.S., and the number is growing. Their reputation for academic achievement has caused colleges to begin aggressively recruiting them. Savings to the taxpayers in instructional costs are conservatively estimated at $4 billion, and some place the figure as high as $9 billion. When you consider that these families pay taxes to support public schools, but demand nothing from them, it seems quite a deal for the public.
Home schooling parents are usually better educated than the norm, and are more likely to attend worship services. Their motives are many and varied. Some fear contagion from the anti-clericalism, coarse speech, suggestive behavior and hedonistic values that characterize secular schools. Others are concerned for their children’s safety. Some want their children to be challenged beyond the minimal competencies of the public schools. Concern for a theistic world view largely permeates the movement.
Indications are that home schooling is working well for the kids, and the parents are pleased with their choice, but the practice is coming under increasing suspicion, and even official attack, as in California.
Why do we hate (or at least distrust) these people so much?
Methinks American middle-class people are uncomfortable around the home schooled for the same reason the alcoholic is uneasy around the teetotaler.
Their very existence represents a rejection of our values, and an indictment of our lifestyles. Those families are willing to render unto Caesar the things that Caesar’s be, but they draw the line at their children. Those of us who have put our trust in the secular state (and effectively surrendered our children to it) recognize this act of defiance as a rejection of our values, and we reject them in return.
Just as the jealous Chaldeans schemed to bring the wrath of the king upon the Hebrew eunuchs, we are happy to sic the state’s bureaucrats on these “trouble makers.” Their implicit rejection of America’s most venerated idol, Materialism, (a.k.a. “Individualism”) spurs us to heat the furnace and feed the lions.
Young families must make the decision: Will junior go to day care and day school, or will mom stay home and raise him? The rationalizations begin. "A family just can't make it on one income." (Our parents did.) "It just costs so much to raise a child nowadays." (Yeah, if you buy brand-name clothing, pre-prepared food, join every club and activity, and spend half the cost of a house on the daughter’s wedding, it does.) And so, the decision is made. We give up the bulk of our waking hours with our children, as well as the formation of their minds, philosophies, and attitudes, to strangers. We compensate by getting a boat to take them to the river, a van to carry them to Little League, a 2,800-square-foot house, an ATV, a zero-turn Cub Cadet, and a fund to finance a brand-name college education. And most significantly, we claim “our right” to pursue a career for our own "self-fulfillment."
Deep down, however, we know that our generation has eaten its seed corn. We lack the discipline and the vision to deny ourselves in the hope of something enduring and worthy for our posterity. We are tired from working extra jobs, and the looming depression threatens our 401k’s. Credit cards are nearly maxed, and it costs a $100 to fuel the Suburban. Now the kid is raising hell again, demanding the latest Play Station as his price for doing his school work … and there goes that modest young woman in the home-made dress with her four bright-eyed, well-behaved home-schooled children in tow. Wouldn’t you just love to wipe that serene look right off her smug face?
Is it any wonder we hate her so?
Sonny Scott a community columnist, lives on Sparta Road in Chickasaw County and his e-mail address is sonnyscott@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
