"Some Things You Can't Unsee"
Such was the tag-line for a recent movie just released in theatres. It caused me to think again on an ever-present reality for contemporary American society; that of audio-visual exposure. It is undeniable that media overload is a daily ritual for many around the world. From cel phones capable of everything from making calls to downloading text, music and video via mobile internet connection to thinner, lighter and more highly defined television screens in almost every establishment it seems that whereas in years past the struggle was to "find a signal", these days to remove yourself from media is the real coup de etat. So, in the current culture of media immersion, does this statement really mean anything? Further, as this site is dedicated to Biblical Christians thinking about current topics, what are the implications, if any for the believer?
Visual Assault
I'm not a history "buff", but my grandfather was well versed in military strategy as he was an Army man and lost several brothers in war. I remember him telling me of some of the exploits of Patton and MacArthur in particular. So, while no expert by any means, I am aware that from minor skirmishes to full campaigns there are numerous methods of assault. One of the most effective that comes to my memory is where a group of soldiers was extended too far, and their enemy gained their flank and successfully cut off their supply lines. They were soon overtaken due to a lack of those munitions necessary to wage war on their opponent.
Malcolm Muggeridge wrote what I believe to be the masterpiece on media for Christians in his Christ and the Media. I'll refer to his work often throughout this post and strongly recommend it to all who read, not just for the content specific to the topic, but also as an example of great writing style which is not present here. In his first lecture, Muggeridge writes:
"The prevailing impression I have come to have of the contemporary scene is of an ever-widening chasm between the fantasy in terms of which the media induce us to live, and the reality of our existence as made in the image of God, as sojourners in time whose true habitat is eternity. The fantasy is all-encompassing; awareness of reality requires the seeing eye which comes to those born again in Christ." (p. 30, first full paragraph)
Interesting language that, media induced fantasy versus Godly reality. In the example of military strategy one could say that humankind has been enticed by media to move ever farther from reality, and being so estranged from its moors is ripe to have the supply line of truth cut off. Ultimately that is what is at stake, truth. There are several terms to describe truth as the accurate description of reality (correspondence theory, et. al.). As the propagator and distributor of fantasy, it is only logical that the more engrossed we become in the world of the fantastic the more the mere notion of reality is bludgeoned by the blunt instrument of media until truth has been beaten to death. Is that language too harsh? Is all this just an overreaction? Consider a contemporary example in the fictional Bourne series. Many read the books in sequence and enjoyed the stories, following the character through memory loss, a gradual discovery of who he really was and ultimately living on his own terms again deciding who he would be. Then came the movie trilogy. Who, after having seen the movies could thereafter ever read the books and see the name Jason Bourne without seeing with their mind's eye the actor who portrayed the character on the big screen? Could this be anything short of a violation of the imagination, anything less than the foisting of an image onto the mind of the reader, ultimately not providing a tacid and temporary sensory experience but instead a deliberate and permanent shackling of thought? It's even worse than thought at first blush. Not only is the reader no longer able to exercise the freedom of imagining any figure he wishes through the course of the book, but the image that has been seared into his mind is not even the actor as he exists in reality but only a fantastic caricature. Reality is replaced with artificial appearance through stylists and make-up artists; classes in martial arts and foreign languages project an expertise in physical and linguistic areas that quickly fade following the final day on set; choreographed chases in various vehicles with the use of stunt doubles, quick shots from many camera angles and carefully planned scripts portray genuine acumen in driving and wit; all this to form a single image that is completely true neither of the character viewed in the writer's mind nor tethered to the reality of the actor. Complete fantasy that sweeps the viewers away, luring them further and further into the world of make believe until they no longer want to live in this dreary world of reality, but would rather remain in a field of the fantastic.
So we see the chasm of which Muggeridge spoke, the all-encompassing fantasy of which he warned. But what of the seeing eye that allowed some to remain aware of the real world, that vision that comes to those born of Christ keeping them fixed close to their line of supply? Was it not William Blake who said,
"This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye"
As Ravi Zacharias so eloquently stated, "We were created to see through the eye with the conscience, we are living now in a world where we see with the eye, devoid of a conscience." (my paraphrase). With the introduction of computer aided graphics, high definition cameras and three-dimensional graphics we are fast approaching the day in which human actors are no longer needed for film or voice. Many times animals, species, even cultures die out through various circumstances, but we may be witnessing the unfolding before us the extinction of the human actor and for the first time the creature being annihilated is applauding his own demise. Such is the fate of the one engulfed in fantasy, reduced to seeing with the eye, not through it, and imprisoned by the replacement of free, independent, rational, real, true thought and imagination with forced, lock-step, irrational, fantastic, disingenuous regurgitation and replication.
Protecting the Flank
If it is common knowledge that one strategy in war is to move around an opponents flank and cut off his supply line, then a prominent feature of logistics in a campaign must be diligence and persistance in protecting one's flank. In our case we must be ever cognizant of the maneauverings of our enemy. On this point we must be clear, the battle is real and the truth is at stake. In his second lecture, entitled The Dead Sea Video Tapes, Muggeridge again gets to the heart of the issue and provides a salient and striking description of the necessity of being persistant in maintaining our watch:
"Good and evil, after all, provide the basic theme of the drama of our moral existence, and in this sense may be compared with the positive and negative points which generate an electric current; transpose the points, and the current fails, the lights go out, darkness falls, and all is confusion. So it is with us. The transposition of good and evil in the world of fantasy created by the media leaves us with no sense of any moral order in the universe, and without this, no order whatsoever, social, political, economic or any other, is ultimately attainable. There is only chaos." (p.46 paragraph 4)
Should we become so entranced by the visual effects and imagery before us, we run the risk of being swallowed up by the ideas of "good guys" wearing black and "saving the day" through murderous revenge; of the interchangability of loathsome characters and supposed innocents through surprising situations; of the overpowering feelings of yearning for the termination of all "happy endings" as they have been done to many times and no longer has any appeal. Is it possible that through certain script maneauvers, camera angles and choreographed facial expressions and childhood flashbacks a group of filmmakers might convince an audience that they should feel sorry for the villian and actually desire to see him get off scot free?
In his second lecture, Muggeridge examines the troubling question of what archeologists might say years from now when looking back on the video evidence left behind. He writes:
"What, may we wonder, would the archeologists make of us? Materially so rich and so powerful, spirtually so impoverished and so rear-ridden, having made such remarkable inroads into discovering the secrets of nature and into unravelling the mechanisms of our material environment, beginning to explore, and perhaps to colonise, the universe itself, developing the means to produce in more or less unlimited quantities everything we could possibly need or desire, to transmit swifter than light every thought, smile or word that could possibly entertain, instruct or delight us, desposing of treasure beyond calculation, opening up possibilities beyond envisaging, yet seemingly haunted by a panic fear of becoming too numerous, to the point that there would be no room on earth for its inhabitants and an insufficiency of food to sustain them...Never, the archeologists will surely conclude, was any generation of men, ostensibly intent upon the pursuit of happiness and plenty, more advantageously placed to attain it, who yet, with apparent deliberation, took the opposite course, towards chaos, not order, towards breakdown, not stability, towards death, destruction, and darkness, not life, creativity and light. An ascent that ran downhill, plenty that turned into a wasteland, a cornucopia folded. This, as it seems to me, cannot but be the archeologists' general conclusion from the material available to them." (pp. 53,54)
and more pointedly,
"The archeologists will surely marvel at the high hopes placed in this educative process, seemingly regarded in the society under examination as a panacea for all ills, material, mental and spiritual; at the proliferating campuses, the ever-multiplying professors and teachers instructing more and more students in more and more subjects; at the vast sums of public money expended, and at how the pundits of the classrooms and lecture theatres were held in the highest esteem, to the point of being invited to hold forth in the television and radio studios, and even to participate in government at the highest levels. More books published, plays produced, building erected in a matter of decades than heretofore in the whole of recorded time; the scene set for the greatest cultural explosion of history, a Venice or a Florence on a continental scale. And the result? Instead of sages, philosopher-kings and saints, pop stars, psychiatrists and gurus. Looking for a Leonardo da Vinci or a Shakespeare, the archeologists find only a Rolling Stone.
Surveying and weighing up the whole scene, then, will not their final conclusion be that Western man decided to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought down the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, having convinced himself that he was too numerous, laboring with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer, until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over, a weary battered old Brontosaurus, and became extinct?" (pp. 57,58)
I wonder again if many will read these lines and think to themselves, "what a gross exaggeration, we're not going extinct we're making progress, changing all the time." I wonder if maybe we have been fooled of late that any change is good simply for the fact that something has changed, never questioning if the thing proposed to be changed ever really needed to be changed in the first place, never imagining that there might be such a thing as a detrimental change, a change for the worse. Could it be an exaggeration, all this talk of doom and gloom coming from something so innocuous as a television set? I mean, we're only talking about amusement, right?
To this point my only examples have purposefully been fictional in nature. Consider now things like the news, and historical accounts in documentaries and film. Expectations from viewing audiences are that the anchor men and women are delivering factual accounts of events that transpired during the day or in the near past. Have we stopped to really think about what is going on during that broadcast? First the anchor people. It is hard to believe those we see on the newscast every evening could possibly be the same people we see on the street because of the time spent in makeup before the lights come on; because of the contrived seating, standing, and change of set design throughout the broadcast; and because of the teleprompted recounting of the days events and forced banter one wonders what a real discussion with those personalities might be like in real life. Take next the reports. Investigations and interviews taking hours of communication and discussion with the people involved, some having just experienced horrific or disastrous circumstances; only to produce and edit the whole of the event down to a thirty second clip of a victim becoming emotional upon recounting the nearly avoided tragedy only to be cut off by the impending advertisement; where the most time and effort recounted in the exchange took place in the alignment of the camera so the interview could take place with wreckage and flashing lights in the background. Take the documentaries and historical movies. Is there any greater contrivance than the disclaimer below many of these features, "Based on a true story" and "Re-enactment of actual events". Is it possible we have come to the point where such language causes us to proceed unquestioning to the belief that the people dressed up in different clothes, moving around an open stage built on a set of varying complexity and interacting with others whose responsibility it is to deliver a set of contrived lines in an effort to evoke a passionate response "just like in real life". It seems that experience would have shown by now that the words "Based on a true story" are a rather transparent code for "Has no bearing on reality whatsoever". The same can be said without any further comment on those convoluded productions called "reality shows".
Perhaps the most egregious and damning of all the network attempts to be relavent while still providing a platform of change, intrigue and entertainment occurs, ironically enough, during times of greatest catastrophy and struggle. I speak of course of the theme music. I remember hearing it first during the Gulf War. Each network assigned their specific theme music whenever an update would come up to report everything from advancements of troops, new decisions being made to execute the war effort and the announcement of more soldiers killed in the line of duty. These periods of theme music and updates with multiple windows of pictures all appearing at the same time on the screen left a bitter taste in my mouth then that lingers to this day.
Engaging the Enemy
Now we come to the point where the wound has been opened and laid bare. We have examined, at perhaps too great a length, the dangers associated with being drawn in to a world of complete fantasy where morality is transposed such that good and evil are interchangable commodities to be manipulated on a whim. The question becomes what do we do about it? As happens many times in battle, the enemies numbers seem to great and ours too small; we seem to have no recourse, no solid ground on which to stand no way to even hold our own amidst such a brutal onslaught. What elixer is available to cure those feelings, to what bulwark can we run that will provide shelter from the attacks of the enemy, what will keep us from falling victim to such a criss-cross of morality? Muggeridge again:
"To break out of the fantasy, to rediscover the reality of good and evil, and therefore the order which informs all creation - this is the freedom that the Incarnation made available, that the Saints have celebrated and that the Holy Spirit has sanctified." (pp. 46,47)
and later in a summary list and subsequent statement:
"1. Seek endlesly for God and for his hand in all creation...So, looking, we find him, finding him, we love him, and realise that in every great word ever spoken or written we hear his voice...
2. Live abstemiously. Living otherwise - what Pascal calls 'licking the earth' - imprisons us in a tiny dark dungeon of the ego, and involves us in the pitiless servitude of the senses.
3. Love and consider all men and women as brothers and sisters, caring for them exactly as we should for Jesus himself if we had the inexpressible honour of ministering to him.
4. Read the Bible and related literature...These are the literature of the Kingdom proclaimed in the New Testament; words which became flesh and have dwelt among us, full of grace and truth...
5. Know Jesus Christ and follow his Way, like Bunyan's Pilgrim, withersoever it may lead...
...it is precisely when every earthly hope has been explored and found wanting, when every possibility of help from earthly sources has been sought and is not forthcoming, when every recourse of this world offers, moral as well as material, has been explored to no effect, when in the shivering cold the last faggot has been thrown on the fire and in the gathering darkness every glimmer of light has finally flickered out - it is then that Christ's hand reaches out, sure, and firm, that Christ's words bring their inexpressible comfort, that his light shines brightest, abolishing the darkness for ever. So, finding in everything only deception and nothingness, the soul is contrained to have recourse to God himself and to rest content with him." (pp. 76,77)
And what do we do with the knowledge that the trailer from the movie is patently false in its statement that some things cannot be unseen? When in fact once seen, nothing can be unseen, and moreover imprisons the mind? Some may choose to remove the televisions from their home, vowing never again to set eyes on the screen regardless the material. To him I would say that I understand, respect the decision and wish him well. Some may choose to turn away from the truth, to remain indignant and continue to proclaim "it's just harmless TV" and continue to imbibe with impunity. For him I lament and pray with the knowledge that the Holy Spirit can bring reality to bear on even one so steeped in the fantastic. Some may understand the situation completely, continue to watch with discernment in a very limited fashion, to read more than watch, to think about ramifications and entailments even during what is sold as amusement (to deliberately cease to think). To him I would say may God bless and protect and find a partner for accountability as temptation will come your way early and often.
I close with Muggeridge once more:
"What a Christian can do in whatever part of media he may be working, whatever his lot may be cast, is to continue to be a Christian. Thereby, he may not be able to change the appreciably; they have their own conditions and circumstances. Inside the media, however, he can and should sustain his Christian witness. He may find this very hard, very hard indeed, because of the incompatibility between God and Mammon - in this case, between Christ and the media. We are told to make our light shine before men. That is our Christian duty; the results are God's concern, not ours." (p.83)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
What's Wrong With People Anyway?
In the wake of recent reports of vandalism of a state landmark and theft of memorial tributes of a veteran killed in Afghanistan, an editorial writer asked in paraphrase, "What's wrong with people?" The editorial was entitled "The age-old question", and rightfully stated that the events should cause us all to "pause, reflect and pose" that same philosophical question that has been pondered for ages. So how would we, here in 2010, answer that age-old question? What is wrong with people?
Perhaps some might try to answer in the most obvious way, that these perpetrators broke current laws. Laws on the books currently prohibit graffiti at landmark sites and defacement of gravesites, so what was wrong with those people is that they broke the law. This line of thinking falls short for a number of reasons. Firstly, while it is true the individuals broke the law, this doesn't address motivation, or the reasons for the behavior, so it doesn't really address what is wrong with the person simply whether the action was acceptable or not. Secondly, we would be remiss to raise up as a standard for behavior the current law code because laws are passed by people and are subject to change. What if one day those responsible for passing laws decided defacing public property was no longer against the law. Would that make the actions of these individuals acceptable? There must be something behind the law, something that guides the lawmakers in determining which actions are right or wrong.
Perhaps another might go to personal history, search through the life history of the individuals in question and respond that although they did break the law it was because they were under great stress or pressure from life's circumstances and were pushed into taking such drastic action that most would find deplorable. Again, this sounds reasonable on the surface, and it does go beyond just current laws to attempt to address the motivation behind the action but it doesn't go far enough. Are actions excusable, or right, if a previous wrong has been done? Would a person be exonerated of the charge of robbing a bank if it was discovered he/she had been verbally abused as a child? Would a drunk driver that killed a family of four be set free if it is discovered that he/she was physically abused and that abuse drove them to alcohol? There is an equally old adage that two wrongs don't make a right, which means we all have at least a tacit understanding that some measure of self-control is expected of all people to refrain from harming others in spite of harm that might have been done us.
Perhaps one might try to apply contemporary philosophical arguments of relativity and subjective truth. That something may be right for you but wrong for me. If that were the case then the answer is quite simple, nothing is wrong with anyone. What the individuals who defaced the natural monument and stole the memorials of a fallen soldier where simply doing what was right for them. What they did wasn't wrong at all, it just wasn't accepted by the majority of people. They may go to jail because they didn't agree with the majority, but they didn't do anything wrong. This line of thinking is plainly unlivable.
It seems every explanation we try to come up with falls short in some way and it seems we'll have to give up on finding an answer. Perhaps before we give up we should look at a truth that is older than the question itself. According to the Bible, all men and women have thoughts, attitudes and motivations that are wrong. Genesis 6:5 tells us that man's heart is inclined to wickedness all the time. Psalm 14 says that there are none who seek to do good, that all are corrupt. Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that God exposes, and is concerned with the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. So we see that intent is prior to content, and the intentions of man are wrong by nature. If that is the case, then perhaps the one who defaced the natural monument may have been motivated by anger; perhaps the one who stole the veteran's memorial was motivated by greed; perhaps even as I write this article in an attempt to help give some meaningful answers to this difficult question, pride tries to creep in so that I have feelings that it be published not so much that others might be helped, but so that my work will be seen by many people in the community.
If that were the end of the story, we would have to lament our very existence and resign ourselves to a life of being perpetually wrongheaded. However, Galatians 5 lets us know that we can be freed from this curse of being wrong by nature and instead have a new desire for thoughts and attitudes of things like love, joy, peace and self-control.
Consider Saul of Tarsus from the 1st century A.D. A vehement persecutor of the Jewish people; brutal and uncaring of an entire race of people; “breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1); giving approval to the murder by stoning of Stephen where the martyr’s clothes were laid at his feet. A man capable of such things was to become the most prolific writer of the New Testament and a missionary to most of the known world of his day.
Consider Manuel Noriega from the 20th century. A Panamanian general and commander of the National Guard; involved in gun smuggling, money laundering, torture and murder; putting his own people under his thumb after an uprising demanding his removal from office by suspending constitutional rights, closing national media outlets and driving into exile those who opposed him politically. A man sentenced to 40 years in prison after being extradited and found guilty, only to stand up to stop a prisoner revolt and exhibit behavior that a guard would comment, “I haven’t seen any dedication or seriousness greater than his.”
What was responsible for the transformation of men like Saul of Tarsus and Manuel Noriega? Being blinded and hearing the voice of the Lord transformed Saul persecutor of Christians into Paul apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Manuel Noriega in his own words stated, “He [Jesus] is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, who arose from the grave and is at the right hand of God the Father and who above all things He is my Savior, and has mercy on me, a sinner."
Many years ago, the question “What’s wrong with England” was asked. Famed author and theologian G.K. Chesterton very simply replied, "I am." We are what is wrong, each one of us. We are selfish, greedy and prideful. Jesus told many parables and spoke once of two kinds of trees, those that bore good fruit and those that bore bad fruit. The good trees do not bear bad fruit, the bad trees do not bear good fruit and each tree is known by the fruit it bears. When we look at the things we do, and the thoughts and motivations behind those actions, it is clear to which group of trees we belong. There is something, however, that can change us from the inside out. If we are only willing to accept the truth and live not for ourselves and our natural desires but for the glory of the Lord then He will change our heart, our thoughts and our attitudes to that which is right. The nature of man is what is wrong with people and transformation is all that will set him right.
Perhaps some might try to answer in the most obvious way, that these perpetrators broke current laws. Laws on the books currently prohibit graffiti at landmark sites and defacement of gravesites, so what was wrong with those people is that they broke the law. This line of thinking falls short for a number of reasons. Firstly, while it is true the individuals broke the law, this doesn't address motivation, or the reasons for the behavior, so it doesn't really address what is wrong with the person simply whether the action was acceptable or not. Secondly, we would be remiss to raise up as a standard for behavior the current law code because laws are passed by people and are subject to change. What if one day those responsible for passing laws decided defacing public property was no longer against the law. Would that make the actions of these individuals acceptable? There must be something behind the law, something that guides the lawmakers in determining which actions are right or wrong.
Perhaps another might go to personal history, search through the life history of the individuals in question and respond that although they did break the law it was because they were under great stress or pressure from life's circumstances and were pushed into taking such drastic action that most would find deplorable. Again, this sounds reasonable on the surface, and it does go beyond just current laws to attempt to address the motivation behind the action but it doesn't go far enough. Are actions excusable, or right, if a previous wrong has been done? Would a person be exonerated of the charge of robbing a bank if it was discovered he/she had been verbally abused as a child? Would a drunk driver that killed a family of four be set free if it is discovered that he/she was physically abused and that abuse drove them to alcohol? There is an equally old adage that two wrongs don't make a right, which means we all have at least a tacit understanding that some measure of self-control is expected of all people to refrain from harming others in spite of harm that might have been done us.
Perhaps one might try to apply contemporary philosophical arguments of relativity and subjective truth. That something may be right for you but wrong for me. If that were the case then the answer is quite simple, nothing is wrong with anyone. What the individuals who defaced the natural monument and stole the memorials of a fallen soldier where simply doing what was right for them. What they did wasn't wrong at all, it just wasn't accepted by the majority of people. They may go to jail because they didn't agree with the majority, but they didn't do anything wrong. This line of thinking is plainly unlivable.
It seems every explanation we try to come up with falls short in some way and it seems we'll have to give up on finding an answer. Perhaps before we give up we should look at a truth that is older than the question itself. According to the Bible, all men and women have thoughts, attitudes and motivations that are wrong. Genesis 6:5 tells us that man's heart is inclined to wickedness all the time. Psalm 14 says that there are none who seek to do good, that all are corrupt. Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that God exposes, and is concerned with the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. So we see that intent is prior to content, and the intentions of man are wrong by nature. If that is the case, then perhaps the one who defaced the natural monument may have been motivated by anger; perhaps the one who stole the veteran's memorial was motivated by greed; perhaps even as I write this article in an attempt to help give some meaningful answers to this difficult question, pride tries to creep in so that I have feelings that it be published not so much that others might be helped, but so that my work will be seen by many people in the community.
If that were the end of the story, we would have to lament our very existence and resign ourselves to a life of being perpetually wrongheaded. However, Galatians 5 lets us know that we can be freed from this curse of being wrong by nature and instead have a new desire for thoughts and attitudes of things like love, joy, peace and self-control.
Consider Saul of Tarsus from the 1st century A.D. A vehement persecutor of the Jewish people; brutal and uncaring of an entire race of people; “breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1); giving approval to the murder by stoning of Stephen where the martyr’s clothes were laid at his feet. A man capable of such things was to become the most prolific writer of the New Testament and a missionary to most of the known world of his day.
Consider Manuel Noriega from the 20th century. A Panamanian general and commander of the National Guard; involved in gun smuggling, money laundering, torture and murder; putting his own people under his thumb after an uprising demanding his removal from office by suspending constitutional rights, closing national media outlets and driving into exile those who opposed him politically. A man sentenced to 40 years in prison after being extradited and found guilty, only to stand up to stop a prisoner revolt and exhibit behavior that a guard would comment, “I haven’t seen any dedication or seriousness greater than his.”
What was responsible for the transformation of men like Saul of Tarsus and Manuel Noriega? Being blinded and hearing the voice of the Lord transformed Saul persecutor of Christians into Paul apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Manuel Noriega in his own words stated, “He [Jesus] is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, who arose from the grave and is at the right hand of God the Father and who above all things He is my Savior, and has mercy on me, a sinner."
Many years ago, the question “What’s wrong with England” was asked. Famed author and theologian G.K. Chesterton very simply replied, "I am." We are what is wrong, each one of us. We are selfish, greedy and prideful. Jesus told many parables and spoke once of two kinds of trees, those that bore good fruit and those that bore bad fruit. The good trees do not bear bad fruit, the bad trees do not bear good fruit and each tree is known by the fruit it bears. When we look at the things we do, and the thoughts and motivations behind those actions, it is clear to which group of trees we belong. There is something, however, that can change us from the inside out. If we are only willing to accept the truth and live not for ourselves and our natural desires but for the glory of the Lord then He will change our heart, our thoughts and our attitudes to that which is right. The nature of man is what is wrong with people and transformation is all that will set him right.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Some Things Just Make Me Laugh
So i'm riding down the highway yesterday and an SUV swerves over in front of the vehicle i'm riding in at the last minute. We were coming up on a lane merger due to road construction and apparently there was much to be gained by risking an accident to be one spot closer to the end of a line of gridlocked vehicles. Since we are just sitting there, and i'm doing some serious thinking about some blog comments and discussion i'm having at another site, I take a minute and focus on the back windshield of said SUV. At that point I first noticed that some text was present. I like to read and think so I focus on some Gothic-type lettering of about 16 point size that read "2 Fast 4 U, See Ya!"
I immediately began to laugh, and laughed harder the more I thought about it. The driver was sitting in gridlock. For at least 5 full minutes of waiting for what must have been at least 8 traffic light cycles, i'm staring at this statement that the vehicle ahead of me is too fast for me and he/she will see me later. In fact, the text was so small from the standpoint of driving perspective, and in such an unorthodox lettering that it took a good bit of time to clearly decipher the message. The fact that I had more than enough time to read the driver's statement that he/she was too fast for me was enough to bring up another round of laughter. In fact, the only situation in which I could think the message would even be applicable would be on the interstate where he/she would be passing people at a decent clip. In that situation, in the only situation that would even warrant having that lettering on the back of the vehicle, no one could even read the message. I just kept thinking to myself, the only way the message makes sense is if no one is able to read it.
I'm not going to take the time to make some grand statement about logic and taking two minutes to engage the brain to think about the possible ramifications of actions, but instead just let it go. In fact, i'm tempted to say that the message and the effort it took to produce it was a complete waste of time, but I did get a great laugh.
I immediately began to laugh, and laughed harder the more I thought about it. The driver was sitting in gridlock. For at least 5 full minutes of waiting for what must have been at least 8 traffic light cycles, i'm staring at this statement that the vehicle ahead of me is too fast for me and he/she will see me later. In fact, the text was so small from the standpoint of driving perspective, and in such an unorthodox lettering that it took a good bit of time to clearly decipher the message. The fact that I had more than enough time to read the driver's statement that he/she was too fast for me was enough to bring up another round of laughter. In fact, the only situation in which I could think the message would even be applicable would be on the interstate where he/she would be passing people at a decent clip. In that situation, in the only situation that would even warrant having that lettering on the back of the vehicle, no one could even read the message. I just kept thinking to myself, the only way the message makes sense is if no one is able to read it.
I'm not going to take the time to make some grand statement about logic and taking two minutes to engage the brain to think about the possible ramifications of actions, but instead just let it go. In fact, i'm tempted to say that the message and the effort it took to produce it was a complete waste of time, but I did get a great laugh.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thoughts on Parent Led, Home Based Discipleship
Last Thursday, Friday and Saturday my wife and I attended the 26th annual North Carolina Home Education Conference. We currently have four children, the oldest of which will be 7 this year. We have schooled him at home for the last two years and have committed to home educate all our children. The conference this year was as informative and productive as ever and we were able to pick up all our curriculum materials for the year and hear some great presentations along the way. I was able to listen to two talks given by Dr. Brian Ray, who has eight children (7 daughters and one son) and works for the National Home Education Research Institute in Salem, Oregon. His talks were great, in that they allowed me to think all over again the fundamental reasons why my wife and I decided to home educate our children and some of the philosophical issues that are at the crux of any discussion on the education of children in this country. I feel compelled to put these ideas in writing and lay out a rudamentary argument for home education, as well as present some of the challenging positions and get to the heart of the matter.
Very briefly, statistics show that on average home educated students perform above average in comparison with public school students. Research results done by Dr. Ray can be found here (Research Facts on Homeschooling) but some of the statistics that immediately impress are as follows:
The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)
Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.
Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.
(All these above italicized results copied directly from Dr. Ray's site as linked to above. Please visit the link or http://www.nheri.org/ for more content)
Beside just the statistical justification for the effectiveness of home education, there is also a fundamental philosophical thread woven throughout the issue of children's education. Throughout one of Dr. Ray's talks (entitled Academic Elite Angst Over Home Education: Attacking Homeschooling Without Basis) I was struck by the common theme in the myriad quotes that were presented in peer-reviewed papers of those in acedemia who shape education policy. That theme is authority and responsibility. In question form, it would be presented as: "Who is responsible for educating children?" Now this might seem like a simple question, but many different areas of thought are brought in. It is clear from the discussion presented here that those who strongly advocate public education feel that those who have spent their lives at University in the education field, developing curriculum and textbooks, and are directly involved in setting educational standards (or the Academic Elite as Dr. Ray described) have the responsibility to educate children by the authority vested in them by the state. This position begs the questions; Where are the parents of the children in this discussion, and Who gave the state the authority to make the Academic Elite responsible?
Removal of the parents from the decision-making process for their own children's education is a serious mistake in fundamental thinking. It is true that for decades, the feeling has been growing until now the default position by many parents is "I don't have a degree in education, so I don't know how to teach my children," or "I can teach my children how to tie their shoes, but i've got to leave the bookwork to the professionals." That attitude didn't arise overnight. It has become commonplace today, to the point that even before children are born the assumption is they will have to go to someone else for their education. Social issues behind this attitude are many, but again the main problem is that parents do not feel qualified, and attempt to either remove themselves or allow themselves to be removed from a position of responsibility and authority with regard to their children's education. Now, of course the two word question arises, "So what?"
As it turns out, the "So what" question is a critical one. Children are human beings, born to parents. What document, provision, stipulation, law, code or ruling puts the state in charge of those people? Quite simply there is none. There is no document in this country that states that municipal, state or national agencies have the authority or responibility to dictate to parents what they must do with their children (except in cases of neglect or abuse). So-called Academic Elites do not stand on a position of authority, but on one of philosophical force. The underlying position is one of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. Put another way, they feel that all ideas are equally true but that one person (or group of people) decide which idea is best and which everyone else should adopt. That position is fundamentally flawed, not only because all ideas are obviously not equally true because the law of non-contradiction holds, but also because we don't live in a nation founded on the principle of might makes right.
What the nation was founded on was a philosophy of an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people. Put another way, one idea is true (namely the Judeo-Christian or Biblical Christian position) and all people are created equal. In his Civil Authority and the Bible, Harold O.J. Brown states the following:
"When we speak of church and state, it is important to recognize that as far as institutions go, the earliest and primary human social institution, or rather social structure, is the family...Examples of simple governmental institutions do exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, but the duties of the individual toward civil government are not spelled out as they are, at least in principle, in the New Testament. Perhaps the explanation is the fact that from the age of the patriarchs to the Exile, authority remained primarily personal and familial. In the early chapters of the Bible, family, society, and congregation are interwoven. Religious leaders are civil leaders: Moses himself is the prime example. Both the family and the church antedate the state."
Not that last line carefully one more time. Both the family and the church antedate the state. The family was established by God before the state, authority for children was given by God to parents for their children, prior to the establishment of institutions. We see clearly from scripture that people and interpersonal relationships preceed institutions, governments and the like. This point is expounded further by Herbert W. Titus in his God's Revelation: Foundation for the Common Law where he states:
"Rightfully understood, Genesis 1:28 along with Genesis 1:26 is a grant of authority, not a conveyance of title...The grant of authority in Genesis 1:28 is not to humankind in general, but to humankind through the family unit...In short, God selected the family as the primary economic unit of society-not the individual, not the state, not the corporation, and not the church. The common law was designed to foster and protect the family, not only through rules protecting private-property ownership and facilitating its voluntary transfer but also through criminal sanctions prohibiting adultery, fornication, sodomy and bigamy. Since the Darwinian revolution, however, this understanding of common law has deteriorated."
The movement of which my family is a part is commonly referred to as homeschooling. Dr. Ray, however turned a phrase that I found much more apt and descriptive of the choice my wife and I have made: Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship. We base our position on our children's education on the same foundation as in all other choices in our lives, on the Word of God. God established the family as the primary human institution and we should fight to preserve the family, not promote the removal of parents from making decisions relative to their own children.
Before closing, let me be quick to say that I am not anti-education, anti-public school, or anti-academia. I'm not arguing that education is bad, or that a good parent will choose to prevent their children from receiving an education. I believe we are to love God with all our mind and that parents have to be good stewards in developing the minds of their children and help them become good thinkers. My central point is on what I believe to be the hinge on which the argument swings; namely that the authority and responsibility for children's education belongs to the parents, not to the state. Parents may choose public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, usage of any available voucher system, homeschool or other.
Sociologically, children function better with the active involvement and support of their family. Research statistics show that homeschool children, on average, perform above average in academic measures. Philosophically an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people is the only tenable and non-contradictory position. Biblically, the family is the primary human institution and Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship should always be preserved and supported as parents do their best under God to train up their children in the way they should go.
As a final aside, let me say how proud I am of the state of North Carolina for supporting home education, and the North Carolinians for Home Education organization for their encouragement, support and recognition of home educators in our state.
Very briefly, statistics show that on average home educated students perform above average in comparison with public school students. Research results done by Dr. Ray can be found here (Research Facts on Homeschooling) but some of the statistics that immediately impress are as follows:
The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)
Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.
Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.
(All these above italicized results copied directly from Dr. Ray's site as linked to above. Please visit the link or http://www.nheri.org/ for more content)
Beside just the statistical justification for the effectiveness of home education, there is also a fundamental philosophical thread woven throughout the issue of children's education. Throughout one of Dr. Ray's talks (entitled Academic Elite Angst Over Home Education: Attacking Homeschooling Without Basis) I was struck by the common theme in the myriad quotes that were presented in peer-reviewed papers of those in acedemia who shape education policy. That theme is authority and responsibility. In question form, it would be presented as: "Who is responsible for educating children?" Now this might seem like a simple question, but many different areas of thought are brought in. It is clear from the discussion presented here that those who strongly advocate public education feel that those who have spent their lives at University in the education field, developing curriculum and textbooks, and are directly involved in setting educational standards (or the Academic Elite as Dr. Ray described) have the responsibility to educate children by the authority vested in them by the state. This position begs the questions; Where are the parents of the children in this discussion, and Who gave the state the authority to make the Academic Elite responsible?
Removal of the parents from the decision-making process for their own children's education is a serious mistake in fundamental thinking. It is true that for decades, the feeling has been growing until now the default position by many parents is "I don't have a degree in education, so I don't know how to teach my children," or "I can teach my children how to tie their shoes, but i've got to leave the bookwork to the professionals." That attitude didn't arise overnight. It has become commonplace today, to the point that even before children are born the assumption is they will have to go to someone else for their education. Social issues behind this attitude are many, but again the main problem is that parents do not feel qualified, and attempt to either remove themselves or allow themselves to be removed from a position of responsibility and authority with regard to their children's education. Now, of course the two word question arises, "So what?"
As it turns out, the "So what" question is a critical one. Children are human beings, born to parents. What document, provision, stipulation, law, code or ruling puts the state in charge of those people? Quite simply there is none. There is no document in this country that states that municipal, state or national agencies have the authority or responibility to dictate to parents what they must do with their children (except in cases of neglect or abuse). So-called Academic Elites do not stand on a position of authority, but on one of philosophical force. The underlying position is one of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. Put another way, they feel that all ideas are equally true but that one person (or group of people) decide which idea is best and which everyone else should adopt. That position is fundamentally flawed, not only because all ideas are obviously not equally true because the law of non-contradiction holds, but also because we don't live in a nation founded on the principle of might makes right.
What the nation was founded on was a philosophy of an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people. Put another way, one idea is true (namely the Judeo-Christian or Biblical Christian position) and all people are created equal. In his Civil Authority and the Bible, Harold O.J. Brown states the following:
"When we speak of church and state, it is important to recognize that as far as institutions go, the earliest and primary human social institution, or rather social structure, is the family...Examples of simple governmental institutions do exist in the Hebrew Scriptures, but the duties of the individual toward civil government are not spelled out as they are, at least in principle, in the New Testament. Perhaps the explanation is the fact that from the age of the patriarchs to the Exile, authority remained primarily personal and familial. In the early chapters of the Bible, family, society, and congregation are interwoven. Religious leaders are civil leaders: Moses himself is the prime example. Both the family and the church antedate the state."
Not that last line carefully one more time. Both the family and the church antedate the state. The family was established by God before the state, authority for children was given by God to parents for their children, prior to the establishment of institutions. We see clearly from scripture that people and interpersonal relationships preceed institutions, governments and the like. This point is expounded further by Herbert W. Titus in his God's Revelation: Foundation for the Common Law where he states:
"Rightfully understood, Genesis 1:28 along with Genesis 1:26 is a grant of authority, not a conveyance of title...The grant of authority in Genesis 1:28 is not to humankind in general, but to humankind through the family unit...In short, God selected the family as the primary economic unit of society-not the individual, not the state, not the corporation, and not the church. The common law was designed to foster and protect the family, not only through rules protecting private-property ownership and facilitating its voluntary transfer but also through criminal sanctions prohibiting adultery, fornication, sodomy and bigamy. Since the Darwinian revolution, however, this understanding of common law has deteriorated."
The movement of which my family is a part is commonly referred to as homeschooling. Dr. Ray, however turned a phrase that I found much more apt and descriptive of the choice my wife and I have made: Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship. We base our position on our children's education on the same foundation as in all other choices in our lives, on the Word of God. God established the family as the primary human institution and we should fight to preserve the family, not promote the removal of parents from making decisions relative to their own children.
Before closing, let me be quick to say that I am not anti-education, anti-public school, or anti-academia. I'm not arguing that education is bad, or that a good parent will choose to prevent their children from receiving an education. I believe we are to love God with all our mind and that parents have to be good stewards in developing the minds of their children and help them become good thinkers. My central point is on what I believe to be the hinge on which the argument swings; namely that the authority and responsibility for children's education belongs to the parents, not to the state. Parents may choose public schools, private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, usage of any available voucher system, homeschool or other.
Sociologically, children function better with the active involvement and support of their family. Research statistics show that homeschool children, on average, perform above average in academic measures. Philosophically an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people is the only tenable and non-contradictory position. Biblically, the family is the primary human institution and Parent-Led, Home-Based Discipleship should always be preserved and supported as parents do their best under God to train up their children in the way they should go.
As a final aside, let me say how proud I am of the state of North Carolina for supporting home education, and the North Carolinians for Home Education organization for their encouragement, support and recognition of home educators in our state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)