The church in the United States has some problems: declining church attendance, severely reduced evangelism efforts, and high divorces rates (though not as high as many think) to name a few. There have been countless articles and blog posts over the last several decades attempting to point at why we have all of these problems, but it seems that all of the logically based analyses have one thing in common, their diagnosis of the church as having misplaced its priorities.
The Bible is clear that the way to grow closer to God and to accomplish His will is through prayer, Bible Study and evangelism. But, so much of the time, money and intellectual effort of Christians in the United States today is spent on advocating for one political candidate or another, it is no wonder that we don't spend the kind of time on prayer, Bible study, and evangelism that the apostles and the early church fathers did. The question then becomes, is there any reason to believe that all of this effort being put into making a more christian-like government will really advance Gods causes?
We have a New Testament full of examples and a nearly 2000 year church history to answer that question with resounding "NO". Notice the Apostle Paul. His interactions with government were always for one or both of two purposes: 1) to try to get the government to leave him alone so he could preach, and 2) to try to evangelize leaders in front of whom he was on trial. That was it. No lobbying for or against gay rights; no lobbying for or against certain governmental spending programs or military campaigns, just the gospel.
A couple of hundred years later, an emperor got saved and a partnership between the church and the government was created. What did this lead to? The Dark Ages. 1000 years of lack of progress in the world both humanly and for the gospel. The problem is, when the church ties itself to human institutions, the human institutions always distract the church from its real purpose toward those of the world. The purpose of any human government is by definition, the earthly kingdom. Human government's priority will always be the here and now, the world and human interest. Spiritual concerns will always take a back seat in an organization whose main purpose is the earth and time.
So, why do Christians become so fascinated and distracted by government? It seems the hope is that the church can use the government to get people to behave the "way they should". But is that what Christ called us to do? “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Yes, we are to teach them to obey the commandments, but our method is through discipleship, not through the government's sword. Jesus said "All authority in heaven and on earth" had been given to Him. We do not need authority from government. We need the blood, the words and the love of Christ. That is all the power we need.
So, how does this play out. First, Christians, stop trying to get the public schools to educate your children in a godly way. That is not what they exist for. State school exist to perpetuate the state's earthly kingdom and its goals. They will never put God first. It is not what they are there for. It is YOUR job to educate your children in a godly manner. For some, this may mean sending their kids to public schools and supplementing that instruction with home and church education. But as our culture deteriorates, it will be necessary for more and more Christian parents to abandon our educational partnership with the state and either place our children in private schools or educate them through a home schooling co-op we can start through our church. Now that the federal government has integrated the gender of locker rooms and bathrooms, this is a safety issue as well as an education issue.
Will it do any good for us to lobby to get the government to change its minds and make our schools more christian-like? perhaps, but how much better spent would that time, effort and money be on prayer, Bible study, evangelism, and the teaching of our own kids.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
How the Participation Trophy Gave Us Donald Trump
In modern society, a lot of cynical, grumpy old men like me blame a lot of different things on "the participation trophy crowd", but hear me out:
The main idea behind participation trophies to to instill in children a sense that participating in a process is its own reward. The young person gets a trophy at the end of a sport season for attending practices and games often enough to avoid getting thrown off the team. The lesson being taught is this: Just showing up for an event is enough effort to deserve to receive a shiny object as a reward.
I see this idea manifest itself often in my teaching career. Quite often, students are flabbergasted that they do not receive a passing, or even good grade in my courses because they have attended regularly and turned in all the assignments. It matters little to them that the assignments they turned in were poorly done and their exams showed no proficiency in science. "I came to class every day and did my homework. That should be good enough for a 'C'".
Apply this same logic to voting. We see advertisements on every form of media encouraging people to "get out the vote". Those who have received participation trophies all their lives see it as an obligation to do the bare minimum in participating in our Republic. To them, the bare minimum is to take whatever "knowledge" they have accidentally gleaned from commercials that come on during their favorite reality programs and use that to decide which candidate to vote for. Just like in their little league sports careers, there is no sense of motivation for excellence. "If I go and vote, I have done my duty and I will get a sticker". They feel no need study history as a lens through which to evaluate the possible intended and unintended consequences of the policies advocated by whomever the TV has told them to vote for. They don't see a reason to research the actual careers and voting records of the candidates to see if they match the rhetoric of their campaigns, or to see if their character is such that we would even have them over to dinner, let alone have them govern our once great republic.
Here is the reality. The participant in ANY endeavor who does not give significant thought, time and effort to that endeavor provides a NEGATIVE value to the community associated with that endeavor. Having someone on a sports team who does not put full effort into training, practices and games brings the quality of the sport down. The league would be better served by cutting under preforming players and reducing the number of teams in the league if need be. That way, the remaining players could enjoy a higher quality version of their sport, and the cut players would be motivated to work harder and get ready to be a better player next year if they decide to pursue the sport.
The same is true in the classroom. Students who "show up" for college and do little else draw precious and scarce educational resources away from those who really want to better understand the universe, or the arts, or history or whatever focus a student may enjoy. If colleges were much quicker to remove under performing students, the remaining students could get a much more clearly and sharply presented education, and the removed students would know to step up their effort before attempting another university or college.
By the same token, people who vote without seriously looking at the issues facing our country and the history of those issues allow for people of low character and dubious policies to rise to power. Please Americans, I want you to vote, but only if you are spending multiple hours reading multiple traditional and non-traditional sources about the main issues of these elections and the histories and characters of those running for office. Feel free to include non-traditional candidates ("third" parties) when you see finally see clearly what dolts have risen to the tops of the major parties. Voters not willing to do this kind of work in their decision making do not deserve a sticker for voting. In fact, they deserve a dunce cap, and even worse, they deserve the candidates they are getting.
The main idea behind participation trophies to to instill in children a sense that participating in a process is its own reward. The young person gets a trophy at the end of a sport season for attending practices and games often enough to avoid getting thrown off the team. The lesson being taught is this: Just showing up for an event is enough effort to deserve to receive a shiny object as a reward.
I see this idea manifest itself often in my teaching career. Quite often, students are flabbergasted that they do not receive a passing, or even good grade in my courses because they have attended regularly and turned in all the assignments. It matters little to them that the assignments they turned in were poorly done and their exams showed no proficiency in science. "I came to class every day and did my homework. That should be good enough for a 'C'".
Apply this same logic to voting. We see advertisements on every form of media encouraging people to "get out the vote". Those who have received participation trophies all their lives see it as an obligation to do the bare minimum in participating in our Republic. To them, the bare minimum is to take whatever "knowledge" they have accidentally gleaned from commercials that come on during their favorite reality programs and use that to decide which candidate to vote for. Just like in their little league sports careers, there is no sense of motivation for excellence. "If I go and vote, I have done my duty and I will get a sticker". They feel no need study history as a lens through which to evaluate the possible intended and unintended consequences of the policies advocated by whomever the TV has told them to vote for. They don't see a reason to research the actual careers and voting records of the candidates to see if they match the rhetoric of their campaigns, or to see if their character is such that we would even have them over to dinner, let alone have them govern our once great republic.
Here is the reality. The participant in ANY endeavor who does not give significant thought, time and effort to that endeavor provides a NEGATIVE value to the community associated with that endeavor. Having someone on a sports team who does not put full effort into training, practices and games brings the quality of the sport down. The league would be better served by cutting under preforming players and reducing the number of teams in the league if need be. That way, the remaining players could enjoy a higher quality version of their sport, and the cut players would be motivated to work harder and get ready to be a better player next year if they decide to pursue the sport.
The same is true in the classroom. Students who "show up" for college and do little else draw precious and scarce educational resources away from those who really want to better understand the universe, or the arts, or history or whatever focus a student may enjoy. If colleges were much quicker to remove under performing students, the remaining students could get a much more clearly and sharply presented education, and the removed students would know to step up their effort before attempting another university or college.
By the same token, people who vote without seriously looking at the issues facing our country and the history of those issues allow for people of low character and dubious policies to rise to power. Please Americans, I want you to vote, but only if you are spending multiple hours reading multiple traditional and non-traditional sources about the main issues of these elections and the histories and characters of those running for office. Feel free to include non-traditional candidates ("third" parties) when you see finally see clearly what dolts have risen to the tops of the major parties. Voters not willing to do this kind of work in their decision making do not deserve a sticker for voting. In fact, they deserve a dunce cap, and even worse, they deserve the candidates they are getting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)