Old Dead People

I kind of like studying "old dead people". While times do change and cultural relevance is important, I believe we can do a great disservice to law, politics, education and especially theology if we arbitrarily dismiss something simply because it is old. One of the reasons I enjoy history is because of the incredible wisdom that "old dead people" had. One of my favorite trips is to Washington D.C. to read the inscriptions on the walls of the monuments. The words and writings of men like Jefferson, Lincoln and others is not only inspirational, but well thought-out and reasoned. One of the things I noticed the last time I visited was that over the last century or so, the contributory quotes of these historical men became more and more simple. On the Lincoln memorial and Jefferson memorial are these incredible and sometimes lengthy dissertations that are rich in wisdom and thought. The newer monuments, specifically the one erected to honor Franklin Roosevelt, was full of slogans. FDR would have made an excellent refrigerator salesman with his sloganeering.
I believe the subjugation to constructivism and relativism will be ultimately harmful to individuals and the nation as a whole. While it might affirm and appease personal subjective preferences, there are serious conflicts with a world that has objective truth as its foundation (i.e., the complexity or human organisms, the foundation of legal systems and arguments, and elements of science including aspects such as gravity, time, matter, etc.). The logical conclusion of a society ruled by relativism is chaos and anarchy.
The body of Christ needs to reject worldviews based upon relativism. Truth isn't relative, the Word of God isn't gray, and God cares about the details, not only of what we believe, but how we live out the sactification process.

Medicine or Ice Cream?

Another classroom discussion, this time on the effects of either the removal of religion and it's effects or on teaching about all religions. The person pondering this question posts legitimate comments and genuine questions (as opposed to just subjective outbursts), as the focus of his research paper is on how a society sets up it's moral standards. His question is from an earlier post I made about the fact that to remove all mention of God is support for the religion of humanism.

His question: Will humanism be the effect of multiple religious teachings in the classroom? For example, will a Christian that learns about Buddhism, become a Buddhist? Probably not, but they might find some relevant similarities that make them expand their beliefs.

My response:
Good questions that you ponder. And I agree that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for people to study other religions in the classroom setting, for the sake of understanding and relating to other people in a more amicable and compassionate manner.
I believe humanism (and by that, meaning the belief that man is the "supreme", or most advanced being there is, the natural result of evolutionary advancement-for those who ascribe to that belief system) would be the result if we tried to eliminate the acknowledgment of God, defined as being a divine creator. To arbitrarily dismiss references to creation, religious systems and faith is an investment in the doctrine of secularism. If that is the case, great difficulties arise in trying to build and maintain any sense of moral expectations other than pragmatism (what is beneficial to me) or a loose reference to “what’s good for society”. But with no absolute standard, how do you create a definition of what’s good? To Lenin and Stalin it was “good” for Communist controlled Russia to kill millions (if not tens of millions) of people in their attempts to eliminate God from culture.
The elimination of God generally leads to anarchy, or at least apathy and nihilism (Look at Europe in it’s present state). That would tend to eliminate it as a viable contributing worldview. After all, what good is a society where nobody cares about anything except themselves, if they even care at all? This conclusion would theoretically lead a society down a pathway to a search for truth (absolute) and meaning.
What we must then look at is not , “Which religion makes me feel good?”, but rather, “Which religion is true, and therefore offering me a hope and purpose while I live and the assurance of existence continuation for the better after I die”. See, truth is like medicine. Preference is like ice cream. If my life hangs in the balance, I don’t really want ice cream, I want medicine. That begs the question: Are matters of faith and religion medicine or ice cream? Is religion a preference, or is it the cure? And if so, which medicine? I don’t take allergy medicine if I’m dying of cancer. I must have the right medicine.
If we find the most viable and evidentially supported belief system for eternal purposes, we’ll probably find our best option for setting up moral boundaries in our temporal state.

Celebrating and mourning

Today I grieve the loss of a very dear friend. Tony Guillen was a man who had as much love for Jesus Christ as anyone I have ever met. He was constantly excited about the things God was doing and he always had a warm greeting and smile for anyone he encountered. His love for the Lord and knowledge of the Word allowed him to be in a position of discipler for many new and returning believers. Because of this he has touched an untold number of lives. He was uncompromising in his teachings of the foundations of Christianity and almost seemed baffled that anyone would even entertain the thought of returning to a sinful lifestyle after encountering a relationship with the Living God.
Tony was faithful to me personally as well. When I was leading a worship team quite a few years ago, I lobbied to have Tony join our team as a guitar player. I wanted his maturity and leadership in our group, in addition to his servant heart as a musician. We played together for over six years and he always used to tell me how much he learned from me as a worship and band leader, but I'm quite positive that I learned far more from him than he ever did from me.
Tony also was the leader of a Christian band called Barabbas. He never worried about how many people might be hearing the band, only that the ones who were there would be drawn close to Christ.
Tony Guillen graduated to heaven to be face to face with Jesus Christ today. He was doing one of the things he loved to do, riding the trails on his mountain bike with his friends enjoying the beautiful creation that God has blessed us with. Tony was in his early 50's but exuded the energy and joy for life of a man half his age. We grieve with Dana and the boys and all of us who were so profoundly affected by the life of this faithful servant of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. Tony, your maranatha came a little quicker than ours, but we'll see you soon!

Relativism run rampant

As you know, I am enrolled in a masters program in education. My classes are online, and recently one of the students took exception to my quoting the Bible and also to the fact that it is impossible for teachers to remain neutral in their teaching. We have pre-suppositions and a worldview, and sooner or later that will come out in your teaching, whether directly or indirectly. Her argument was that a teacher should NEVER share their opinion with his or her students. My view is that that isn't reasonable. I thought I'd post her comments and my response:

Fellow Student:

This is a discussion, were we are asked to give our opinions as part of the class discussion. So I am simply doing just that. In fact I do not give my opinion on half of the things that are said in this class even though I do not agree with everything that is said, especially when it comes to topics that involve religion and moral issues. Those seem to be some topics that have been discussed in the class,( in fact I think you have directly quoted form the bible) I do not necessarily agree with what all has been said , but again I refrain from giving my opinion on the topics. I also am not having a discussion with impressionable children that I am teaching, which makes a world of difference.
Yes, there is "no such thing as a true neutral", but we can keep our opinions and beliefs to ourselves. We do not need to preach to others about what we think is right or wrong.
I would hate to have had a teacher that constantly put his or her own views into their lessons. I had some great teachers throughout my entire life, and I do not feel that their lessons were based upon their own personal beliefs, even in college where teachers have a bit more freedom in their lessons. I guess I can consider myself lucky to have not had a teacher who was so preachy, and constantly taught lessons which reflected his/ her own personal beliefs.

My Response:

In my post, as I stated earlier, I'm not trying to argue with you, and I was trying to keep it on a light level. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and that is okay to do.
First of all, it is not a crime to “quote from the Bible”, nor is it unacceptable in the public arena to do so. If and when it does become either one of those, this country is no longer the United States of America, with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which our founding fathers intended it to be. If you disagree with that, take some time to read the prime source documents from the 18th century that are readily available.
Second, it's not "preachy" to stand for something, to have an opinion, or even share that opinion. In fact, I like to know the worldview from which my instructors are coming from so I can better understand the way they deliver their information. For instance, a biology teacher from an evolutionary point of view is going to have a different way of delivering biological information than a person who holds to an intelligent design or "creation" point of view, even if no origin of life material is discussed, simply because a consistent and coherent worldview will shape even the very words they use, regardless of whether or not they refrain from giving opinions. "Preachy" is simply a derogatory, name-calling term used for someone who shares a point of view that we don’t adhere to.
Third, I never stated, nor do I believe, that entire classes or lessons or subjects should just be “based upon” a teacher’s opinion. That would be very irresponsible of an educator. I’m not quite sure how you interpreted that based upon what I have previously stated.
Finally, if we are not supposed to teach others about what is right or wrong, how can we tell them that it’s wrong when they hit others? How can we tell them that it’s wrong to steal your car, or break into your home, or trash your classroom? In fact how can we tell them that ANYTHING is wrong at all? How can we enact consequences to wrong behavior when we can’t even define what wrong behavior is because we can’t teach them the difference between right and wrong?
Every day I give my basketball players a definition of some positive moral value, such as honesty, integrity, character, self discipline, etc., which they have to memorize. Today I gave them what I call the “8 rules of life”: never lie, never cheat, never steal, never whine, never complain, never make excuses, never brag about yourself, never feel sorry for yourself. Do you know why? Because if we don’t teach children those values, they become liars, cheaters, thieves, whiners, complainers, irresponsible excuse makers and braggarts who constantly have pity parties and believe they are always the victim. That’s what they’ll become unless we teach them the opposite. Which of those moral values do you not want your students to have? And if the answer to that question is “I can’t tell them what is right or wrong”, then there is no right in complaining when you become a victim of some immoral or criminal act. Because to the criminal, they decided that what they did was right, and no one can tell them it’s wrong. Does anyone see the flawed logic of relativism?
Education does not occur in a vacuum. If we don’t teach the right morals, they’ll do just fine learning all the wrong ones on their own.


All the more reason we homeschool!