Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Getting Rhonda on Board
I am helping rhondakaytelfer.blogspot.com add gadgets to her blog so people will follow her. She is an exceptional writer. Check it out...and follow her. :-))
Monday, September 9, 2013
Public School Parents: Stop Bashing & Be The Change You Want
The (I can't even call it an article) post Allison Benedikt made to Slate (how on earth did this writer become a Slate editor? Have you read her work?) regarding her claim that parents who send their kids to private school are 'bad' follows a long line of rhetoric in our culture that bashes private school, its supporters, and its attendees. And well, it's not that simple! I feel that people like Allison who are frustrated with public school, in a very simplistic way, and out of that frustration, lash out at private school just because they want/need to have a simple singular enemy to blame and demonize rather than thoughtfully acknowledging the complex issues surrounding education.
Rather than get into a detailed account of all the complex issues and emotions that go into the parental decision of where to send a child to school, I just want to say to Allison, comedians, my pastor (yes even he bashes private schools, home schools, anything outside of the box), and all public school parents everywhere, before you decide to tell me I am 'bad', or 'wrong' for sending my kids to a private school please remember this:
And Slate....really? Do you really thing AB is a good editor?? Really?
Rather than get into a detailed account of all the complex issues and emotions that go into the parental decision of where to send a child to school, I just want to say to Allison, comedians, my pastor (yes even he bashes private schools, home schools, anything outside of the box), and all public school parents everywhere, before you decide to tell me I am 'bad', or 'wrong' for sending my kids to a private school please remember this:
- I pay 2 tuitions: one for my children to attend their private school and one for you to send your kids to public school. Do you pay any portion of my child's tuition? No.
- The wisest show of investment in our public schools is NOT the sacrificial act of sending your kids (sacrificing blood, according to Allison) to a public school, but rather the investment is made when you yourself spend time and energy changing the school. Scooting kids onto a bus (that I pay for) then heading off to the office, or going back home, or whatever - is not an investment. What will change public schools is when parents of public school kids - Allison included - make themselves involved on a daily basis in the ways in which their children are taught and their school is managed.
- When every public school parent who hates private school gets involved with their school, well, that's when public education will change.
- The way I see it, my money is being totally mismanaged by public school parents like Allison. I feel like I have a right to demand that all public school parents get involved tangibly in changing public education.
- I haven't even gotten started with the sacrifice most private school parents make by shaping their careers in such a way as to be physically, emotionally, and financially available to their private school commitment.
And Slate....really? Do you really thing AB is a good editor?? Really?
Friday, April 26, 2013
When the Missionary is the Mission Field
I've heard several testimonies from missionaries during and after their mission trips, and the striking thread that stands out in the fabric of their experiences is this:
they themselves are the ones who are transformed - not so much the people group they were sent to transform
they themselves are the ones who learn about Christ from the people they were sent to teach
they themselves observe a freedom that can come only through the power of Christ - rather than demonstrate it
We send our missionaries as teachers, so that they can spread the gospel of Christ to all nations. And we all feel so accomplished that we - the big western Christian nation - are sending 'real' Christian's to small unbelieving pagans (missionaries may well deny this, but it has been my observation that this is the unsaid narrative behind mission trips). And we use things like medical aide, farming trade, water wells, and hunger aide as our tools to engage another unchurched culture.
Our vehicle for delivering the gospel is our good works. That's why you will see Christian's responding first and in more numbers than any other faith in nations all over the globe. Because we want to do good works for the sake of demonstrating the gospel. We want all people of every tongue to know Jesus. There is no one who can argue with the numbers of Christians who at work in foreign and third-world countries. We are there. Period.
But the amazing thing that happens is that missionaries come back saying things like:
"I learned so much about Jesus from these people who hardly know him" and
"They worshipped without abandon" and
"I thought I was supposed to teach them, but I was the one who learned"
Our missionaries actually become the mission field when they leave. Like they have to go to a different location in order to be filled with the Holy Spirit...Like they go to a Third World or a nation in crisis and they get a little deposit of Jesus and bring him back...Back to this community where they are so consumed with spreading the word of God in other nations, that they somehow lose Him or are vacant of Him while they are here at home, then, find Him again when they leave and go to a place where they think they are bringing Him. But they are not. In reality, they are experiencing Jesus only when they see Him at work in others....they are not bringing him to others, they in fact collect him from others. Our missionaries are the ones who 'get saved'. Like those bumper stickers for adopting pets that say, "Who adopted who?", our missionaries seem to always be astounded at the role reversal in the mission field.
they themselves are the ones who are transformed - not so much the people group they were sent to transform
they themselves are the ones who learn about Christ from the people they were sent to teach
they themselves observe a freedom that can come only through the power of Christ - rather than demonstrate it
We send our missionaries as teachers, so that they can spread the gospel of Christ to all nations. And we all feel so accomplished that we - the big western Christian nation - are sending 'real' Christian's to small unbelieving pagans (missionaries may well deny this, but it has been my observation that this is the unsaid narrative behind mission trips). And we use things like medical aide, farming trade, water wells, and hunger aide as our tools to engage another unchurched culture.
Our vehicle for delivering the gospel is our good works. That's why you will see Christian's responding first and in more numbers than any other faith in nations all over the globe. Because we want to do good works for the sake of demonstrating the gospel. We want all people of every tongue to know Jesus. There is no one who can argue with the numbers of Christians who at work in foreign and third-world countries. We are there. Period.
But the amazing thing that happens is that missionaries come back saying things like:
"I learned so much about Jesus from these people who hardly know him" and
"They worshipped without abandon" and
"I thought I was supposed to teach them, but I was the one who learned"
Our missionaries actually become the mission field when they leave. Like they have to go to a different location in order to be filled with the Holy Spirit...Like they go to a Third World or a nation in crisis and they get a little deposit of Jesus and bring him back...Back to this community where they are so consumed with spreading the word of God in other nations, that they somehow lose Him or are vacant of Him while they are here at home, then, find Him again when they leave and go to a place where they think they are bringing Him. But they are not. In reality, they are experiencing Jesus only when they see Him at work in others....they are not bringing him to others, they in fact collect him from others. Our missionaries are the ones who 'get saved'. Like those bumper stickers for adopting pets that say, "Who adopted who?", our missionaries seem to always be astounded at the role reversal in the mission field.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Gay Marriage:What's at Stake?
While the Supreme Court waffles around with the hot potato issue of Gay Marriage - hoping to kick it quietly back to the states - Have you seen the way they are doing their best to look thoughtfully and intelligently into this complex issue with the big elephant sitting with them that screams, "We don't want to be the ones who have to knock it down please please please let us off on a technicality!"? And the media isn't helping them at all by making the issue out to be about gay rights versus straight hegemony.
What the Supreme Court justices know but are not saying is that the issue is about equality and more specifically the defining strata of equality and how our civic laws and codes of conduct are built upon one foundation, and to change that foundation (which needs to be changed) will set a precedent and open a watershed of new foundation-changing legislation which will have a ripple effect in every sector. The primary and most invasive change would be re-writing the entire way in which America taxes society. Legalizing gay marriage will raise more questions and open more Pandora's boxes than its worth and the justices know this - but they are not opening this dialogue. They are hoping to avoid lancing this blister using the technicality of the case not supposed to ever having been presented to them. The state of California was supposed to bring the case to the Supreme Court but a private party did instead, and in a private party bringing it, the case may not even be qualified for the justices' review....which is what they want - easier to get the issue turned around than to have to deal with it.
And here is what is at stake: our whole tax system, our models for economic growth, our societal codes and business models are all based on the entrenched institution of marriage and family defined as man, woman, children. From a legal perspective, for whatever reasons, and all faith aside, our society created rules, laws and codes based on sex and sexuality. Society has created and structured economic codes around the monogamous relationship between a man and woman. To make legal or to amend the institution to include man-man, or woman-woman isn't just simply about equalizing rights between all genders. The bigger issue is this: legalizing gay marriage opens the door for equal choice - period. If I can name another woman that I want to entitle to call my spouse for the sake of insurance coverage, inheritance, parenting their child, hospital visits, tax filing, etc, then why couldn't I name anyone? Why just one person? Why not two or three? Why shouldn't any person be able to legally give any other person or people of their choice or sexual preference rights to my legal standing? Why a person? Why does it have to be an adult? Why not my pet? My computer? I am not trying to be funny I am trying to illustrate that any combination of people or things should have the right to name and enable any other party to have the rights of a spouse. And that is the door of debate the Supreme Court is avoiding. The more we redefine legal marriage, the more we exclude unrepresented minorities who want to have and participate in the rights they pay for with their taxes. The more we change the foundation that we model our commerce upon, the more we need to rewrite how we tax and represent people.
Foucault wrote and spoke out about the way in which societies build their economic strata and hegemonic order on sex and sexuality. He imagined and or, rather, he challenged all of us to imagine what society would look like if it were not based on sexual taboos and expectations. In his book Sex and Sexuality his thesis is grounded in the axis of when societal economics converges with sexual codes of conduct. This is exactly what the Supreme Court is facing, and they would be well served to seek the work of Foucault as they consider this secular issue that will affect all of us.
Everyone deserves to be treated equally, legally, and taxed equally under society's laws. By advancing gay marriage I would compel all gays to consider how they feel about polygamy and their rights, or legal age and the rights of minors to 'marry', or the rights of animal lovers to 'marry' animals. These are the silent and oppressed minorities who will gain a voice with legalized gay marriage - - and from a legal point of view - - shouldn't they?
Society and what it idolizes and how it worships its idols is all determined by the majority. So, how do you treat everyone fairly? That's what we are dealing with. This is not merely about gays versus straight. It just looks like it on the surface because the surface is the only thing the media is covering, and its the only thing the Supreme Court is ice-skating on.
What the Supreme Court justices know but are not saying is that the issue is about equality and more specifically the defining strata of equality and how our civic laws and codes of conduct are built upon one foundation, and to change that foundation (which needs to be changed) will set a precedent and open a watershed of new foundation-changing legislation which will have a ripple effect in every sector. The primary and most invasive change would be re-writing the entire way in which America taxes society. Legalizing gay marriage will raise more questions and open more Pandora's boxes than its worth and the justices know this - but they are not opening this dialogue. They are hoping to avoid lancing this blister using the technicality of the case not supposed to ever having been presented to them. The state of California was supposed to bring the case to the Supreme Court but a private party did instead, and in a private party bringing it, the case may not even be qualified for the justices' review....which is what they want - easier to get the issue turned around than to have to deal with it.
And here is what is at stake: our whole tax system, our models for economic growth, our societal codes and business models are all based on the entrenched institution of marriage and family defined as man, woman, children. From a legal perspective, for whatever reasons, and all faith aside, our society created rules, laws and codes based on sex and sexuality. Society has created and structured economic codes around the monogamous relationship between a man and woman. To make legal or to amend the institution to include man-man, or woman-woman isn't just simply about equalizing rights between all genders. The bigger issue is this: legalizing gay marriage opens the door for equal choice - period. If I can name another woman that I want to entitle to call my spouse for the sake of insurance coverage, inheritance, parenting their child, hospital visits, tax filing, etc, then why couldn't I name anyone? Why just one person? Why not two or three? Why shouldn't any person be able to legally give any other person or people of their choice or sexual preference rights to my legal standing? Why a person? Why does it have to be an adult? Why not my pet? My computer? I am not trying to be funny I am trying to illustrate that any combination of people or things should have the right to name and enable any other party to have the rights of a spouse. And that is the door of debate the Supreme Court is avoiding. The more we redefine legal marriage, the more we exclude unrepresented minorities who want to have and participate in the rights they pay for with their taxes. The more we change the foundation that we model our commerce upon, the more we need to rewrite how we tax and represent people.
Foucault wrote and spoke out about the way in which societies build their economic strata and hegemonic order on sex and sexuality. He imagined and or, rather, he challenged all of us to imagine what society would look like if it were not based on sexual taboos and expectations. In his book Sex and Sexuality his thesis is grounded in the axis of when societal economics converges with sexual codes of conduct. This is exactly what the Supreme Court is facing, and they would be well served to seek the work of Foucault as they consider this secular issue that will affect all of us.
Everyone deserves to be treated equally, legally, and taxed equally under society's laws. By advancing gay marriage I would compel all gays to consider how they feel about polygamy and their rights, or legal age and the rights of minors to 'marry', or the rights of animal lovers to 'marry' animals. These are the silent and oppressed minorities who will gain a voice with legalized gay marriage - - and from a legal point of view - - shouldn't they?
Society and what it idolizes and how it worships its idols is all determined by the majority. So, how do you treat everyone fairly? That's what we are dealing with. This is not merely about gays versus straight. It just looks like it on the surface because the surface is the only thing the media is covering, and its the only thing the Supreme Court is ice-skating on.
Friday, March 22, 2013
At What Point Do We Become Valued?
I am frustrated because my friend who advises young girls to get abortions (she works at a call center: pregnancy crisis hotline) is (hypocritically) mourning the death of her friend, who was a kind of famous human rights advocate. Why is it tough for a person who advocates murder to deal with the death of a friend? That person who dies and leaves a family and a long exemplary career is no less valuable than the fetus that was aborted. The only difference is one got the chance to bypass the world's desire to murder it, and pursue God's planned life for it. One got snuffed out by human decision before having the chance. The difference -it seems -is what was left behind. The less you leave behind, the less valuable you are, I guess. But I tell you- in God's eyes, we all have the same value - He has a plan for all of us way before we are born. All I can say to my pal is - Thank God your friend wasn't aborted, at the advice of someone like you, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)