A library is not a luxury but one of the necessities of life.
Most homeschoolers, myself included, read this quote from Henry Ward Beecher and say, "Amen!" Most of us also assume that the library of which Rev. Beecher speaks is the home library. (Regardless of the fact that most of us are well-known to our local public librarians. A few of us are even fortunate enough to have our own "hold" shelves at our local libraries.) Books are portals to other worlds, minds, personas, and times. They provide comfort, escape, conflict, insight, and knowledge. In a recent interview with Reader's Digest, actor and fellow homeschooler, Will Smith, asserted:
I know how to learn anything I want to learn. I absolutely know that I could learn to fly the space shuttle because someone else knows how to fly it and they put it in a book. Give me a book and I do not need somebody to stand up in front of the class. (Will Power, Readers Digest, December 2006)
Does access to books make teachers unnecessary? In my opinion, quite the contrary. Such access simply increases the number of teachers to which we have access. The Scriptures tell us that "where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory" (Proverbs 11:14). An overflowing library is a great resource to both homeschool student and homeschool teacher (in our school, the teachers are just more advanced students). It is this philosophy which causes Frodo and I to nod in agreement and empathy with Cicero who said, "A room without books is like a body without a soul." It also causes us to have a house that looks like this:
Books in the Kitchen:
Books in the Living Room:
Books in the Schoolroom:
Books in the Bathroom:
Books on the Stairs:
Books in the Bedroom:
Books behind Books in the Bedroom:
Books in the Kids' Room:
Books on the Nightstand of the Next Generation:
Obviously, to now steal an oft-quoted line from Erasmus, "When I have a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothing." Want proof? Just say the phrase "library book sale" in our presence... then get out of the way.
But why read any books? To gain knowledge, you might say. To get into a good college... paid for with academic scholarships. Or to get a better job which will allow you achieve a nicer standard of living. As a Christian, I would have to say that the reason for reading books, for educating one's self under the tutelage of the many counselors embodied in the authors of those books, is to be able to communicate with the Living God through the primary means which He chose to communicate to us, His creation.
He created the world with His words:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. - Genesis 1:1-3
He carved the words of His Law into stone:
Now the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction." -Exodus 24:12
He is the Word:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1
God chose to communicate to us through language. Therefore, we have an obligation to master language, dialogue, and debate, so that we can understand the Scriptures He has given us and communicate the truths found there to others. This was clearly understood by the founders of Harvard University who included in their 1642 copy of the student handbook:
Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well: the main end of life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life.
So, I implore you, buy books, borrow books, read books, study books, digest books. Find your place in the Great Conversation. Dialogue with the Living Word. Teach your children well.
And don't forget, since we are in the Christmas season and scurrying to buy gifts for our loved ones and trying to find the often elusive answer to the question, "What do you want for Christmas?", I leave you with this:
I would be most content if my children grew up to be the kind of people who think decorating consists mostly of building enough bookshelves.
Frodo and I were watching the eleven o'clock news on Black Friday (which Frodo was convinced was taped in advance since all the stories were rather generic with little to no detail and generally didn't seem very newsworthy... but I digress). The lead story was the required "look at all the crazy people who slept in front of the Stuff Mart to buy the new and improved Tickle Me 'Til I Pee Dancing Cockroach and Alarm Clock" story. I was doing fairly well tuning it out until I heard a woman interviewed say this, "I got some great stuff. I got this monitor. I didn't know what it was, but everyone else was grabbing one so I got one too."
What?!
This brings keeping up with the Jonses to a whole new level. I guess what really shocked me about this was not that this woman bought something because it was "cheap" even though she didn't really need it (or even know what it was). It was that she was admitting it to millions of people and didn't seem all that ashamed or embarrassed by it.
Repeat after me:
"I am only saving money on a purchase if I am buying something I was planning on buying anyway, but I buy it at a price less than I was originally planning on paying."
Now if this woman was planning on buying a monitor anyway and was sharing how happy she was to have saved 75% by buying it on Black Friday, I would have no problem with the story (except that I still find it hard to beleive that someone buying something at a sale is news). Frodo and I have braved the crowds on previous Black Fridays. I love going out the day after Christmas to buy my cards for the following year. But I was planning on buying those things anyway.
This woman isn't saving money... she is just spending it less quickly than she would have if she had been buying random, unidentified things she doesn't need at full price.
Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, recipient of the 1988 Presidential Medal of Freedom, a hero of Frodo's, one of the strongest influences on my own political and economic philospohies, and arguably the staunchest modern advocate of Freedom (both economic and personal), died this morning at the age of 94.
A couple years ago, Frodo worked at the Libertarian booth at our town's annual street fair. The night before the fair, Frodo and I stayed up late making t-shirts for each of us and our kids to wear to the fair. My shirt bore a quote from Dr. Friedman:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
Tax Freedom Day, the date on which we stop working for the government and begin working for ourselves, is said to have its origins with Dr. Friedman. He wrote in one of his 1974 Newsweek columns that the United States should have a national holiday called "Personal Independence Day" to celebrate:
...that day in the year when we stop working to pay the expenses of the government, and start working to pay for the items we severally and individually choose in light of our own needs and desires. In 1929, that holiday would have come on Feb 12; today it would come about May 30; if present trends were to continue it would coincide with July 4.
Sadly, according to Americans for Tax Reform, Dr. Friedman's prediction was all too accurate. In 2005, the group determined that "cost of government day" occurred in the second week of July.
In his bestselling bookFree To Choose, co-written with his wife, economist Rose Director Friedman, Dr. Friedman cements the connection between economic freedom and personal freedom:
Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic and politcal power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.
Dr. Friedman did not limit his defense of personal freedom to those areas obviously affected by economics, however. In the 1990 version of his PBS series Free to Choose, he makes clear his view on America's government school system and who should be in charge of children's education:
In regard to education, Dr. Friedman and his wife put their money where their consciences were and started the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice which supports parental choice in education through educational choice in the form of school vouchers... a concept Dr. Friedman originally introduced in his book Economics and Public Interest in 1955.
The rights that Dr. Friedman worked so hard to defend were not just those that benefited
the individual. He purported that total freedom includes not only the right to work to make one's self successful, but also to harm one's self. Man has the right to be stupid as well as to be wise.
"The reign of tears is over. The slums will be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."
That is how Billy Sunday, noted evangelist and leading crusader aginst Demon Rum, greeted the onset of Prohibition in 1920, enacted in a burst of moral righteousness at the end of the First World War. That episode is a stark reminder of where drives to protect us from ourselves can lead.
Prohibition was imposed for our own good. Alcohol is a dangerous substance. More lives are lost each year from alcohol than from all the dangerous substances the FDA controls put together. But where did Prohibtion lead? New prisons and jails had to be built to house the criminals spawned by converting the drinking of spirits into a crime against the state. Al Capone, Bugs Moran became notorious for their exploits - murder, extortion, hijacking, bootlegging.Who were their customers? Respectable citizens who would never themselves have approved or engaged in, the activites that Al Capone and his fellow gangsters made infamous. They simply wanted a drink. In order to have a drink, they had to break the law. Prohbition didn't stop drinking. It did convert a lot of otherwise law-obedient citizens into lawbreakers. It did suppress many of the disciplinary forces of the market that ordinarily protect the consumer from shoddy, adulterated, and dangerous products. It did corrupt the minions of the law and create a decadent moral climate. It did not stop the consumption of alcohol.
If the government is to try and ban private consumption of alcohol and tobacco, it must surely ban such activities as hang-gliding, skiing, rock-climbing and so on. Where should it stop? Rugby? American Football? Ice Hockey?
Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives.
- from Free to Choose
Edward H. Crane, president of the CATO Institute, summarized Dr. Friedman's contributions better than I ever could:
Here's a guy who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in monetary theory and he was a great Chicagoan, a great empiricist and theoretician of economics. But ultimately, what Milton believed in was human liberty and he took great joy in trying to promote that concept....Milton would say, "Maybe I did well and maybe I led the battle but nobody ever said we were going to win this thing at any point in time. Eternal vigilance is required and there have to be people who step up to the plate, who believe in liberty, and who are willing to fight for it." ...In my view he was the greatest champion of human liberty in my lifetime, certainly in the 20th century. And he didn’t slack off in the 21st century.
Once more the storm is howling, and half hid Under this cradle-hood and coverlid My child sleeps on. There is no obstacle But Gregory's wood and one bare hill Whereby the haystack- and roof-levelling wind, Bred on the Atlantic, can be stayed; And for an hour I have walked and prayed Because of the great gloom that is in my mind.
I have walked and prayed for this young child an hour And heard the sea-wind scream upon the tower, And under the arches of the bridge, and scream In the elms above the flooded stream; Imagining in excited reverie That the future years had come, Dancing to a frenzied drum, Out of the murderous innocence of the sea.
May she be granted beauty and yet not Beauty to make a stranger's eye distraught, Or hers before a looking-glass, for such, Being made beautiful overmuch, Consider beauty a sufficient end, Lose natural kindness and maybe The heart-revealing intimacy That chooses right, and never find a friend.
Helen being chosen found life flat and dull And later had much trouble from a fool, While that great Queen, that rose out of the spray, Being fatherless could have her way Yet chose a bandy-leggd smith for man. It's certain that fine women eat A crazy salad with their meat Whereby the Horn of Plenty is undone.
In courtesy I'd have her chiefly learned; Hearts are not had as a gift but hearts are earned By those that are not entirely beautiful; Yet many, that have played the fool For beauty's very self, has charm made wise, And many a poor man that has roved, Loved and thought himself beloved, From a glad kindness cannot take his eyes.
May she become a flourishing hidden tree That all her thoughts may like the linnet be, And have no business but dispensing round Their magnanimities of sound, Nor but in merriment begin a chase, Nor but in merriment a quarrel. O may she live like some green laurel Rooted in one dear perpetual place.
My mind, because the minds that I have loved, The sort of beauty that I have approved, Prosper but little, has dried up of late, Yet knows that to be choked with hate May well be of all evil chances chief. If there's no hatred in a mind Assault and battery of the wind Can never tear the linnet from the leaf.
An intellectual hatred is the worst, So let her think opinions are accursed. Have I not seen the loveliest woman born Out of the mouth of Plenty's horn, Because of her opinionated mind Barter that horn and every good By quiet natures understood For an old bellows full of angry wind?
Considering that, all hatred driven hence, The soul recovers radical innocence And learns at last that it is self-delighting, Self-appeasing, self-affrighting, And that its own sweet will is Heaven's will; She can, though every face should scowl And every windy quarter howl Or every bellows burst, be happy still.
And may her bridegroom bring her to a house Where all's accustomed, ceremonious; For arrogance and hatred are the wares Peddled in the thoroughfares. How but in custom and in ceremony Are innocence and beauty born? Ceremony's a name for the rich horn, And custom for the spreading laurel tree.
Primo, may you have decades upon decades to grow, live, and love
and an eternity to bask in His Glory.
O magnify the LORD with me, And let us exalt His name together.
Someone on the WTM Message Board recommended this article when another asked about how to handle having children participate in the worship service. It clearly states the philosophy behind including children in the worship service while also offering helpful, practical tips. Here is a taste:
God-centered worship is supremely important in the life of our church. We approach the Sunday morning worship hour with great seriousness and earnestness and expectancy. We try to banish all that is flippant or trivial or chatty...
There are several reasons why we urge parents to bring their children to worship. But these arguments will not carry much weight with parents who do not love to worship God.
The greatest stumbling block for children in worship is that their parents do not cherish the hour. Children can feel the difference between duty and delight. Therefore, the first and most important job of a parent is to fall in love with the worship of God. You can't impart what you don't possess.
We have included our children in the worship service since Primo was a newborn. It hasn't always been easy. Children wiggle and yell and ask embarrassingly phrased questions at inappropriate times and at inappropriate volumes. "But how can I worship if I am tending to my children through the worship service?" you ask. I contend that you are worshipping while tending to your children. God tells us that children are a blessing (Psalm 113:9; Psalm 127: 3-5; Proverbs 17:6). He also commands us to worship Him corporately (Acts 2:1; Acts 5:12; Acts 15:30-35). Therefore, for the stage of life in which you have small (or not so small) children, you worship God by teaching your children to worship. Clinging to unrealistic visions of what worship is when you are teaching your children to worship alongside you will only cause you, your children, and those trying to worship around you to become frustrated and miss out on true worship.
Some tips that we have found helpful in involving our children in the worship service:
1. Draw pictures of the sermon for younger children or encourage older children to do so. This keeps them (and you) listening to what is being taught rather than disappearing into an imaginative world or counting ceiling tiles. (from The Hidden Art of Homemaking by Edith Schaeffer)
2. Allow children to sing, clap, and dance as they are moved to during times of music. Make sure that you sit in a place where you can minimize distractions of those who may have a different worship philosophy.
3. Sit in the deaf section if your church has one. Often, children can grasp concepts by watching the signs for complex thoughts and words even if they could not understand the spoken concept. An added bonus is that children's hand movements are tolerated more where others communicate and worship with their hands.
4. Do not be afraid to remove a child from the service if they are being disrespectful in their disruptiveness. (Every child is going to ask questions, and these should be answered as often as possible, but yelling or jumping around is not acceptable.) However, use this period of removal for discipline then return to the service, otherwise the child will think that he can get out of the service by being disruptive.
5. Pray for your children. Pray in the service, before the service and throughout the week that your children would serve God through corporate worship.
I will extol the LORD at all times; his praise will always be on my lips.
My soul will boast in the LORD; let the afflicted hear and rejoice.
Glorify the LORD with me; let us exalt his name together.
I was reading a couple of articles on homeschooling last night, and one of them brought up the age old question, “What about socialization?”
The National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teacher’s union, said there is another hidden cost to home education. Home-educated students miss out on opportunities to build socials skills by not studying with their peers.
In a Feb. 26, 2002 letter to the National Home Education Network, former NEA president Bob Chase wrote his organization was “concerned that homeschooled students were not provided a comprehensive education experience because they did not have an opportunity to interact with students of different cultures, economic status or learning styles. They felt homeschooled students learned in a setting primarily made up (of) family members and friends.”
My standard response to this argument is, “And that’s bad because…?”
If my goal were to raise a life-long eight-year-old or nine-year-old or Kindergartener, maybe I wouldn’t be so concerned that my child spent all of his/her time around other eight-year-olds, nine-year-olds, or Kindergartners in an institutional setting.However, I am not raising career eight-year-olds, nine-year-olds, or Kindergarteners; I am raising adults… adults who will hopefully function in and contribute to the whole of society.Thus, they should be raised among those with whom they will interact for the rest of their lives.They will spend most of their social time as adults with family more than with any other social group, so learning family dynamics is the most important social skill they will learn.
However, this article didn’t stick out to me because of the quoted statement.I (as well as every other homeschooler) have heard this all before.It stuck out to me because of another homeschooling article that I read immediately after.
The second article was about virtual charter schools in California.If you are not familiar with virtual charter schools, they are basically government schools that children participate in via online classes and instant messaging along with the traditional book work that they do at home with a parent.Government schoolers consider this type of schooling homeschooling while many homeschoolers consider it government schooling.In either case, one would think that the problem of socialization would come up with these virtual charter schools as it does with traditional homeschooling because of the lack of ‘peer interaction’.Socialization does come up, but it is not seen as the problem it is for traditional homeschoolers:
As for the social components most educators agree are an essential to the school experience, the report, produced by an “e-learning ad hock committee of educators,” finds: “Quality online courses are highly interactive. ... Teachers interact with students in real time via live video and audio … through discussion boards and email.”
Torres added that such tech-savvy communication more accurately reflects the way today’s youth socialize — through such vehicles as MySpace, chat rooms, email and text messaging.
“We all value socialization,” Torres said. “We have to take into account that the population of kids we’re dealing with is very different [today]. … When we were growing up, you would get one hour on the phone. Now there are multiple sources of communication.”
Educators seem to be broadening the definition of the term “socialization”, from face-to-face daily interaction with peers in an institutional setting to virtual interaction with peers and teachers in an institutionally-controlled setting, to suit their own purposes.Adults know that there are huge differences between reality and virtual reality.Virtual reality is more like a play than real life. It is rare for real relationships to develop is cyber space because it is too easy to put on masks and develop a cyber-persona.Children don’t need to learn how to interact with a keyboard and imaginary friends.They need to hug, cry, debate, and hear and see those who are different from them and similar to them so they can mature in faith, emotion and thought.
The only part of the definition of socialization that doesn’t seem to be changing is the “institution” part.This reveals to me that many professional educators are not as concerned with our children’s social development as they are with maintaining their control… whether it is controlling who our children interact with or what their minds are exposed to. (And mentioning MySpace and chat rooms -known tools of cyber predators, child molesters and parental defiance by children- don’t exactly shout “positive socialization”.)
Are there homeschoolers who have socially inept children? Yes. Are there government schoolers who have socially inept children? Yes. The government does not hold the monopoly on socialization just as they should not hold the monopoly on education. Socialization and education are the parent’s responsibility… no matter where a child is educated.
Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.
A portion of her post reads:
I have been summarily told by an atheist that Christianity provides no more meaning in life than Atheism does and therefore cannot be more worthy as a belief than an unbelief. The atheist adjudges that if the chief end of man is to glorify God and if God is glorious in and of himself then humans are unnecessary. Hence the life devoted to God, if he does exist is meaningless because we are an unnecessary part of the story. He concludes that life apart from any god is every bit as meaningful as life with a just, all knowing, all powerful, all loving God. He derives that the Christian life is every bit as meaningless as the atheist life.
Being a member of the PCA myself (and thus also holding to the tenets of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms), this statement forced me to revisit this question in my mind and see if I could defend my position.After reading the rest of Nan’s post and rereading the Scripture proofs for the question, I developed a defense which had not occurred to me before and has strengthened my belief that man is not meaningless.
The problem with this atheist’s argument is his point of view.He argues from the viewpoint of men, but for man to find his purpose, he must look through the eyes of God.
My daughter, Secondo, has two baby dolls.These dolls have a cradle next to Secondo’s bed and a special place in her heart.When she refers to these dolls, she does not refer to them as “my dolls” she calls them by name, Ashley and Jonathan.When a stranger looks at these dolls, he will see cloth sewn into the shapes of human bodies with plastic, humanoid heads.These organized pieces of cloth are clad in clothing that could be seen on a human baby.In other words, the viewer would see ordinary dolls. He would not, however, see Ashley and Jonathan.The dolls’ Ashley-ness and Jonathan-ness come from Secondo.When she looks at them, they live.When she talks to them, they respond.If the stranger came across these dolls lying on the street, he might pick them up and look for an owner, or he may toss them in the trash.If Secondo came across them in the street, she would see Ashley and Jonathan and feel remorse for not caring for them properly.She would feel pity for them and clean them and talk to them.Their value comes not in what they are, but in who they are to Secondo.
The same goes for man and God.Man has no value except that which God gives him.We have value because God gives us value by loving us and making us in His image.The scientist may look at us and see carbon-based beings, but God looks at us and sees His handiwork.If we are His children, He sees His Son.We can do nothing to give ourselves value… just as Secondo’s dolls do nothing to make her love them.They are because Secondo says they are.We glorify God because He made us to glorify Him.That is the purpose to which we were created.We cannot change it, and we cannot devalue it.We are necessary because God has made us necessary.Could God have gone on for eternity fully glorified in and of Himself without man?Yes.He doesn’t need us; He wants us.What greater value is there?
Along with the other members of The Great Books Reading Partnership, I am reading Chapter 9 (History Refracted: The Poets and Thier Poetry) of The Well-Educated Mind by Susan Wise Bauer. However, I am finding the section on the history of poetry very difficult to get through because of an anology Ms. Bauer uses that makes the topic more, rather than less, confusing for me.
Anyway, I decided to take a break from reading in the hopes of clearing my head and starting anew after the kids went to bed. I went out to the back porch to watch the kids play outside and to watch the beautiful flights of the brown bats that hunt bugs in our backyard. As I was watching Terzo pick up a stick to fight an enemy I could not see, a poem formed in my mind. Although I like to read poetry, all my attempts at writing it are very juvenile and uninspired. I am generally too concrete and to-the-point in my thinking... i.e. not poetic. This time, however, I wrote the poem down and read it to Frodo... and he liked it. So here it is... such as it is.
It is so
The Child stands, spies a stick
He stoops, “You shall be my sword.”
And it is so.
The Child looks, observes the air
He commands, “You shall be my enemy.”
And it is so.
The battle begins, creature against creator
The victor is no mystery, still the battle must be fought
This is the name of a short film that I discovered on YouTube this evening (a web site I am now totally addicted to, by the way). The film is exactly what it's title says it is. It is a series of photos that Noah Kalina took of himself everyday from January 11, 2000 to July 31, 2006 set to original music by Carly Comando (very reminiscent of Phillip Glass... so much so that Frodo thought I had started watching Truman Show without him... a cardinal sin in our house).
This film fascinated me. I felt compelled to watch it once it began and wanted to watch it over and over once it was finished. We may notice changes is our appearance year-to-year, but it was surprizing to see how much Noah changed day-by-day. I would watch the changes in his hair length, wardrobe, background and people who provided his 'supporting cast' and find myself thinking:
"Wow, he likes that plaid shirt."
"I wonder where he was going." (He had on a tuxedo shirt and bow tie twice... on non-consecutive days but within a week of each other.)
"Did he move?"
"Is that his girlfriend?"
"What is that picture on the wall?"
"Did he take his picture at the same time every day?"
"Why is there a seemingly long period of time when he took his photo in front of the alcove with the computer then another long period of time when he didn't?"
"What was his purpose in doing this?"
The film is 5.5 minutes long, so if you have a few minutes and you want to rest your feet while exercising your brain's areas of abstract (or not so abstract) thought, check out the film and let me know what you think.
Note: For those of you who receive copies of these posts via email, you need to head on over here to the website so you can access the hyperlink. And since most of my posts contain at least one hyperlink, coming here to read the posts might be a good common practice.
Fox reporters, Steve Centanni (American) and Olaf Wiig (New Zealander), were released by their 'Holy Jihad Brigades' captors this week after a week in captivity. Although no one will ever know the minds of their captors, it is commonly accepted that the videotape made of the two men reading prepared statements in which they denounce Christ, America, and Western society were key to thier release. (To view the videotape, click here.) After their release, Cantanni said, "It was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns and we didn't know what the hell was going on."
What would you do? Would you agree to read the prepared statement with the hopes of being released?
I honestly don't know what I would do. It's easy to say that I would refuse to read the statement, but then who really knows what one would do at gunpoint?
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." -Matthew 16: 15-19
Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: " 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will."
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same. - Matthew 26:31-35
Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. "You also were with Jesus of Galilee," she said. But he denied it before them all. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said.
Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, "This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth." He denied it again, with an oath: "I don't know the man!"
After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away." Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!"
Immediately a rooster crowed.
Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly. - Matthew 26:69-75
I am sitting here watching the eleven o'clock news on my local ABC affiliate where they just concluded a story on the response of local churches to this weekend's opening of The DaVinci Code. The back and forth debate over this movie has already gotten old, so none of that even phases me now. However, I am realing over this comment made by the reporter at the conclusion of her story:
"Pastors don't get the chance to talk much about theology from the pulpit, but this movie is giving them that opportunity."
WHAT?!??!?!?!
I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Maybe someone needs to buy this woman a dictionary. The most basic definition of theology is the study of God or religion. What does this woman think goes on in churches? She just interviewed a pastor and parishoners who used the words God, church, religion, Christianity, and Jesus repeatedly. Does she really think that these people only brought these topics up because of a MOVIE?!
On the other hand... what if there is more truth in her comment than churches are willing to acknowledge?
As parents, we give and receive this advice quite frequently.
When should I introduce solid food? When your baby starts reaching for your green beans or chicken, he's ready to try some. He'll tell you when he's ready.
When should I start potty training? When your toddler starts showing interest in the potty, it's time to sit her on it. She'll tell you when she's ready.
When should I teach my child to read? When you child grabs a book and starts pretending to read, he's ready to learn. He'll tell you when he's ready.
When should I teach my child the birds and the bees? When your child starts to ask questions about where babies come from, she's ready to hear an "age appropriate" answer. She'll tell you when she's ready.
"They'll tell you when they're ready. "
What does this mean?
When we give this advice to another parent, we are generally trying to encourage them not to worry. We are encouraging the parent to wait until the child gives some sort of signal... grabbing the fork, sitting on the kiddy potty, pretending to read a book, or asking if he was in Mommy's tummy just like baby sister. But does this advice work for everything? Let's face it, if many of us waited for our children to tell us they were ready for vegetables or ready to learn to clean their rooms, we'd still be waiting for the signal when they left for college! On the other hand, sometimes we get signals we aren't sure what to do with, are intimidated by, or seem to be "age inappropriate." By age inappropriate, I mean that our child is asking questions about things that our culture has decided are above their comprehension for thier age so we have no guideline for discussing these topics with our children. This seems to happen most often with topics of spiritual signifigance. When do you start talking to your children about topics like sin, redemption, death, and sanctification?
I believe in this situation, where a child is asking a question about a topic you feel he is too young to understand, you answer the question... or at least try to. Lest you respond, "That's easy for her to say." Here are some questions that our kids have asked Frodo and I recently (after each question, I have indicated which child asked it and how old he/ she is):
"Why did God create light first?" (Terzo, 5)
"What would happen if lightening hit our car and we all died?" (Terzo, 5)
"Why would someone steal a kid?" (Primo, 9)
"Why did God make butterflies if they only live for 2 weeks?" (Secondo, 7)
"Why did the Stone Table break after Aslan came alive again?" (Primo, 9)
"Why does God let tornados kill people?" (Primo, 9)
"How come there aren't any more dinosaurs?" (Secondo, 7)
"How come different books about dinosaurs say different things about why they died and what they looked like?" (Secondo, 7)
"How come Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil when God told her not to?" (Terzo, age 5)
"Will you die?" (Primo, 9; Secondo, 7; Terzo, 5)
"Will I die?" (Primo, 9; Secondo, 7; Terzo, 5)
We did our best to answer their questions and pray for wisdom in answering those that will inevitably come up in the future.
Our children will let us know when they are ready to face some of life's hard questions. But I have learned some things through my children's questions... I don't know all of the answers, I probably never will, and I don't ask enough questions myself but it is important that I ask. Asking questions and searching for answers (sometimes receiving them and sometimes not) matures us. If I stop questioning, I stop growing.
Have I stopped asking?
Have you stopped asking?
Does this mean we are not ready for the answers?
Or does it just mean that we are hiding from the responsibility required of us when our questions are answered?
I read The Well-Educated Mind: A Guide to the Classical Education You Never Had over a year ago. I went out and bought the first two books in the History reading list and the first book in the Fiction reading list, and finally began reading Herodotus' Histories a few months ago. I was really enjoying it, but about two weeks into reading, I essentially gave up. (I still pick it up periodically, but I am not engaging the book as I once was.)
I have a few reasons (excuses) for giving up:
1. I have 4 children that I homeschool. Finding a time that is consistent and sufficient in length and a place that is quiet where my book won't "wander off" when I set it down is very difficult to find.
2. The very thought of reading ancient history as written by an ancient author is extremely overwhelming and intimidating.
3. Since I had no outside accountability, I lost the impetus to keep going as soon as I hit a difficult passage since I had no one to talk through it with.
but the main reason:
4. I cannot make myself write in a book.
Both Susan Wise Bauer (the author of The Well-Educated Mind) and Mortimer Adler (the author of How to Read a Book - which I am presently reading as part of an online book club) recommend writing in books. There are many reasons that they suggest getting into this habit... from noting passages that you have difficulty understanding to simply noting your half of the "conversation" that you are having with the author. I completely understand why readers participate in this practice and it makes perfect sense to me to make notes in the books as I read rather than keep a seperate journal that may get lost or requires me to abandon the asthetic of and engagement with the book to make notes. I just have a very difficult time doing it.
I went to government schools where I was absolutley forbidden to write in a book. I also borrowed many, many library books as a child (still do), and again it was taboo to write in a book. I would never have considered writing in one of my own books as a child... although it is not really necessary to write in the margins of a Curious George or a Nancy Drew book. When I got to college, I did highlight some of my text books, but if I wanted to take notes, I would keep them in a seperate notebook. The first book I ever wrote notes is was my copy of Darwin's Origin of Species. That was last year. I have read the book before, but this was the first time I really studied it. I got halfway through the book, and when I stopped to look back at all my notes and underlining, I thought, "What am I doing?!" I haven't picked it up since.
I have gotten books out of the library where someone has written a note in the margin or underlined something, and it made me angry that someone took it upon themselves to taint the book with thier own thoughts. I was not allowed the gift of experinencing the book in its virgin form and formulating my own thoughts. My reading and understanding of the book would be forever skewed by that tiny note or faint line.
But those are library books. I am not talking about writing in a library book. I am talking about writing in a book that I own. Why can't I write in a book that is mine to do with as I please? When I know that engaging the book my puring over it and taking notes would increase my understanding of it?
Two reasons come to mind. First of all, I am just not in the habit of writing in my books. This is something that can be slowly overcome by just starting to make notes in books as I read. The second reason is that I frequently lend books to family and friends, so I don't want to taint their reading of the book. Granted, I am probably not going to take notes in a Stephen King book which I am much nore likely to lend out than my copy of Herodotus' Histories, but many of the books I do take notes in, I expect my children to read some day. I don't want to rob them of the joy of having their own conversation with Shakespeare or Herodotus or Cervantes.
All this debating and justifying is not going to get me any closer to being able to write in my books. I guess I just need to sharpen my pencil and find a cozy corner and start reading and conversing with my books. And as the children get older, I will continue what I am already doing, give my children thier own copies of books so that they can join in the Great Conversation.
Sometimes the notes are ferocious, skirmishes against the author raging along the borders of every page in tiny black script. If I could just get my hands on you, Kierkegaard, or Conor Cruise O'Brien, they seem to say, I would bolt the door and beat some logic into your head.
Other comments are more offhand, dismissive - "Nonsense." "Please!" "HA!!" - that kind of thing. I remember once looking up from my reading, my thumb as a bookmark, trying to imagine what the person must look like why wrote "Don't be a ninny" alongside a paragraph in The Life of Emily Dickinson.
Students are more modest needing to leave only their splayed footprints along the shore of the page. One scrawls "Metaphor" next to a stanza of Eliot's. Another notes the presence of "Irony" fifty times outside the paragraphs of A Modest Proposal.
Or they are fans who cheer from the empty bleachers, Hands cupped around their mouths. "Absolutely," they shout to Duns Scotus and James Baldwin. "Yes." "Bull's-eye." "My man!" Check marks, asterisks, and exclamation points rain down along the sidelines.
And if you have managed to graduate from college without ever having written "Man vs. Nature" in a margin, perhaps now is the time to take one step forward.
We have all seized the white perimeter as our own and reached for a pen if only to show we did not just laze in an armchair turning pages; we pressed a thought into the wayside, planted an impression along the verge.
Even Irish monks in their cold scriptoria jotted along the borders of the Gospels brief asides about the pains of copying, a bird signing near their window, or the sunlight that illuminated their page- anonymous men catching a ride into the future on a vessel more lasting than themselves.
And you have not read Joshua Reynolds, they say, until you have read him enwreathed with Blake's furious scribbling.
Yet the one I think of most often, the one that dangles from me like a locket, was written in the copy of Catcher in the Rye I borrowed from the local library one slow, hot summer. I was just beginning high school then, reading books on a davenport in my parents' living room, and I cannot tell you how vastly my loneliness was deepened, how poignant and amplified the world before me seemed, when I found on one page
A few greasy looking smears and next to them, written in soft pencil- by a beautiful girl, I could tell, whom I would never meet- "Pardon the egg salad stains, but I'm in love."
Per ClassicalMamma's request, here is the link to my brief notes on Chapter One of HTRAB.
I had been attempting to avoid this topic, and succeeded until I went onto the Well Trained Mind message board today and found that my only oasis from this topic had finally been tainted by it, and I realized, for my own sake, I had to say something... then I will let it go.
For those of you who may not be familiar, there has been a controversy for years over two parenting books: To Train Up a Child and On Becoming Babywise. The first discusses discipline issues and the second breastfeeding issues. The issue came to a head recently when a couple applied a discipline proceedure not mentioned in the TCUAC book and killed thier son. Later, the couple mentioned TCUAC as thier primary resource on discipline (techniques which they took too far), so the book got labelled as the manual of child abusers.
So that I am being upfront and honest with everyone, I happen to own both books in question (actually I lent one to someone and never got it back, but that's irrelevant.) I read both many times, lent them to people, applied some of the principles of both books, and ignored some princilples in both books.
I very rarely agree with everything in every book I read, and there are many that I don't agree with much at all. If I own it and don't want it any more, I may donate it to the library, freecyle it, give it to a friend, toss it or burn it in the burn barrel depending on the book (keeping in mind content and condition). I do not view any book (with the exception of the Scriptures because I am a Chirstian) as sacred. If you are a private citizen and want to burn your copy of a book, go ahead. I tend to be environmentally concious, so that comes to play in my decision on what to do with a book I no longer want. I am amazed at the calls for the mass banning and burning of these books and anyone who has any association with them (including Homeschol Blogger because the magazine the site's owners publish has advertized the books.)
I don't expect everyone to agree with every author's recommendations in books (like the ones I mentioned above or any other book). Some people take things too far in their applications and some people don't go far enough. Some people have mis-applied Scripture, abused the Constitution, and used kitchen knives to murder people rather than to butter their bread, but I do not think these things need to be banned or burned for censorship's sake. Should we have the right to get rid of books (or anything else) in our possession that we do not find edifying and supportive of our mission to "glorify God and enjoy Hin forever?" Yes. As Americans we have the right to do that and more, but I don't beleive that this is the true issue here. The true issues here are the lack of recognition of sin and the abuse of autonomy that causes people to think of themselves as better than others.
Sadly, we live in an imperfect world. We will never get rid of abuse, neglect, murder, and hatefulness. Should we strive to overcome these things? Yes. But we must also trust God, have good-faith in our neighbors, and invest ourselves in each others lives so that when someone wants to go too far in their application of something (like beating their child to death with plumbing supplies) we can step up before (with love and familiarity) and say "No!" rather than wait until afterwards to feed our self-rightousness (I include myself in this) and say "I would never do that!" and try to find blame. The real crime here is one of selfishness and laziness on the part of those of us just outside these situations.
We need to regain the desire and ability to talk to our neighbors and friends openly and intimately about topics that are controversial, get our opinions out there, and trust that others can use their brains as well as we use our own and make their decisions thoughtfully. It is just as much my fault as anyone's that it happened because I didn't love my neighbor enough to stop them before-hand because it was politically incorrect to do so. When my parents were little, it was common that if a neghbor saw them doing something wrong, the neighbor would go out and stop them then go talk to thier parents. That rarely happens any more... with children or adults. We have taken independence and autonomy too far. We silently recognize this fact and attempt to reconcile it by having the government do the dirty work for us. See a child with a dirty face or a bruise? We call Child Protective Services annonymously. We would feel too "weird" doing it ourselves. Have we stopped to think that we should feel weird? We feel awkward because deep down we know that we are just as sinful and in need of rebuke. We know that "there but by the Grace of God go I." We ask ourselves, "Who am I to confront them about their sin? I'm not perfect either." Of course you aren't. No one is. But we are afraid that if we point it out in someone else they might point it out in us, and we will shatter the visage that we have worked so hard to create.
We have to confront sin, in ourselves and others, not because we are perfect but because God is. We have to acknowledge that our world is perverted. Man was not meant to live in a world pervaded by sin and death. We were created for Eden and to be in intimate fellowship with God. Will pointing out our own and others' sin return us to Eden? No. But we can't get to where we were intended to be if we don't first acknowledge that we are lost.
Now, I will let it go.
(By the way, I am leaving this open for comments, as I do all my posts, under the assumption that you will comment civily and respectfully. I will delete or edit comments that do not meet this criteria. Thank you.)
I recently mentioned that I was looking forward to (to put it mildly... see Literary Euphoria) reading this book.I was so disappointed with Crunchy Consthat I’m not going to expend the energy to type its lengthy subtitle.In short, the book’s author, Rod Dreher, claims to expand on his revelation of a new movement within political conservatism (and more specifically the Republican Party) that is trying to “[reclaim] what’s best in conservatism”, namely “the permanent things” – faith, family, community, and legacy. Instead, Dreher spends his time repeatedly stating that he desires to see conservatives return to their small-government, faith-based, family-centered foundation by using the government to reign-in big business, put controls on the free market, provide tax-breaks and other policies that encourage the growth of small businesses (especially if they are family-owned, organic farms), use zoning laws to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and prevent suburban sprawl, encourage the development of alternate energy sources, encourage the expansion of private civil organizations (like churches and charities), and care for the poor. The book oozes with these inconsistencies of philosophy and proposed action.By the end of the second chapter, I was vainly hoping that he would remove his Guy Fawkes mask and reveal that it was really Joe Lieberman underneath.This book just reinforced to me that nowadays there is no practical difference between the two major American parties and that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” have become meaningless except at their most radical.ReadingCrunchy Cons inspired me in one significant way… I need to come up with a catchy, alliterative phrase for “Christian Libertarian”. (Speaking of libertarianism, instead of Crunchy Cons, I recommend reading What It Means To Be A Libertarian.)
Disappointment #2:Crash
I had wanted to see this movie since I saw the first trailers for it.Being the frugal people that we are, we were waiting for it to come onto DVD then to the library before we saw it.However, the videophiles in us are stronger than the penny-pinchers, so as soon as it won the Academy Award for best picture, we went out and bought it.I had heard such great things about this movie, and I thought it was a great concept, but I was thoroughly disappointed.Many of the situations seemed forced, and the dialogue frequently seemed unnatural to the character to whom it was assigned.The screenwriter boldly used the device of pulling you down what seemed a stereotypical story path only to yank you into an emotionally charged, unexpected denouement.This would have been an excellent technique to reinforce the movie’s theme of shattering stereotypes had the writer not gone to this well so often that I felt like Mickey Mouse in Fantasia with no wizard to clean up the mess that had been made.The rare gems in this movie (Sandra Bullock’s performance was a pleasant surprise, and I always enjoy watching Don Cheadle) are not worth the almost 2 hours.The tagline for Crash is “You think you know who you are. You have no idea.”There are three movies that better explore this concept: Grand Canyonand Changing Lanes(both of which also explore race) and one of my all-time favorite movies, 13 Conversations About One Thing.Dramas, like all things in Creation, should bring you to a point where you ask, “What has this movie revealed to me about God? Humanity? Myself?” Crash left me asking, “I’ve seen this done better elsewhere.Is it too late to start Grand Canyon?”
The Gem: The Man Born Blind
I have already admitted to having literary-ADD.This constant switching back and forth between books can have its setbacks… for example, I was looking for one of only a handful of good quotes from Crunchy Cons to read to Frodo the other night and realized, long after Frodo gave up waiting for me to find it, that the quote I wanted was in the Thomas Sowell book, Inside American Education, that I am also reading. (At least that more logically explains why I thought it was a good quote!)However, sometimes literary-ADD can lead me to a wonderful work of literature that I otherwise would not have found.I have read a goodly amount of C.S. Lewis’ fiction, but it was the Stephen King series that I am presently in the midst of that led me to the C.S. Lewis short story entitled The Man Born Blind.In the preface to the short story collection, The Dark Tower and Other Stories (fans of Stephen King just went “Ah ha!”), editor Walter Hooper describes the story as being about a man born with double, congenital cataracts who has his sight restored and then goes on a quest to learn what light is.I guess that is the best way to describe this story, but it seems so desperately insufficient that it is almost painful.I rarely cry when I read, but when I read this aloud to Frodo last Sunday, I had to stop to compose myself in order to finish the story… then broke down immediately upon concluding it.Read this story.Then ask yourself, “What is Light?”
Mental Multivitamin had this activity posted, so Frodo and I decided to complete it. Frodo has read way more of these books than I have (but then again, he was an English major and I was a Bio major).
