A Thanksgiving message

I recently read something about a person's first Thanksgiving with white people. At first, it just seems like the speaker is just talking about his whims about food. Then he moves past that and discusses diversity beyond food in every aspect of life.

He viewed the white people's food as unacceptable because she wasn't used to it. He was unaccustomed to things like potato salad. It just seemed weird to her at first. But he was eventually able to overlook the difference and taste it. And he eventually found out that it wasn't that bad. He even liked it.

He then moves on to discuss her cultural adaption in which she realized that people are people regardless of whether they're from her culture. He discovered that black people aren't the only ones who cook soul food.

The big thing he learned is this: diversity in culture is not to be shunned; it is to be celebrated. Instead of looking at differences as a means dividing, we should look at them as something that can unite us. Where is the spice of life without the diversity of cultures?

The big thing the speaker in this essay learned was to be open-minded. As he realized that foods he had never tasted could taste good, he realized that many other aspects of foreign cultures are desirable and interesting. So, be thankful for diversity.

Spanking

I can't hear the word "spank" without it leaving a sense of dread - albeit somewhat dimmed - in the pit of my stomach. You see, my parents used the Pearl's book, To Train Up A Child, as a basic guide in punishing my siblings and I. I won't even pretend that they were anywhere near as extreme as some parents when it comes to punishing, but I remember really hating the rod all the same. With good reason did I hate it. Spanking, especially with the instrument my parents used, is painful. And not only is it painful, but it can also be counterproductive and emotionally damaging.

 The premise of spanking for most Christian, home school parents is that it drives evil from the child, or something like that. They think that not spanking is equivalent to spoiling. If that were true, then they would be right in their punishment. But it's not true and they're often wrong in the way they punish.

 The whole point of spanking is to make sure the child won't sin next time, or transgress against what the parent has decided is wrong. Spanking is emotional conditioning that trains children to do what their parents  wish. But what happened when I was spanked was this: I developed a fear and hatred of the rod and to some degree a fear and hatred of my parents. So strong was this emotion that I was willing to lie and hide and fight back when they attempted to spank me. At one point, I think I tried to destroy the rod, which at the time was an evil instrument given to mom as a present from a fellow homeschooling mother.

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience tells me that being spanked as often as I got spanked doesn't really work. Often, the things I was being punished for paled in comparison to what  I did to escape punishment. And I was also living in constant fear that I might be punished.

After being going through all that, I had decided that I wanted to raise my children the same way. It was so ingrained in my head that I had to parent the same way or I would be doing it wrong. After one session of punishment, my mom threw me in a room and made me listen to a story about Michael Pearl and his experience spanking children. I was under ten, so I naturally believed everything that he said. Between being punished by my parents and being inundated with the Pearl's child training material, I was thoroughly convinced that this was right. I even thought it was supported with scripture because they quoted the Bible so often. Verses that say things like "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" and then another that says something to the effect that it's better to bruise a child than let him grow up to be spoiled and go to hell were used for support.

But now I think those verses and verses like them are misinterpreted. The rod of correction can easily be looked at as a metaphor for measures taken to correct a child. It may assume the form of spanking at times, but I think it generally refers the methods parents use to correct a child. Under girding this verse, the commandment to love one another as Christ has loved us must be looked at instead of  simply focusing on a verse here and there that indicates parents need to spank their children. The whole point of spanking children is to do it out of love. Love is kind. Spanking constantly is not.

One might argue that spanking as a corrective measure is done out of love. At times, this may be true. But I think in general that people focus too much on the "I have to spank my kid or he's going to hell" mentality. They should really be focusing on the child's emotional needs. The goal is not to force everyone through the same mold of spanking but to raise up emotionally healthy and stable Christians.

Spanking doesn't work the same for every kid. Some will meekly submit; others will refuse to be corrected through that means. I think it's a good rule of thumb to stop spanking your child if you have to do it constantly. He isn't learning anything except how to be resentful. You have to find another means of punishment. I actually think that positive reinforcement is far better than spanking. For instance, say Bob has been in the habit of leaving his toys laying around and you're tired of it. You could threaten to spank him if he does it again or you could find a positive means to encourage him put his toys away, perhaps something like offering to take him to the park if he puts his toys away.

Some might argue that this is inconvenient and that it's so much easier to whip out a rod and spank him. That may be convenient now, but will it be later? Bob could live in the constant fear of being spanked and thus make sure he puts his toys away, or, when he's done playing with his toys, he could remember that something good happened when he did it before. It's kind of like training a dog. For a while, you have to constantly give positive reinforcement,  but after a time you don't really have to do anything. Just whistle and the dog comes. It has learned to love you because it links you to good things. Isn't it better to do that with your kids?

In doing this, you should make sure your child knows he is loved. This means not withholding your love when they behave badly but simply rewarding them for doing what is right.

Now, I don't entirely object to spanking. The big thing in my family was the frequency of those spankings. I think it's only permissible to spank a child in extreme cases. I don't know what exactly those cases should be, but I don't think they should be minor infractions. Forgetting to put toys away should not be punished with a spanking. The spanking is to be used so sparingly that a child is like, "I'm never doing that again." It should be so infrequently that it doesn't mar every day life.

If a child is spanked to much, he also becomes desensitized to spanking. Spanking - instead of being looked at as a horrible thing that only happens very occasionally when a child has done something very wrong -simply becomes a part of life. Nothing changes this way. The child just learns to cope with it. And, of course, constant spanking can also have the effect it had on me.

If you must spank your child, then make sure they know exactly what it is that they're not supposed to do. And don't be fickle about this. If you don't want doing something and you spank them, you need to make sure they're making the connection. Just telling them "no" next time should be adequate. But under no circumstances should you spank a child repeatedly for the same offense. By repeatedly I do mean repeatedly, not just three or four times but a bunch of times. If you find yourself doing that, then you need to switch tactics.

People go on and on about parenting methods to the point where it has almost become something to undertake academically. The big thing about parenting is this: you need to love your child and make sure they know that by whatever means. If this is the case, then your child will probably want to obey you. End of problem. People just like making things complicated and painful.

Thanksgiving

 It's always humbling for me to hear the things for which people are thankful. I feel bad for having many things that I don't give a second thought. People love comparing us to people in Africa, saying, "oh, look how much we have compared to them. We need to be more grateful." Although I think we need to be thankful for everything we have, I think there is a truer sense of thanksgiving in people who barely have anything than people who have a feast that is simply part of a tradition. People who expect much will only be happy if they receive greater than or equal to what they expect. The same is true for people who expect little. The difference is the expectations. And yet there seems to be a undercurrent of feeling in my church and many others that we are expected to be far more grateful than people who have less. This expectation is not founded in logic. People who have less are often more thankful for the little they receive than people who have much and also receive much.

Take, for instance, the poor African man who is on his last loaf of bread (or whatever they eat in Africa). Upon receiving a turkey for Thanksgiving, he will be ecstatic. His American counterpart will pay a trip to the local Wal-mart to purchase such a turkey without giving it a second thought. The difference is in the level of expectation. If the African man expects to starve, the turkey will come as a welcome relief. If the American man expects to pick up a turkey because he does it every year out of habit, then it will be just that: a habit. This doesn't make him a bad person for not being as grateful as the African man; it simply makes him normal.

I can remember my mom telling me that I needed to be grateful I had a bed. I felt guilty because I honestly didn't feel that grateful. I knew I should feel grateful. I even thanked God for my bed, though, perhaps without the proper sincerity. I've come to realize that not appreciating my bed like I should is normal. I was raised with a bed. I've never been without one. It's only natural that I look at it as just another part of life. 

But it is good to look around us and list all the things for which we are thankful. Take any one item, subtract it from your life, and imagine life without it. Often, we are forced to do this anyway due to power outages and natural disasters. These events can be beneficial in that respect. The point is to realize how many things you have that make your life easier. The list is long.Though, as I've explained, this long list does not mean that we should be more grateful.

 Here in America, we are focused on tradition, especially in reference to Thanksgiving. We have to have our turkey with all the trimmings, mashed potatoes, pumpkin pie and any number of dishes that families have included as their traditional Thanksgiving dishes. This sense of normalcy is healthy. In a world that dangerously fluctuates every day, having that one thing you can lean on for a sense of balance is stabilizing. 

Some people may feel that becoming entangled in tradition distracts from the goal of Thanksgiving. The goal of Thanksgiving, however, is, not to remember the pioneers and all that (though remembering them is good), but to recognize that for which we are thankful. What better time to realize that than when we're having a veritable feast? We surround ourselves with food, family, and games as a reminder of the good things in life, things for which we are thankful. We may encounter times in life when we see little to be thankful for, but not this time of year. This time of year we enjoy ourselves in remembrance of all the things with which we are blessed. 

Rules

In the course of our lives, we come across many rules, rules which we find annoying and cumbersome. Rules in general are used to guide a person's actions so that they can peacefully exist with other humans. As such, rules serve a vital function. However, I think people get lost in interpreting rules such as the ones in the Bible to the extent that they entirely miss the point of the rules themselves.

Man inherently knows what is evil and what is good. Thus, long lists of rules are unnecessary. However, God decided to interpret some of what we inherently know into some rules called the Ten Commandments. He did that because he is merciful, not because we don't know what to do. Then, as an act of further mercy, He wrote, or actually had Moses write, the book of Deuteronomy. I've read Deuteronomy and found it to be extremely meticulous, almost painfully so, in its descriptions of exactly what to do in every circumstance. I also noticed that a good portion of it is common sense. Jesus said that loving the Lord, and by extensions your neighbor, is the greatest commandment on which the law and the prophets hang, or something like that.

However, when people are interpreting laws and other similar things in the Bible, they seem to be missing one essential thing: they are missing that the application of all these laws and rules should simply be an outward manifestation of trying to love your neighbor as yourself.

From my observation, I think that many Christians, whether consciously or not, operate on the premise that they must figure out exactly what the Bible says to do in every situation so that they will be doing what God wants. Such devotion to studying the Bible that is the inevitable result of such a wish is still valuable. I'm not trying disparage the value of Bible study. The Bible has a wealth of information, accumulated over the course of about fifteen hundred years. Such a book is a marvel simply because it was written over such a long period of time by so many authors who ranged from fishermen to doctors. I think the Bible is an invaluable source of wisdom, but the single most important piece of wisdom in it is the commandment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. All other aspects of the Bible are accumulated wisdom that enumerate the results when people loved their neighbors and when they didn't and what happened as a result in each case.

 It's so easy to rely on the Bible to guide in every circumstance because you can interpret it to mean almost anything you want. A group of people can all look at the same Bible verse and come away with many different interpretations. Naturally, there are people who will misinterpret the Bible just to justify their own purposes.Thus is why, to some degree, much of what the Bible says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It was written a long time ago when traditions and customs were far different. The general message never changes but it's interpretation from society to society must. For instance, it's not acceptable to stone your child because he has disobeyed you like it was in biblical times. We just don't do that. There would be a lot of dead children if we did.

You can find a Bible verse that will justify almost anything now matter how heinous, depending on the way you interpret it. The Bible is an excellent book, but we are each born with an inherent sense of right and wrong that is even more excellent. No amount of Bible study will replace that. And it's also important to remember that all rules should be balanced with the commandment to love one another.

Just another industry

By some ill-luck, I was stuck having my pastor teach my Sunday school class one time. It was kind of weird. He didn't seem as confident as he should have been and the way he dealt with it was kind of weird too. I think he ended up saying something to the effect that he worked just for the big bucks. Perhaps the exact words were, "that's what I get paid the big bucks for," in response to someone admiring his erudition. Though intended as a joke, what he said couldn't be closer to the truth.The church has evolved from the body of believers that Christ established to an industry. (I do understand that the body of believers makes up Christ's church. I'm simply referring to church as we know it.)

Pastors are paid, some more than others, to fulfill what they profess to be their calling in life. I think they are missing something. They are servants of Christ, right? They are commanded to be Christ-like in all their behavior. As people who are supposed to be spiritual leaders, pastors especially should be setting an example for the rest of us. But what do they do? They turn teaching God's word and serving Him into a job. What's more, they accept payment for doing this and in some cases a lot of payment.

Christ's example of living a sinless live is impossible to follow, but his example of not being a paid preacher is not. He didn't live a sinless, abstemious life so that pastors hundreds of years later could grow rich preaching about Him. If He was thrown into a rage because he found "those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves and the moneychangers seated" in  the temple, then I think he would be upset about pastors leeching off their congregations for a living (John 2).

The Catholic church is an especially good example of the church or the pastor benefiting from the people in an unbiblical way. The Catholic church sells indulgences so that people can have their sins forgiven. Everything about this is wrong. God is the only one who can forgive sins. Period. The Catholic church is using indulgences as yet another way of leeching off the people.

Of course, not all churches are that bad. At my church, there are offering boxes for people to put there money. We don't do the plate thing (thank God!). And our former pastor has even preached a sermon about how we should not "give grudgingly or of necessity for God loves a cheerful giver." So, people know they don't HAVE to give.  But they still give plenty so that the pastor can be supported. But the pastor should be serving without having to be paid. It's not a sacrifice to be paid to preach. Or at least, it's not a monetary sacrifice.

Preaching has become a normal job, a job intended to entertain audiences. You'll notice that the big, entertaining churches are the ones that attract huge audiences. The reason for this is fairly obvious. People enjoy being entertained. Pastors in turn are forced to pick what they wish to be: crowd pleasers and well-paid or persons who are honest about he what they believe and consistent in their refusal of pay for a ministry that they are called by God to perform.

 In this respect, the church has become like any other industry. I really don't think this is what Christ intended when he established his church.

Auditioning

Something annoying happened at my church a few years ago. We had a special service all about church music. In this service, we were informed that anyone who wants to do special music has to audition. Well okay, those weren't the exact words. We needed to be listened to before we actually performed. I find this offensive.

Every person has a different degree of musical talent. It seems wrong to spot check them because that may make them feel like it's a competition. Performing church music shouldn't be a competition. The goal is to glorify the Lord. This doesn't have anything to do with talent. If someone feels led to sing or play something for the congregation, they should be allowed to do so regardless of how bad it may sound.

I know most people like listening to good music, so I can sort of understand why the church wants to screen music before hand. But is it worth possibly offending some people?

This new request to hear special music in advance is weird because some of the church musicians don't even perform that well themselves. Shouldn't they be "screened" too? It seems unfair to let regular musicians who play badly continue to play and to make those who wish to play an occasional special audition.

Suffice to say this: church worship is not a supposed to be a concert; it's supposed to be a time for glorifying the Lord. Anything that takes away from that goal should be eliminated.

The dangers of smoking

That smoking is detrimental to one's health is well-established. But I think there's something more dangerous. You see, there are many people who believe that there is something morally wrong with smoking. And apparently, there are even people who believe that something about smoking makes one an unbeliever. I guess the big thing, though, is that people, especially church people, generally look down on smoking. But I think the stigma attached to smoking is unfounded.

That smoking can be detrimental to one's health is well-established. Multiple lung diseases and other health problems have been linked to smoking. However, these problems because of smoking generally occur because of excessive smoking. Someone who smokes a cigar every month or every week will probably not suffer the negative effects of smoking. Thus, smoking is only detrimental to one's health when it is excessive.

 Another common objection to smoking is the smell. Once again, someone will probably not smell bad unless they smoke excessively. Besides that, who's to say that smoke smells bad? I think some cigars and cigarettes stink, but I also think that some smell fine, even good. It's all a matter of opinion. If someone chooses to smoke occasionally because they enjoy it and enjoy the smell, there's really nothing wrong with that.

 I do understand, of course, that constant smoking is usually indicative of an addiction to nicotine. Such an addiction is certainly not good. However, it is simply evidence of a deeper problem. I have heard many smokers say that smoking helps them deal with the stress in life. Everyone has a way of dealing with stress. Smokers have found their way. It may not be healthy, but it's what they know to do. Smoking is their natural response to stress and this should not be looked down on.
                                                                                                                                                                    I can think of many parents who are terrified of smoking because they're afraid their children will grow up to be smokers. I remember finding a cigarette in my oldest brothers drawer. I was terrified, which says a lot about the way I was trained to look at cigarettes and smokers. I immediately notified my parents. They had a meeting with him about it. In retrospect, I think he was just trying to make them nervous. I know now that he is far more careful if he wishes to keep something a secret. He was testing them. They didn't pass.

Parents in general should not have to worry about their kids becoming addicted to nicotine because people generally grow addictions as a coping mechanism. If children have already developed healthy coping mechanisms, then they are far less likely to succumb to a smoking addiction.

Several years ago when I was in high school, I bought my first cigar from a fellow classmate. For some reason I thought something bad would happen, so I sealed it in a envelope and hid it. But as I looked at that little cigar around which so controversy has been centered, I realized that cigar are not evil. They're not even a problem. The use of cigarettes, like the use of anything, can and is abused. Some people have looked past that and treated the symptoms while ignoring the disease.

A family or an orphanage?

If you've ever watched the Duggar's TV show, then you've probably seen them getting out of their bus in a long procession while bystanders stare. And no wonder people stare. The Duggars have an abnormally large family. But they're not the only ones. A family named the Andersons from my church is gigantic. Unlike the Duggars, however, most of their children are adopted. They've adopted kids from multiple countries, at one time adopting an entire family, minus the parents. This brings up a question in my mind: is that family and others like it really a family? Or is it an orphanage?

An orphanage collects an unwanted child usually after the death of that child's parents. That's exactly what this family has done on multiple occasions. They simply find some kids that need adopting and adopt them, integrating them into an already bloated family. I don't think this is all bad. No doubt, the kids are better off than they were before. But do these parents really have the emotional support that these kids need?

These kids have moved from another country. They are already experiencing cultural shock. And then they get added to an abnormally large family. Cultural shock is bad enough without the added confusion of being in one of America's freakiest families. Instead of quietly transitioning into a normal family (and I know that term is relative), these kids are forced to undergo the extra emotional exhaustion of having to put up with something like twenty siblings.  

After perhaps being abused their whole lives, these kids are thrown into a mega family that is really more like an orphanage. Dealing with emotionally damaged kids is no easy matter. And that difficulty is compounded when there are about ten adopted children and ten biological children in that family. I simply cannot see how children who have undergone perhaps horrible things can ever thrive in such a family. Of course, to some degree, the kids decide how well they thrive. It's just better when the conditions in which they live are conducive to healing and not confusion.

And then there's the aspect of time. Parents only have so much time. Even parents with just a few kids have trouble spending the amount of time they need with their kids. Parents with twenty children have literally no way of doing this. They may care for their children better than some parents, but by having so many children, these parents guarantee that they won't have an adequate amount of time to spend with each child.There are two parents who divide there attention among twenty children.I cannot imagine these parents spending very much time with their children on a one on one basis regularly..

As a result, I think some of the children are attention starved. It's just something I've noticed about them. It's not all of the children but a few noticeably. Like one kid latching onto a conversation that really seemed stupid.  And I've noticed some of the girls hiding behind their younger siblings because they're really awkward associating with normal people. The older girls also get to mother a few children, which is a pretty big sacrifice for teenage girls. I guess they function as the hired help in the orphanage except that they're not hired. They have to help with their family. That's what good Christian girls from homeschooling families do.

All in all, I don't disapprove of what they're doing. The kids are better of than they might be otherwise. I just question whether families like that are really families and not orphanages.

The last shall be first

If you've ever been in a big family, you probably know some of the perks and drawbacks. You generally have playmates all the time. You never feel alone. Although that could be looked at as a drawback. And then you have the drawbacks, one of which is loosing some of your identity.

I can't tell you how annoyed I was when people walked up to me and called me by one of my siblings names. I can't really say why it annoys me so much. It might have to do with feeling like people view me as a copy of someone else. To me this means that I don't really have my own identity.

Martin Luther King Jr. expressed a similar sentiment in his Birmingham Jail letter. I'm including the entire sentence in which this sentiment is found and highlighting the part that is especially relevant. In this letter he writes, "But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience."

( Just in case anyone is wondering, MLK is writing to a group of white clergymen in response to their criticism of his methods of promoting change in America.)

In the highlighted part, MLK is venting his irritation at people not addressing colored people properly. The part I especially liked was when he said your first name becomes nigger. When you're in a large family and associating with other large families, you will get called by your last name. "Oh look. There's a Clark." I can't tell you how irritating that phrase has become. I know people aren't being malicious, but I still find it annoying. We have have first names for a reason, people: so we won't all have to be called by our last names. Just in case you missed it, the last name becomes the first name, hence the title.

It's what brings us together

I've noticed something about attendance at church. When we have a potluck, there are usually more people. Usually, chairs have to be set up in the back just because of the potluck. I think this really says something about people, probably people in general not just church people.

Food is a necessity. Without it, we would die.  Food is such an essential aspect of life that Jesus compared himself to food when he said that he was the bread of life. People come to church to learn about Jesus and how he is the bread of life so that they can live forever. And they come to fellowship. But what I'm wondering is whether the perishable food is more important to some people than the bread of life.

 It's kind of funny. I remember a man who use to go to our church on occasion, and he had a daughter who was always trying to get him to go to church. I think I remember him telling her that he would come to the potluck Sunday. This was a while ago, so I can't vouch for exactly how accurate that memory is. But I can definitely remember that the guy ended up coming to church mostly for the potluck Sunday.

I think his attitude towards church was just an amplified version of the attitude that many church people have. Why else would attendance jump for the potluck Sunday? It's impossible to say what their real motivation is, but I strongly think food is a major motivation for coming to church.

Food shouldn't be a major church attraction. If people are coming for the food, there is a major problem. The motivation for coming to church should be meeting with the body of believers for mutual support and encouragement and all that. Remove food from my church, and the attendance would probably drop. That's not good.

An Abnormal Trinity

I find it odd that there are three pastors at my church of between three and four hundred people. Although the retired pastor shouldn't count, he carries the most weight of the three of them. Then, there's the staff pastor. I view his ministry as the most effective of the ministries of the three pastors. He visits the sick, acts as a mediator between parties at the church, and handles the cleaning and up keep of the church. Then, of course, there's the primary pastor, the one who does the preaching. I don't know what else he does. Then, there's retired pastor. I'm still confused about what exactly his role is. To me, it seems like he's there to make sure everything measures up to his standards.

                                                                                                                                                                    I think this arrangement is unhealthy. If all three pastors were equal, they would be able to hold each other accountable. They are not equal. The retired pastor has control of almost everything that goes on at church. He lets others do things for him, like preach, but he still has control. He was very careful to select someone who will do what he wants. And he's there in church every Sunday to make the sermons measure up to his standards. 

                                                                                                                                                                    Our former pastor has been close to the staff pastor for many years, tutoring him. At one point, I think he planned on making this guy the preacher. It didn't work out though because people didn't really like his voice or his teaching. And so the pastor had to find someone who did a good job preaching. His first protege idea didn't work out so he found a second protege, a good speaker.

                                                                                                                                                                But I believe the way they went about finding a new pastor was wrong. The whole search for the new pastor was dictated by the old pastor. Obviously, he was looking for a copy of himself or something pretty close. The problem with this is too much inbreeding. Many Universities don't let their graduates return as teachers for this reason. They want fresh, new people who will diversify the teaching and introduce new perspectives.

Our new pastor does have a different opinion about our church than he expresses. But I think he's too weak to stand up against the old pastor and let him know that things need to change. I guess that means the old pastor wins. He picked someone who will carry on his legacy, someone who will almost be his clone.

Hail Awana

Growing up, I can remember liking Awana. What's there not to like about games, singing, listening to stories, reciting Bible verses, and buying cheap toys with Awana dollars? I really did enjoy it as a kid because Awana is designed to appeal to kids, to what kids want. Its professed purpose is to "reach boys and girls with the gospel of Christ and train them to serve Him." I just think they go about it in an ineffective way.

The rewards system operates like this: you take the book they give you, learn the verses, recite the verses to your leader, and collect points which translate into Awana dollars which you can spend on stuff at the Awana store which happens two or three times a year. I think this method of positive reinforcement undermines the goal of Awana. Kids are taught that if they learn verses they will receive a reward. Obviously for a kid the real goal is to get the reward. If they have to learn the verses to do so, they will. This system makes the Bible verses second priority.

And that's not all. I've noticed that kids hardly remember the Bible verses anyway. I set records when it came to who could recite the most verses in one sitting. But I can't tell you what those verses were about. I was too fixated on the material reward to the extent that I didn't really learn the verses. I read them to myself and then tried to regurgitate them back at the listener. And in regurgitating the Bible verses, I didn't end up learning them.

It also ended up being a competition, almost, to see who could say the most verses. Extrinsic motivation is good, but not when it comes to learning verses. There shouldn't be a competition to see who can say the most verses because that distracts from the goal as well. Recently, I was watching how the leader of Awana at my church was introducing the teams and the number of points each had. It was very clear that the teams who got the most points were cheered on more.

The way the Awana song goes also seems to indicate that the purpose of Awana is not what it claims. Part of the song goes, "Hail Awana on the march for youth. Hail Awana holding forth the truth." so I guess it's Awana that is teaching the truth not Christ. Well he is mentioned in the passage of the song that says "our Savior following with steps unfaltering." The grammatical structure of the song and the way it's sung originally led me to believe that our Savior was following us (I was just a little kid). If you look at that entire sentence of the song, you can see that we are following our Savior, but that wasn't especially clear to me growing up. I don't really know what the real purpose of Awana really is or what the effect is. It didn't do much for me. To me, it seems like Awana is too focused on the Awana program and not the goal of that program.

A Deadly Vaccine

I think many couples at my church pride themselves on how well they've raised their children. I remained confused, however, when it comes to seeing what makes their kids better than others. Okay, so they know a few Bible verses. They've been trained in the art of repeating arguments for Biblical creation. They claim to be Christians. The problem is this: these kids have been  drowned in Christian propaganda and not given much of a chance to think for themselves. I believe this inundation with Christian material is the primary reason so many kids are leaving the church when they get to college. At some point they realize that what they've been told their whole lives doesn't make sense. They realize this because they never really had to think about it; they were simply told what to believe. This form of teaching kids is counterproductive for several reasons.

My question to parents who do this to their children is this: why do you primarily present only one view, the view of Christianity, to your children? It makes no sense to bolster only one side of an argument. Children should be very familiar with the major religions in the world in addition to atheism and agnosticism. The value of knowing both sides of an argument is that you can better defend your position and better understand those who disagree with you.

If these parents are afraid of making their children unbelievers, they shouldn't be. If they truly believe their position is the strongest, they shouldn't have to worry about there kids exploring the different sides of an argument. If they believe the Bible holds together under careful scrutiny, they shouldn't have to worry about their kids trying to poke holes in the logic of the Bible.

When children are given a comfortable environment to learn the Bible, they don't feel as great a need for salvation. They've had such great exposure to the Bible that it doesn't hold as much interest for them. They may have ingrained habits of reading it and studying it, but they can't always look at it from the prospective of someone who feels the true need to repent. They are already living like Christians, to all appearance. They don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or engage in promiscuity. In some ways, this is worse than if they had done those things.

When Jesus' disciples were complaining that he let a whore near Him, he explained things to them. They disdained her, no doubt. They viewed her as the scum of society, but Jesus viewed her as someone who had repented of her sin with a full realization of her guilt. He explained to His disciples that she loved Him more because she was forgiven more. Thus, it would almost be better for everyone to go through a time in their lives when they engage in things they believe are wrong so that they can feel like they have something they need to repent of.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not recommending that people sin so that they can be forgiven more. Ideally, each person should realize the magnitude of his sins without having to add on to them. It is just easier for people to see their sin if they sin more or engage in worse sins.

By creating artificial Christians, these parents are really inoculating their kids against Christianity. The thing is (for the purposes of this metaphor), Christianity is the disease and constant inundation with Christian propaganda is the vaccine. In effect, parents are exposing their kids to enough of the gospel that they are becoming immune to it. 

This is worse than atheism. At least with atheism the atheist acknowledges that there is no God, and thus, arguably, he can be convinced that there is one. With fake Christians, one can't know to try to convince them and they can't know how badly off they are.

Like I said above, parents should really expose their children to all kinds of teaching, with, of course, a healthy dose of Christianity. They should even ask their children why they believe what they believe, not simply tell them the reasons to believe something.

Now, I realize that this doesn't apply to all parents or all children. I have no doubt that there are true believers who were raised with a one sided view of Christianity. I also have no doubt that there are many bad people who stay bad throughout their lives and are never converted to Christianity. All I'm doing is promoting thought and a thorough investigation of all aspects of an argument.

Shunning

I've been going to my church for seventeen years. That's a long time. In that time, I made a few friends here and there but no lasting connections. At first I thought it was just me, and I'll admit, it could be partially me. Then I realized I wasn't the only one. The church, consciously or not, picks and chooses exactly who it will accept. I didn't make the cut.

Just last week, an elderly gentlemen from my church died. While he was alive, I noticed him a few times and he seemed really lonely. At meals, people didn't really sit by him unless it was necessary. He seemed like a fairly nice guy. He traveled from a different city each week to help with Bible clubs when they were going on. He came to speak to groups of kids at the church to explain things about creation. Apparently, though, nobody cared enough to sit by him at meals and get to know him.

I understand that people like being in their comfort zones. I am human. But this guy traveled from a distant city and rented a hotel room for the weekend several weeks in a row just so he could help with Bible clubs. The least people could have done was thank him and at least try to get to know him. I realize that I'm as guilty as anyone else, but our church as a whole has done this before, probably long before I came around.

In my experience, I had a hard time connecting because I wasn't into football like the other guys. Yes, that's pretty much the sum total of their conversations with only occasional deviations. Trying to sit by them was pointless and awkward. On occasion, they felt the need to talk to me about other things. I always got the feeling, though, that they were intimidated by me. I have no earthly reason why.

I'm not a difficult person to talk to. Perhaps I'm not the most loquacious person, but it seems like I always have felt shunned at church, whether because of me I don't know. I guess it has to be me to some extent. I think the big thing is that my personality just doesn't lend itself to talking mostly of football and studying the Bible academically. I wish to do something more meaningful than simply going to church and trying to learn all I can. Learning is good, but it isn't an end in and of itself. I honestly can't and don't wish to talk sports. Maybe the whole situation is my fault. Maybe I need to become an expert on sports so I can socialize at church.

Avoidance

If you're like most normal humans, then you've probably experienced being taken advantage of at some time or other. It's not fun. Not only is it inconvenient in the short term, but also it can be inconvenient in the long term if you allow the person taking advantage of you to continue. It's frustrating too when you finally figure out what's going on. This is how it went for me:

I seemingly nice lady named Matilda Shuttlesworth joined my church fairly recently. Matilda made a big splash the first year by asking the church to announce that she needed help on her property. She was a widow and we're supposed to help orphans and widows. Now, as you know, my church isn't the best. They did, however, decide to help this women.

Thus, as a large group of about thirty people, we went out to her house to help her. She wanted people to basically clean up the wreckage of a house that had been demolished so she could build herself a house there. She knew she would need people with that capability, so she targeted three contractors with the equipment to accomplish this. It took three Saturdays with this devoted group to finish the job. When everyone was done, it was kind of awkward because she thanked people but not in a very heartfelt way. I mean, we worked three whole days just to do this for her.

Being the compassionate person that I am, I tried to look for ways to justify this somewhat cold thanks. I decided she had just moved here. She wasn't settled. She was new. She didn't have a job yet. Thus, it was fine for her to be rude. That may not have been my conscious thought process, but I think that's how I justified it.

Anyway, Matilda diligently came to church and seemed to make a few friends. In the course of socializing, she began to repeat her sob story of how her husband died in a car wreck. At that point, everyone wanted to help her. Her spell was cast. Now all she had to do was move in for the kill.

Being an innocuous person, I was surprised to find myself talking to her, the woman who became an overnight superstar because her husband died in car crash. In the course of the conversation, she mentioned how she was planning on building a shed. And I was thinking, "what an odd conversation." And then she mentioned not having time to do it herself because she had just moved here and was still living in an apartment while her house was being built. By that time, I was able to take the hint and offer to help her even though I was busy at the time.

Once again, she took advantage of one of the contractors at church to head it up. Suffice to say that the shed was big. "Perhaps not paying for labor made it more accessible for her to get", I thought. I though she was visibly impressed with my diligence and I was happy to be done with that job and get back to my life.

She had other plans. After her house was built, I got stuck in another one-sided conversation with her in which she started talking about how dirty her house was and how it needed to be cleaned before she moved in and how it was just her and her five-year old son. I knew what she wanted. So much for that Saturday. Yes, I cleaned her house, and I promised myself this was the last time.                                                                                       
I found out later that this woman had a half-million dollar life insurance policy from  her husband's death in additions to a nice car and a house where she used to live. There are few people at church who are in better condition than her as far as finances go. It also occurred to me that she hadn't done anything that I could tell since she had come to my church. She may have helped with a few things here and there but she hadn't done anything noticeable. She made no contribution. She took so much. I avoided her from then on.

Now, in narrating these events, you probably saw everything coming. I didn't when they were happening, and that's the big point. When you're a victim of one of these manipulators, it's much harder for you to notice. When she talked about me cleaning her house, it seemed like the most natural thing in the world. When she announced that she needed help clearing rubble, it seemed like such a great outreach.


Don't get me wrong here. Helping people is good, even if they don't ever do anything for you. What's wrong is asking a church for help when you can afford to pay someone to help and probably not feel it. What's wrong is taking advantage, receiving but not giving. Good relationships consist of mutual benefit. If you don't find that in a relationship, then discontinue that relationship. If you must go to church with this person, avoid them as much as possible. If you must talk to them, don't let them con you into helping again. Don't let them direct the conversation; you do that. If they do manage to bring up helping them, make sure you have some important excuses memorized that don't have a short shelf life.

Most importantly, try to be nice about it. It may help to think of it as a game. You don't want to let them dominate the conversation. You want to have back-up strategies if they do. You also should feel sorry for these people. How can they establish real relationships based on only themselves and their needs? It seems like an unhealthy dynamic that not many people would put up with. Remember that these people are people just like you and me. They have problems, and they need help just like us. 

A Modest Proposal part 1

Although I can't present as flawless an argument as Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, I hope to present a view of modesty that many in the homeschool group have perhaps missed. You see, there are people who believe that girls must wear floor length dresses as a show of modesty. The central idea of dressing modestly is to not attract attention. By definition, modesty is the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate. In dressing this way, these people have missed the point of modesty.

Look at a floor length dress. Does the word moderate come to mind? A floor length dress is anything but moderate. On a scale of mini skirts to floor length dress, the floor length dress is an extreme.


When you're shopping at Walmart and you see a woman in a floor length dress, what do you usually think? I can almost guarantee that you will take notice of this woman. In doing so, you are negating her goal in dressing modestly, if her goal is to be modest. But somehow, I have a feeling her real goal is not modesty. Sweeping along in a magnificently long dress, she intends to draw attention to how modest she is.


These people argue that dressing otherwise is dressing like the world. Well, is there anything especially wrong with the way the world dresses? There are people who dress like whores, but they certainly aren't a majority. Most people manage to dress in a way that doesn't draw any special attention to them, but these homeschoolers have missed that. They falsely believe that modesty requires long dresses. Thus, they parade in those anachronistic relics of regime long past with the narrow-minded belief that dressing otherwise is wrong. 


I think that one argument in particular says that dressing in modern clothes draws to much attention to the body. Here's the problem with that: dressing in a huge, showy dresses attracts much more attention than dressing in jeans and a tee shirt. And if you have more attention, you also have more attention directed at your body. Once again, the intention of dressing modestly is compromised.


Another argument is being an example to the world of how to dress. This is overtly immodest. I don't know how many people think this, but it's a thoroughly self-defeating idea. Rather than quietly going about their modest lives, these people have decided to parade the way they dress before the world in an attempt to convert people. How they manage to miss the hypocrisy of this amazes me. Trying to get attention is not modest. Trying to get attention to convince people to be modest like you is hypocritical.