Calvinism

I really hadn't noticed how many Calvinists there are. I didn't even know that my pastor was a Calvinist until I overheard him mention something about free will. I immediately decided that was wrong. I've thought about it, and it does make sense in a backwards sort of way. But the there's a big problem with Calvinism that I think supersedes most of the other problems. Calvinism is a neat little, five-point summary of everything about God and us. It lays out an exact doctrine that defines everything, even things far beyond the realm of Salvation. Calvinism seems to claim that it has all the answers.

The problem with that is that we cannot ever define everything like that. We don't fully understand ourselves or God or the relationship between us and God. Calvinism explains all of that in a way that mostly makes sense. That should be a hint that something is wrong.

I understand that people want things to make sense, but not everything makes sense. God can't be put in a little box, or in this case a TULIP (an acronym for the five points of Calvinism). He is much bigger than we can ever understand. I don't have a problem with people seeking to know God better; I just have problem when people act like they have it all figured out.

Misinterpreting the Bible

People always have some Bible verse to support their position on something. There's always some obscure verse that nobody knew about until they used a concordance to look up something to support a position they'd already taken on something. I think the whole "but the Bible says so" is a load of garbage. Sure, the Bible says a lot of things to aid us in our walk with Christ, and all of them can be helpful. Here's the thing, though: people misread and misinterpret the Bible all the time.

If you want to beat your child, yeah, you can find a verse that supports bruising your child. If you want to  make your wife obey you, you can find a verse to support the wife being subservient to the husband. If you want to find support for President Obama being the anti-Christ, you'll probably find support for that too.

The point is, people use the Bible, by manipulating and misinterpreting it, to accomplish their dishonorable goals. The people who do this are mostly professing Christians. They're the ones who know the Bible well enough to use it to bolster their flawed arguments.

Do Hard Things

I received a copy of Alex and Bret Harris's book Do Hard Things. At the time, I was very in to trying to be a good Christian boy, so I was really excited about their book. Their book isn't bad; but looking at it now, I see that it's mostly common sense. The premise of the book is to push yourself to do you things you didn't think you could, to grow as an individual and in your walk with Christ. That's a good premise, and I'm glad they wrote their book. But why is there so much hype about a book filled primarily with common sense?

Yes, the only way to grow as individual is to take yourself out of your comfort zone and do hard things. That's common sense though. That's all there is to say really.

I'm glad people like this book, but the advice in it isn't original. People have been pushing themselves to do hard things since before the Harris' boys were born. They have been providing examples through their lives since, well, probably the beginning of the world.

By the way, the book consists primarily of examples of people doing hard things and the results. That's cool, but you can just look around you to see that kind of stuff.

A constant flow of words

Some people just can't stop talking. You wonder why their presence seems to usher in a host to feast on (mentally), and then you realize that it's because they can't stop talking. It's like a disease. They find someone who is less of talker and unload on them. This can't be good.

Why would someone want to talk so much? Could it be that they just like hearing their voice? I don't think it's a consideration for the person of whom I'm thinking. Do they just feel like everyone want's to know everything about them? Well, maybe, but probably on a subconscious level if at all. Is it to fill the silence? No. They never hear silence because they're always talking.

Whatever their motives may be for talking constantly, they do change the effect of talking all the time. When someone has to tell a person whom they barely know about which sealant they used on their floor or what kind of grapes they bought at the store, there's a problem. Sure, people make small talk. This isn't just small talk, though; it's the primary topic or topics of conversation. As much as we would love to know what kind of shampoo you use and how often you shave your legs, you really don't have to tell us. Maybe we'd like to get to know the person behind the mouth.

It's also kind of  statement of this person's pride. "I'm so much more interesting than you that I'm going to talk this whole time and not give you a chance because I know you want to hear about me. I don't really care about getting to know you." That's what I imagine people like that saying when they can't close their mouth during a conversation. This undermines the listener's worth.

I do know that there are some people who are genuinely just too extroverted to close their mouths. But these people are little bit different in my opinion. They have seem to have a genuine exuberance about seeing other people, which you can tell by the way their face lights up when they meet a friend. And then their natural (habitual) response of pouring out love translates into a flow of words. They just have so much to tell you since the last time you two met. Those people are fine. It's really just those people who can't stop talking about completely pointless stuff that I'm talking about.

Well, that was kind of a hasty look at talkers. I know there's much more to analyze, but I'm out of time for now.

Homeschooling and test scores

As you know, I was homeschooled. One aspect of homeschooling was the standardized tests me and my siblings took each year. At one point, I think this test was composed of half-day tests for three days in a row. Such a battery of tests is especially good for homeschoolers because it lets them see were they stand with respect to other kids. However, there are many families that see this annual testing as an invasion of their privacy and a waste of time. After all, shouldn't parents be allowed to teach their children as they see fit? In the ideal situation, parents want their children to do the best they can academically and probably wouldn't need the government to make sure they're doing a good job. Let's face it though: not all parents are capable - or willing - to educate their kids adequately. Thus, it is a good idea for the government to at least let parents know how their children measure up.

This test is an easy test. It's not the SAT or ACT. They're not analyzing advanced reasoning skills. All they want to know is whether the kids can read and do some  math, really basic math. If your child doesn't measure up, you could chalk it up to not testing well, or you could realize that your teaching isn't adequate. This test is an excellent opportunity to measure your child's skills, and you don't have to pay for it - directly, anyway.

Also, standardized tests of any kind are just good. You can learn all you want and be a genius, but if you don't take standardized tests, colleges don't have a way to measure your skills and aptitude. Stanford, for example, recommends SAT subject tests for homeschoolers because that's a way for homeschoolers to show what they've learned. And there are also AP and Clep exams. These tests allow homeschoolers to study on their own and yet have a legitimate way to measure their learning.

Some people oppose this idea because they think that giving a child a score is like measuring his worth. After all, some kids are smarter than others, and you don't want to make the dumb kids feel bad, right? But the thing that's interesting is this: the score only goes to your family and perhaps select organizations. Thus, any measure of worth is really going to take place in your family. This means that the parents and siblings of the kids are probably the only ones who will be seeing the scores and measuring the kid's worth. In this case, the issue is not with the kid's test score being measured against that of his siblings but everything about him being compared to his siblings. You see what I'm saying? Families don't decide to compare just test scores. If they're comparing test scores, then they're probably comparing many other things. Thus, the issue is with the family.

Tests are good.

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.