Sunday, June 28, 2009
Just for fun - one of my favorite spots! (Click on this title and see why!)
Last year about this time I went home to Honolulu, called my wife and stood before the camera waving to her while I talked to her. Closest I've come to Skype, I think:) Image takes about 10 seconds or so to reach Florida.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
In Tribute to the Jailer
When I was stationed on Okinawa shortly after the earth began to cool, I made friends with a young second lieutenant and former Vietnamese linguist known to those of you who visit his blogpage as The Jailer. He is one of the most godly men I know and his family also reflects the fragrance of Christ as few others I have known.
Two days ago he took command of the USAF Honor Guard. For those of you who may not be acquainted with the Honor Guard, let me just say that you can count on one hand the number of military positions with greater prestige and public visibility than this one (with the possible exception of the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels). Anyway,in honor of the man who has everything but gives it all in the service of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Way to go, Jailer! How you shine for Christ and for our country!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
God's Judgement and Historical Interpretation
Wow! I can't believe how long it's been since my lst post!!
Anyway, I've been reviewing God's Judgment: Historical Interpretation and Christian Faith by Stephen Keillor. The book attempts to answer a question that Christian historians/history teachers either answer glibly or not at all: Does the Bible have anything to say about how God judges nations today? Many of you have probably heard comments about 9/11 being some kind of judgment of God on America for its immorality and turning from him. And that may be true. It's difficult, however, to make a case since God has not told us as he did the prophets which nations he is judging and why. Is he actively judging or just using natural events in his work? Does his judgment also include restoration? How do we know?
Yet the Old and New Testament both provide examples and models that show us when and how God "sifts" the conduct of nations over long periods of time. Keillor uses the Hebrew idea of misphat (sifting) as a template for evaluating how God judges. He then discusses aspects of US history and asks whether these case studies exhibit God's judgments or not.
What do you think? I'm trying to cull Keillor's insights into a lesson plan(s) for my own history students and I'm interested in your own thoughts.
Anyway, I've been reviewing God's Judgment: Historical Interpretation and Christian Faith by Stephen Keillor. The book attempts to answer a question that Christian historians/history teachers either answer glibly or not at all: Does the Bible have anything to say about how God judges nations today? Many of you have probably heard comments about 9/11 being some kind of judgment of God on America for its immorality and turning from him. And that may be true. It's difficult, however, to make a case since God has not told us as he did the prophets which nations he is judging and why. Is he actively judging or just using natural events in his work? Does his judgment also include restoration? How do we know?
Yet the Old and New Testament both provide examples and models that show us when and how God "sifts" the conduct of nations over long periods of time. Keillor uses the Hebrew idea of misphat (sifting) as a template for evaluating how God judges. He then discusses aspects of US history and asks whether these case studies exhibit God's judgments or not.
What do you think? I'm trying to cull Keillor's insights into a lesson plan(s) for my own history students and I'm interested in your own thoughts.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
I read a fascinating article about a year ago from the Atlantic Monthly called Is Google Making Us Stupid?. Nicholas Carr candidly admitted an increasing inability to concentrate for very long while reading. It got me to thinking about my own tendencies. I too, have been experiencing something eerily similar to Carr's own difficulties in concentration. Like him, after a few pages in the best of books, I become antsy and lose attention. I close the book, get up, do something else, and try to refocus. I flip through a few pages and ask myself "how long is this chapter?" Fifteen minutes later it happens again.
Contrast this with my own wife who can sit through Dickens, Bronte, Austen, or Eliot for hours on end.
Carr spends much time on-line doing research for his own calling. So do I. We both see the sirens luring us into the rocks. Information is cut and pasted in short bites, with little proof or "unnecessary" detail, uncluttered by evidence, and loaded with bright colors and images.
Yep, Bright lights, big city.
And it's turning my brain to mush.
I'm beginning to understand what my students go through when they open works which they are cordially demanded to absorb. And although I have adjusted to life on the web, they have grown up with it and have been (mal)nourished by it.
Carr's gut reaction (and that of others he has spoken with) is that our brains are actually being rewired in ways that change the way we think and process information. His article reminded me of an updated version of Neil Postman's classic Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Now, of course, I know that there are some procedural methods of ensuring that our students don't overuse the web in research - limit the number of internet sources, teach them how to identify evidence, and how to think critically. Beyond these, how do we help our students and ourselves to renew rather than rewire their minds from the dangers of the google monster?
Contrast this with my own wife who can sit through Dickens, Bronte, Austen, or Eliot for hours on end.
Carr spends much time on-line doing research for his own calling. So do I. We both see the sirens luring us into the rocks. Information is cut and pasted in short bites, with little proof or "unnecessary" detail, uncluttered by evidence, and loaded with bright colors and images.
Yep, Bright lights, big city.
And it's turning my brain to mush.
I'm beginning to understand what my students go through when they open works which they are cordially demanded to absorb. And although I have adjusted to life on the web, they have grown up with it and have been (mal)nourished by it.
Carr's gut reaction (and that of others he has spoken with) is that our brains are actually being rewired in ways that change the way we think and process information. His article reminded me of an updated version of Neil Postman's classic Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Now, of course, I know that there are some procedural methods of ensuring that our students don't overuse the web in research - limit the number of internet sources, teach them how to identify evidence, and how to think critically. Beyond these, how do we help our students and ourselves to renew rather than rewire their minds from the dangers of the google monster?
Your truth place or mine?
I know this doesn't have much to do with history or social studies but it has been on my heart recently.
I recently did an in-service with the teachers at the small Christian school where I teach. One point I wanted to emphasize was the link between our thinking and our actions a la Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live theme verse "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Why is there statistically such a small margin of difference between the way our churched students behave and the way unchurched young people act? Part of the answer, I think, lies in the post-modernist tendency to relativize truth to "what matters to me." In doing so, we can then justify our behavior that "I felt like God wanted me to do this or that." or I felt that what I was doing was alright." Worse yet, it's the student who gossips in the hallway right after the lesson I gave on how to show love by the way we talk.
I marvel at the tendency of modern American Christians to think that we can arrive at biblical truth through a kind of osmosis. Josh McDowell noted in a recent video that Bible studies for the over-25 crowd seem to start with the question "what does this passage mean to me?" without first asking "what does the passage say," followed by "what did the passage mean at the time it was written (interpretation).
Perhaps part of the problem may be what Os Guiness pointed out in his book "Fit Bodies Flabby Minds." In the US particularly, there has been the tendency since the Second Great Awakening, to allow everyman to be his own interpreter, cast off all past wisdom, and even become proud of his/her spirituality in doing so. It's when you ask a person "what does your church believe?" and are met with the response "Oh, we just preach the Bible." I don't think any of us can interpret the scriptures so objectively completely free from cultural or personal biases. At worst, such a belief invites arrogance. At best, it leads to sloppy thinking.
I know part of this seems to be disconnected. But does anyone else sense that our Christian students have completely different notions of what constitutes truth than do we?
I recently did an in-service with the teachers at the small Christian school where I teach. One point I wanted to emphasize was the link between our thinking and our actions a la Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live theme verse "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Why is there statistically such a small margin of difference between the way our churched students behave and the way unchurched young people act? Part of the answer, I think, lies in the post-modernist tendency to relativize truth to "what matters to me." In doing so, we can then justify our behavior that "I felt like God wanted me to do this or that." or I felt that what I was doing was alright." Worse yet, it's the student who gossips in the hallway right after the lesson I gave on how to show love by the way we talk.
I marvel at the tendency of modern American Christians to think that we can arrive at biblical truth through a kind of osmosis. Josh McDowell noted in a recent video that Bible studies for the over-25 crowd seem to start with the question "what does this passage mean to me?" without first asking "what does the passage say," followed by "what did the passage mean at the time it was written (interpretation).
Perhaps part of the problem may be what Os Guiness pointed out in his book "Fit Bodies Flabby Minds." In the US particularly, there has been the tendency since the Second Great Awakening, to allow everyman to be his own interpreter, cast off all past wisdom, and even become proud of his/her spirituality in doing so. It's when you ask a person "what does your church believe?" and are met with the response "Oh, we just preach the Bible." I don't think any of us can interpret the scriptures so objectively completely free from cultural or personal biases. At worst, such a belief invites arrogance. At best, it leads to sloppy thinking.
I know part of this seems to be disconnected. But does anyone else sense that our Christian students have completely different notions of what constitutes truth than do we?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Biblical Integration (or whatever you want to call it)
A couple weeks ago I asked a question on another blog about what the readers thought about the issue of Biblical integration in academia - particularly in history courses. I was mildly disappointed by the lack of response - and those who did respond seemed either not to understand what I meant by Biblical (or Christian) Integration in the subjects we teach. Those who did understand what I said were skeptical of any approach that could do this principle justice - at least from what they had seen, the application of Biblical integration was sloppy at best, and dishonest at worst.
At its worst, it seems to take this approach:
Lesson on math
A verse from the Bible that a teacher digs out that has some sort of reference to a math issue
End of lesson
Is there another answer to this or are we hopelessly incapable of demonstrating that Jesus is indeed Lord of all of knowledge? Here is part of my reply on that blog:
A couple months ago I finished a history (published just last year) of the rise of the animal rights movement in England in the late 18th century, a battle in which many evangelicals participated. Their defense of the created order under God is certainly one that any teacher, Christian or not, could use in a science or history classroom (I used it today to illustrate the strands of reform that accompanied the movement against the English slave trade). The scriptural principles these defenders employed in moving anti-cruelty legislation were sound. The book’s examples became an opportunity for me to ask my 9th graders the question “how would you defend against animal cruelty on the basis of Scripture?” (I teach in a Christian school). I wasn’t surprised that none of them really could but was encouraged as they tried.This, I think, is one example of what I meant by “Christian” (or biblical) integration. It’s asking how people have lived (and are living) their lives, pursuing their callings, and changing their worlds while living out the Faith.In Government, I have used ML King, Jr.’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail to discuss the basis of the non-violent wing of the Civil Rights movement from the perspective of Dr. King’s theology. You would be amazed how many teachers believe and teach that Dr. King’s original inspiration was primarily Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance against British rule. Without ignoring that valuable evidence, I want students to understand the consequences of applying (or failing to apply) biblical truth to the situations of history in which the actors find themselves. Hopefully, these students will enter college with an appreciation of the role that theology has played in history at a time when that discipline has been marginalized.I certainly understand the reticence of many who have seen a poor “patchwork” effort in both curriculum and instruction. I hope that our continued dialogue on this issue both here and on my own blog can help us improve our ability to recognize every area of knowledge as under the Lordship of Christ.
What do you think? What are the limitations of this approach to learning and scholarship?
At its worst, it seems to take this approach:
Lesson on math
A verse from the Bible that a teacher digs out that has some sort of reference to a math issue
End of lesson
Is there another answer to this or are we hopelessly incapable of demonstrating that Jesus is indeed Lord of all of knowledge? Here is part of my reply on that blog:
A couple months ago I finished a history (published just last year) of the rise of the animal rights movement in England in the late 18th century, a battle in which many evangelicals participated. Their defense of the created order under God is certainly one that any teacher, Christian or not, could use in a science or history classroom (I used it today to illustrate the strands of reform that accompanied the movement against the English slave trade). The scriptural principles these defenders employed in moving anti-cruelty legislation were sound. The book’s examples became an opportunity for me to ask my 9th graders the question “how would you defend against animal cruelty on the basis of Scripture?” (I teach in a Christian school). I wasn’t surprised that none of them really could but was encouraged as they tried.This, I think, is one example of what I meant by “Christian” (or biblical) integration. It’s asking how people have lived (and are living) their lives, pursuing their callings, and changing their worlds while living out the Faith.In Government, I have used ML King, Jr.’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail to discuss the basis of the non-violent wing of the Civil Rights movement from the perspective of Dr. King’s theology. You would be amazed how many teachers believe and teach that Dr. King’s original inspiration was primarily Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance against British rule. Without ignoring that valuable evidence, I want students to understand the consequences of applying (or failing to apply) biblical truth to the situations of history in which the actors find themselves. Hopefully, these students will enter college with an appreciation of the role that theology has played in history at a time when that discipline has been marginalized.I certainly understand the reticence of many who have seen a poor “patchwork” effort in both curriculum and instruction. I hope that our continued dialogue on this issue both here and on my own blog can help us improve our ability to recognize every area of knowledge as under the Lordship of Christ.
What do you think? What are the limitations of this approach to learning and scholarship?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Program or process?
Recently I read Josh McDowell's "The Last Christian Generation." He has become increasingly alarmed that most of our churched young people are becoming less and less like the Jesus they worship and more and more like their unchurched peers, both in what they believe and how they apply biblical principles to their lives. I was intrigued by his contention that many youth ministries in our churches are program rather than process driven. I think what he means by program driven is that we invite young people to an activity, throw a Bible lesson at them along with some very fun stuff, and then send them home. Some of my students seem to confirm that this is how it's done. I'm not a church youth leader, so I want to be fair to those hard-working and little-appreciated youth leaders out there. Is this really the case?
By process, I think Josh is referring to the growth in Christlike character based on the word of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Unless our youth ministries make this the focus of their ministries rather than activity and Bible knowledge, the future of our Christian young people looks bleak.
I've noticed it even in my own school. Whether in chapel services or Bible courses, our emphasis on specific application of Bible truth has been weak. Even my own worldview course does not have room for application. So, what happens is that my students get a head full of knowledge, but I have no idea if they really know what to do with it.
I think I'm waking up now.
Yesterday, for our regular chapel we did something we've never done before. After about 20 minutes of excellent student-led worship (which is normal) we broke the entire student body up into small groups of 5-6. We selected the most godly students we knew and trained them in the basics of leading small groups. Then, we gave them a study on love with a strong emphasis on application. Each student wrote down a specific act that they were to do every day the following week as an application of the scriptures they studied. The leaders will informally touch base with them next week to ensure a minimum of accountability.
I have no idea what will happen next. I do know that after meeting with the leaders that they were excited about this new approach and wanted to continue it at least twice a month. Perhaps some of you out there have tried a similar approach.
By process, I think Josh is referring to the growth in Christlike character based on the word of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Unless our youth ministries make this the focus of their ministries rather than activity and Bible knowledge, the future of our Christian young people looks bleak.
I've noticed it even in my own school. Whether in chapel services or Bible courses, our emphasis on specific application of Bible truth has been weak. Even my own worldview course does not have room for application. So, what happens is that my students get a head full of knowledge, but I have no idea if they really know what to do with it.
I think I'm waking up now.
Yesterday, for our regular chapel we did something we've never done before. After about 20 minutes of excellent student-led worship (which is normal) we broke the entire student body up into small groups of 5-6. We selected the most godly students we knew and trained them in the basics of leading small groups. Then, we gave them a study on love with a strong emphasis on application. Each student wrote down a specific act that they were to do every day the following week as an application of the scriptures they studied. The leaders will informally touch base with them next week to ensure a minimum of accountability.
I have no idea what will happen next. I do know that after meeting with the leaders that they were excited about this new approach and wanted to continue it at least twice a month. Perhaps some of you out there have tried a similar approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
