Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Moving Bright Kids Forward

    The U. S. News Blog reports that schools in some states, including my home state of Florida, are making it possible for Middle School students to take advanced courses that might normally only be available in High School.

    My reaction to this is positive. Anything that improves education is a good thing. As I remember my own education at that age I know I was frequently bored and would have enjoyed some advanced placement. The one objection I would see as reasonable is one of balance. Parents need to make sure their children have a balance of activities and that they are not pursuing such advanced placements when they are really not the best thing for them at that point. But that is a matter for involved parents and observant teachers.

    On the other hand, those who object to this type of program have another reason: Minority children might be left behind. Quoting the article: “But some education experts are concerned that this trend in Florida and in other states is leaving minority students behind.” ()

    Huh? I really question the “educational” expertise of someone who can make such a claim. This is the type of thinking that will permanently prevent minorities–and majorities–from achievement. These are educators who think that because not everyone goes through the door of opportunity, there must be some discrimination going on. Check out the numbers in the article. Certainly, white students are taking more advantage of these programs, but note also that white students are the minority at some of these schools.

    Someone certainly should look into whether there are qualified students who are not pursuing such courses (and the numbers suggest there probably are) and why that should be. They should look into how one would get such students to invest their time and effort in the courses that will prepare them for the future. They should NOT look into ways of holding back the children who are taking advantage of them.

    Closing the door will absolutely help nobody. There may be an argument that money is being spent to help the bright kids at the expense of the not-so-bright. Apart from disliking the idea of making that sort of judgment except through actual performance, I think that is a bogus argument.

    Many of us don’t seem to realize it, but the world is becoming less and less friendly to those with limited education. We may glorify the people of the soil, construction workers, and manufacturing workers as the sort of salt of the earth. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the educated sometimes to look down at such people as ignorant or stupid. That is not the case. They are rather properly trained and educated for the job they perform. But those jobs are becoming less and less possible without a good education. Simply living in the world is going to require more education as time goes on.

    If schools don’t move to provide the opportunity to learn anything for any child who is capable of doing so, then everyone, including those who might be rated as “less bright” is going to pay the cost. I can’t even begin to do the work of someone like Dr. Stephen Hawking, but I am immeasurably enriched by what he has done. I’m certainly not diminished because he demonstrates how much smarter he is than I am.

    There’s a nasty tendency today to see education and opportunity as a sort of zero-sum game. If one person has more of it, the next person must necessarily have less. But the fact is that those who have some extra spark increase the opportunities available rather than taking opportunity from others.

    I’m an advocate of public education, at least in some form. But I must also advocate private schooling and home schooling. I had some of each. I would not have made it to where I am now without the opportunities provided by teachers who didn’t think that pushing one child ahead was dangerous to other children. I benefited greatly from parents who didn’t say, “We’ll just send him to the nearest school and let him do whatever they think he should.”

    Keep the existing doors of opportunity open. Open many more. Holding children back isn’t going to help anyone.

  • I Don’t Understand This

    From CBS News:

    Eighty percent of speech watchers approve of President Obama’s plans for dealing with the economic crisis. Before the speech, 63 percent approved.

    Fifty-one percent of speech watchers think the president’s economic plans will help them personally. Thirty-six thought so before the speech.

    I have mixed emotions about President Obama’s economic policies, and I had mixed emotions about President Bush’s. My point is that this isn’t about criticizing or supporting the policies.

    President Obama gives a good speech. In this case there was even some content in the speech. But it wasn’t an explanation of his policies. It didn’t tell us anything new about why such policies were necessary, or why they would help particular people. I listened to the whole thing and was impressed, but it didn’t convince me of anything I didn’t already believe and I don’t see what element in the speech would be expected to change my mind.

    So what in the speech would change enough minds to cause a 17 point jump in the percentage who approve of the president’s handling of the economy? What produced a 15 point jump in those who think the plans will benefit them personally? Presumably those numbers will drop with time, but those are still some rather hefty gains.

    I truly don’t see how this works.

  • Christian Carnival CCLXV Posted

    … at Chasing the Wind.

  • 100 Enlightening Bible Study Blogs

    According to ChristianColleges.com (link removed due to odd request by linked site), and since they include this blog, how could I argue?

    Well, besides including me, there are a number of others on the list that are on my blogroll, and several other sites that I use regularly in study.  If I have time, I’ll look over the entire list, but that won’t be a very fast process.

  • Thoughts on Leviticus 1

    I’ve now read through the first chapter of Leviticus using the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  I want to caution readers that I’m reflecting on and responding to the text of the commentary, and not just repeating it.  If I don’t identify a thought as coming from Baker (David W. Baker, author of the Leviticus portion), don’t blame him for it.  I will try to clearly identify those portions.

    I decided to add a bit to my study by trying a new way to use the Orthodox Study Bible, which I have already reviewed negatively.  Since the translation tends to annoy me, especially in the Old Testament, I’m reading the Biblical text in Greek from Rahlf’s (on which the introduction says the translation was based), and then reading just the notes from the Bible.  I’ll comment on this a bit more below.

    One theme I’m following throughout the commentary is worship.  Baker used the phrase “handbook for worship” back in the introduction (p. 4) and I want to see how he works that out.  In his comments on the first chapter, he has been very clear.  On page 24 he introduces the question “What can we take from this chapter that will help us in our worship?”  He continues with about 1 1/3 pages of discussion.  I think a key to this is his comment that:

    …The whole being, not just the intellect, would have been caught up in this celebration of worship for the God who held life itself in his hand, who gave blessings and heard prayers, and who even smelled the scent of his people’s worship.

    Is not our contemporary worship too often more cerebral than sensory, thinking about God rather than celebrating him? … (p.25, emphasis mine)

    Baker goes on to indicate that beliefs and thinking are important as well, but that we are perhaps not balanced.

    What struck me throughout, and was mentioned in other sources I read on this book as well, is that the tabernacle worship was very visual, or indeed more broadly sensory.  One doesn’t get the impression of a quiet place of meditation, or a building of one’s personal relationship.  One’s gift is public, presented in the community at a tabernacle in the center of the community, to a God who manifests his presence in that tabernacle.

    All of the introductions also emphasize how revelation comes from the tabernacle.  God shows his presence there and he speaks to the community from there.  Leviticus is largely presented as divine speech, and this speech comes from that center (Lev. 1:1).  Often we–and I am certainly guilty here–present hearing from God as an individual activity to be done in our times of devotion, personal prayer, and reflection.  Leviticus presents a very different picture of God speaking in, from, and about the various rituals of corporate worship.

    The introduction from the New Interpreter’s Study Bible points out something interesting about the structure.  They note that the book has 36 speeches of God, introducted by “the LORD said.”  In addition, there are twelve major summarizing statements which tend to divide the book into 12 parts.  These kinds of structural elements are often subject to subjective judgment (NISB points out two minor summaries as well), but do indicate an intentional and careful creation of the final form of the book, irrespective of how one dates it.

    In reading from three sources this morning, the Cornerstone commentary, the NISB, and the Orthodox Study Bible, there was one issue on which three divergent opinions were expressed.  Baker understands the laying on of hands as indicating that the animal is a substitute (p. 22), and he dismisses the idea of indication of ownership.  The NISB, on the other hand (p. 148, note on Lev. 1:4) states that this laying on of hands indicated ownership.

    The Orthodox Study Bible phrases it differently, and I think this expression is consistent with Orthodox theology.  (Perhaps one of my Orthodox readers can confirm this for me or correct any error).  It says:

    Here, the worshiper placed his hand on the head of the animal and killed it, and in so doing united with the offering; for the animal’s death became the death of the offerer. … (p. 118, comment on Lev. 1:4)

    I am going to keep those three expressions in mind as I continue this study.  Which best expresses the understanding of sacrifice in Leviticus?  In protestantism there is a certain desire to get a “pure” substitution out of Leviticus, but I don’t see that clear of an expression.  On the other hand, Baker’s comment that ownership was already indicated by the worshiper bringing the animal, so what was added by laying on hands, is a cogent criticism of the “ownership” idea.

    It seems likely to me that the idea of identification, which the OSB then carries forward to the identification of the believer in baptism with Christ’s death, is closer to the thought of Leviticus.  Milgrom (150-153), however,  makes a fairly strong case for hand-leaning as an indication of ownership, and dismisses identification because of its magical nature.  This will be one to watch and think about as my study progresses.

    As a final note, I did find the OSB much more usable when I did not read the translation.  I’m going to continue the practice of reading the scripture from the Greek and then reading the notes while ignoring the translation for awhile.

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

  • Rewarding Incompetence

    There was quite a stir recently over a rant by Rick Santelli of CNBC on the mortgage plan produced by the Obama administration. One of the claims made was that this plan was “rewarding incompetence.”

    Now without regard to context, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Where I do have a problem is with those who would cheer these words, and yet support bailing out banks and the auto industry. If you support ideas like “saving an industry as a whole,” then it is quite easy to see the mortgage plan as a means of trying to save a particular industry, rather than as a program to save those who may have made bad decisions.

    On the other hand, if one objects to saving people who have made bad decisions, then surely the executives of financial institutions and of our major auto companies qualify. What better measure of failure could one have than that the company led by a particular management team fails spectacularly and requires a government bailout. Yet even the idea of limiting compensation for those responsible meets resistance.

    As general policy, I don’t think limiting compensation is nearly adequate, nor is it good policy for the government to be trying to directly set compensation. But somewhere there is a major failure when companies are crashing, and the executives managing them are not only not fired, they find defenders who think $500,000 per year is too little pay for such failures.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ll be happy to run companies into the ground for much less than $500,000 per year.

    And it appears it’s not even a real limit. Ed Brayton today on Dispatches points out that this limitation has considerable loopholes.

    So if we’re rewarding bad decisions when we bail out homeowners, some of whom might have had excellent jobs when they signed their mortgages, but have since lost them, we are even more guilty of rewarding bad decisions in finance and in industry. I would also point out that bankruptcy is one of those risks that a lender takes, as well as a borrower. Lenders who make bad loans end up losing their money when the borrower goes bankrupt. There are two sides when a bad loan is made: A borrower and a lender. If fraud is not a question, it is not just the borrower who made a bad decision.

    I don’t see much consistency in these debates. It seems that the standards change depending on who is getting the money.

    Having said that, I know that I’ve written several notes in which I might not have been fully clear. So let me put it in a few words. I don’t believe in rewarding incompetence, not anybody’s incompetence. In fact, I don’t believe in the government “rewarding” at all. I do believe in economic stimulus, but the portion of stimulus that I support involves government spending more on things that ought to be done anyhow. Unfortunately this has become a minor portion of our spending, especially with all the hidden money going into the banking system.

    What I mean by spending money on things government ought to do anyhow? Essentially if one looked forward at the infrastructure needs of the country over say 25-50 years, and then during an economic downturn borrows and builds several years worth of projects much faster, I would consider that a valid stimulus. If you pay money out for ordinary expenses, then all you have done is paid those expenses. If you build a bridge, you have a bridge. You do, of course, have to make sure it’s not a bridge to nowhere.

    Bridges, roads, communications infrastructure, needed government buildings, military research, and many other things are valid things on which to spend. They are things that must be done sometime, and most of them will produce income into the future. If a project is a bad idea under normal circumstances, it’s a bad idea in terms of stimulus.

    The problem, of course, is to bring the government off of a deficit spending spree and back to something that should be “normal.” Governments like to spend money. It’s the stopping that’s hard.

  • Speaking the Truth is News

    … when the Secretary of State does it. I thought many of these things were so obvious they hardly needed said, but apparently the obvious can be offensive. Perhaps a little truth will help diplomacy. Or not…

  • Starting Leviticus in the Tyndale Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

    I recently received my copy of this good looking volume from Tyndale for review, and I have summarized its features here.  I noted there that this is not a book I will read once and then write a short review.  Rather, I’m going to blog through it, which also means that I will be blogging through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Ambitious, no?

    Well, don’t expect massive detail, but I will bring thoughts as I go through and major points from the commentary so you can understand its value.  I’m still working with very little reading, so I’m going to defer many points until I have read more.  As of today, I completed reading of the introduction to Leviticus.

    As expected, the author, David W. Baker, takes a conservative stand on authorship and dating of the book, arguing for a “life-setting back in the period of the wilderness wanderings” (p. 5).  I won’t be making a major issue of my disagreements on issues such as this.  My only concern is that the position of the commentator is made clear and that he engages other positions as well.  Considering the length of the introduction and the size of this commentary, he is doing both quite well.

    As one who thinks Christians neglect the book of Leviticus I was happy to see that Baker is making an all-out assault on this neglect of an important portion of the Bible.  Along with the typical arguments of history and theology, that this is part, even a core part, of Israel, and that we have grown from Israel, and that it is also of great historical interest, he suggests “religious reasons” and particularly that one might see it as a “handbook for worship” (p. 4).  I am eager to see how he will portray that particular perspective through the book.

    I’ve been a bit irritated ever since I finished my reading of Jacob Milgrom‘s commentary, because I have so many notes that I would like to use in teaching but very few of them are accessible without a serious effort in terms of teaching background and history, for which I rarely have time.  Many believe the hardest part of Biblical studies is digging out details.  In my view, the hardest part is developing an understanding to the point at which one can express it clearly and comprehensibly.  After reading the his introduction, I am looking to Baker for help in that task.

    I’d conclude this interaction with the introduction with the following quote:

    …Whether we like it or not–and the lack of preaching and teaching from Leviticus today seems to indicate that we don’t–this book is also in our canon.  Leviticus is God’s Word to us in some way just as much as the Gospels.  We also are an audience who must seek to determine the book’s relevance to the church in our own times.

    Very much my own feelings.  I am hopeful that Baker can help make it more of a reality.

  • But Did It Help?

    Read:  Mark 9:2-9

    Reading the gospel lesson for today–and I’m writing this on Sunday morning before going to teach Sunday School–I was struck by the parallel to a question I commonly get from Bible study classes.  “Why can’t God just make it clearer, unmistakable?  Why all this variety and human stuff?”

    I can imagine the disciples thinking along the same lines.  Jesus keeps performing miracles, running around healing people, and proclaiming the kingdom, yet he never seems to do anything that would have to do with a coming kingdom.  Why couldn’t he just be clear?

    Then Jesus takes Peter, James, and John and does something spectacular.  Now for some reason many in my classes seem to relate “spectacular” and “miraculous” with “clear.”  But Peter, James, and John don’t really get the purpose of the transfiguration either.  They think it’s spectacular, they like it, they’d like to stay where it happened, but they don’t really understand any more about Jesus than they did before.

    But did it help?

    That is an excellent question.  You see, I believe that Jesus was being quite clear.  It’s just that “clear in general” is not always the same thing as “clear to me.”

    Frequently when my wife and I are in conversation, I’ll change tracks to another subject without warning.  Suddenly I say something.  It’s clear to me what I mean.  In fact, there’s probably something in the last sentence that suggested it to me.  But she has no idea what I’m talking about, because she’s on another program.

    For conversations with my wife I’ve learned a simple solution, even though I still forget:  Tell her I’m changing the subject!  But Jesus can’t change the subject.  His disciples have one set of things in mind, and they are interpreting what he says and does in the light of their own agenda.  It will take the shock of the crucifixion and finally of the resurrection to get them off of their own agenda and onto God’s.

    But did it help?  Well, yes.  But only later.  God’s spectacular act on the mount of transfiguration didn’t immediately communicate to the disciples what they needed to know, but it provided a building block that came together with others to build a new structure born in the fire of adversity at the end of Jesus’ mission.

    And isn’t that really our complaint about God’s communication?  He doesn’t give us enough information to keep us from getting in trouble sometimes, or so we think.  But God knows that we’re not really going to learn it until we get into trouble.

  • Ten Beliefs of (some) Progressive Christians

    John Shuck (Shuck and Jive) found this list here, and as I’m teaching a Sunday School class this morning precisely on who will be saved and how, I find it rather interesting.

    I would suggest that a group has to have something substantial that is both distinctive and held in common to be cohesive and effective. At the same time, one need not try to force everyone else into one’s own category; “outside the group” doesn’t have to mean “consigned to hell.”

    I have to confess that while I find this list intriguing, if it constituted my full list of beliefs, I would probably not bother to call myself a Christian. I might reference Jesus amongst many others, but there would be no particular and direct connection, and thus I would wonder why “Christian,” indicating a more direct connection with Jesus, rather than a connection with any other religious teacher.

    I have written about this before in posts on Unity, Diversity, and Confusion, and Exclusion, Inclusion, and Vague Boundaries.

    The first reason I have a problem with the list would be precisely that vagueness. This list is possibly a good list to define something, but it doesn’t define a Christian or a follower of Jesus to me. Don’t misinterpret this as a desire to poor contempt on Rev. John Schuck, nor to deny him the label “Christian.” That is not my business. I accept his description, accepted by his congregation and denomination.

    But my second reason for having a problem with the list is more personal, and that is the fact that despite being called liberal by many, I am much more of a true believer. I believe I have encountered the living Jesus. If the disciples were deluded, then so am I. The call of Jesus that I heard was not to a particular social agenda, but rather to trust and obedience, founded on a realization that I couldn’t manage it myself. I do believe that a social agenda does result from that call, but it is a fruit of it. It is not the call itself.

    So for me, at least, intriguing as it is, this list is far from adequate. My list starts with “… and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”