Showing posts with label Christian education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian education. Show all posts

Friday, May 22, 2009

CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part IV (The Principle of Relationships)

#10 in an ongoing series on Christian Home Educators of Colorado 2009 "Men's Leadership Summit" (otherwise known as the "The Vision of the Leadership Summit") held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at one of the hotels owned by Bill Gothard's group over the weekend of March 5-7, 2009. Previous post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part III (The Principle of Individuality). First post in the series: 2009 Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) "Men's Leadership Summit," Part I.

********

The following content is Part IV (my divisions!) from Kevin Swanson's second speech at the 2009 CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" ("MLS")--"Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision"--delivered on Friday, March 6, 2009 and available in full, audio form from ResoundingVoice.com.



The Educational Principle of Relationships

Swanson's father sent him a news clipping a few years ago.
My dad . . . [is the chief researcher] for my radio show which airs . . . at kevinswanson.com. . . .

[T]his one [great little] story came in . . . about [a] family who was living in the inner city somewhere, and at some point, four years earlier, the dad--it was just the dad and a daughter--the dad just says, “I’ve got to get out of here; got to get out of these schools. It’s gonna ruin my daughter academically, character-wise. . . .”

So he just . . . goes and lives in the woods somewhere.

They live in the woods for four years, and the police just found them. They come in, and they test this 12-year-old girl. They give her the standardized test, and she tests out as a 12th-grade high school graduate. But here’s the clincher--here is the amazing thing. The curriculum--all the curriculum they had--was a Bible and a set of encyclopedias.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: I'm not sure what we are supposed to take away from this.
  1. Does he really mean that this girl had the true equivalent of a quality, 12th-grade education? She knew and understood high school algebra? Trigonometry? Biology? Chemistry? Physics? History? Music? . . . She had an appreciation for a full range of cultural heroes? She could comment intelligently on current events? . . .

    Was she really and truly a well-rounded person with the equivalent of an excellent (or, even, medium-quality) high school education?

    Or did the tests reveal, rather, that she was able, perhaps, to read on a 12th grade level? (I have no difficulty believing that.)

    But,
     
  2. Supposing this young woman actually did exhibit the knowledge of an average 12th-grade high school graduate: Is that level of achievement--average--all that the average homeschool parents desire for their children? (I doubt it. Though it sounds as if that is the aspirational level of Kevin Swanson for his children.)
     
  3. I am reminded of my comment, earlier today, about what we discussed last night with our daughter and son-in-law: about how Ralph Moody's mother had recognized the handicap under which her husband had labored due to his lack of book-learning. He was smart. He was skilled. He was a man of tremendous character. But his lack of academic training severely limited his ability in a number of areas.

    If our aspirations for our children are solely to become business-owning entrepreneurs (as it sounds as if Mr. Swanson wants for his son--and Mr. Swanson's son desires for himself), that is wonderful.

    But should the rest of us who have other aspirations for our children (or whose children have different aspirations for themselves): Should we simply lay these aside so we can fulfill Mr. Swanson's dreams?
It was around this time that we were at the CHEC conference. In fact, I had just gotten the story. We were at the CHEC conference, and my wife comes out of the vendor hall--which is like a lot of these huge conference vendor halls, where you have 150 vendors, and they’re all saying, "Buy my stuff. Buy my stuff. If you don’t buy my stuff, you’re giving your kids a sub-standard education."
Swanson overstates the case. I know of at least one vendor that has deliberately and studiously sought to avoid ever saying such a thing. Its name is Sonlight Curriculum.

Indeed, in order to reduce the pressure on potential buyers to "buy right now!", Sonlight doesn't even bring products to conventions that potential customers could walk away with.

Sorry to point out this overstatment on Swanson's part, but he pushed my button, and I figured I should protest.

My wife comes out and says, “Honey, shall I buy it all?”

Has that ever happened to any of you, where your wife goes, “Oh, what do I do? I've got to buy it all?”
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: No. And I know of no woman who would ever say such a thing.

*******

I get the sense Swanson is speaking in a highly derogatory manner, here. Is he expressing disdain for his own wife?

I had just read the story [about the man and his daughter], and I said, “Honey, here’s what you need to do: blindfold me, and I will walk randomly into the hall, and I’ll find six things, and we’ll give them [recording is unclear, but I think he says "we'll give them back our math"--JAH].”

Why is that? See, we’ve been sold a bill of goods that it’s gonna take thousands of dollars--and this is, by the way, the way that you get the government foot in education, anyway. They come in and they say it takes a professional. No wait. It takes $10,000. "You’ve got to get this really, really nice curriculum. . . . Look at the cover. Come on, look at it, huh? You’ve got to get the satellite feed. You’ve got to get this. You’ve got to get some professional teachers coming over by satellites. It’ll work really good."

But there’s something else . . . that is so much more effective in the education of a child.

Why is it that you have moms and dads--just ordinary moms and dads--that take that lousy 50 percentile and jack it up 36 percentile points, to 86?1 How does that happen?

Does that happen because you’ve got experts out there who’ve been trained in four-year teaching colleges, by the millions, coming in and teaching your kids? No, they’re not experts.

Is it because they have the best curriculum? No, it’s not because they have the best curriculum.

What really clinched this for me was in the story, they interview the sheriff who investigated this case. He said what was incredible about the story was the unacceptable, impoverished conditions in which [the father and daughter] lived. They lived in this lean-to he had built next to a little creek, and it was really, really, really beat up. Sort of a rustic living. [The sheriff] said what was incredibly obvious was how unacceptable the living conditions were, but how close and loving a relationship they had.

You see, brothers, it’s the relationship that matters. That’s the core of it. That’s the heart of it.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: The heart of it?

Important? Yes! No question.

Will it make a difference? Absolutely. No doubt.

But that relationship, by itself, is the heart of education? I don't know!

Forget the curriculum. Forget the trivium, classical unit study--whatever it is. It doesn’t really matter. Just go randomly grab something, please. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you have a four-year teaching certificate.

What matters is the relationship. What matters is focusing on what God considers to be the most important thing.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: Again, I'm astonished that Swanson, the executive director and biggest public spokesperson for Christian Home Educators of Colorado can say such disdainful and unguarded comments about all the vendors who have ever gone into business to serve homeschooling parents.

But perhaps he reveals less about the majority of the vendors who come to his convention and more about people like himself, his buddy Doug Phillips, and their good friend Greg Harris, who all seem to delight in their ability to sell their wares as "non-profit ministries" to the homeschool audiences they gather.

I find myself unable to hold back from making another comment.

Swanson heaps contempt on the trivium, classical education, and so forth. None of these things matter, he says. "All you need," he seems to say, "is the Bible (and my four-book curriculum . . . and the other wonderful materials I have produced)."

But ignore his apparent exceptions reserved for the things he himself has produced (and for the other educational materials being sold directly by Christian Home Educators of Colorado?). [Interesting that this non-profit organization is going into direct competition with the companies that pay money to attend its conventions!]

I am struck--as I have noted before--that Swanson and Phillips and their pals are all very highly educated men. They have followed more than a haphazard, "pick anything" approach to "education." Swanson and Phillips and Baucham know their history. Yet they--and, here, Swanson in particular--pour contempt on everyone who would studiously attempt to follow such a path in order to prepare themselves for equal or even more effective service for the Kingdom. [Are these men, perhaps, concerned that others better than themselves might arise to take their places? --I find Swanson's and Phillips's negative comments about disciplined content-rich education particularly disturbing.]

But back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Swanson continues . . .

Now, when my wife came to me and said, “Honey, you’ve got to take this boy.” I really wasn’t sure what to do . . . because I work for a living. I’m a busy guy. Besides, for years I’ve been working to change the world. You guys have got to know the kind of guy I am.

Chris Klicka talked about the next generation being prepared to change the world. I was that next generation. I was ready to change the world. I ran for student body president at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. I was active in pro-life and stuff. I was active in Republican politics. I ran for governor of Colorado in 1994, and I had a little, screaming little boy who kept trying to get in my way.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: Interesting that Swanson could even aspire to run for governor of Colorado. What the-Bible-and-an-encyclopedia-only-and-no-college-educated person could possibly hope, seriously, to run for governor?
As I was writing my book, The Second Mayflower, on how to change the world, there were these little fingers coming under the door, trying to get at me. He was screaming and yelling, and I couldn’t concentrate on changing the world, . . . until I realized that changing the world had everything to do with two things: one, changing the life of one little boy, and changing the life of this little boy.

You know, that’s what it’s about, brothers. You’ve heard it already from Chris, and you’re gonna hear it again from me.

I was that guy. I was too busy for my boy. But God says, “Tag. You’re it, man.” Because I’m sitting here--I’m not trying to impose my particular regimen on all you guys, here. I’m not trying to do that. I’m just saying, here was a boy surrounded by five women all day long, and he needed a man in his life. He’s 11-years-old and--I see this among a lot of homeschooled boys--[he needs] a man in his life. I could see my wife trying to fix these issues, and maybe this metaphor will help. It came to me a while back. She was out there trying to frame a house with a little, tiny, 6-ounce hammer, going dink-dink-dink, dink-dink-dink-dink, trying to get that first nail in: dink-dink-dink. And I’m sitting here with an 80-psi nail gun, watching her, going, “Too bad for you. I’m sorry about you. Keep working, honey. Keep working. Oh, I feel bad for you.”

Guys, I have an 85-psi nail gun, where I could get into that little boy’s life, and I could do something. I just knew that I could.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: ????

What's this about his wife's little hammer and Swanson's supposed 80- or 85-psi nail gun? Why is he Mr. Big Bruiser and she has so little to offer?

Or does Swanson exhibit such swagger because he had been saddling her with the education of five children--by herself--and now, suddenly, he takes on the education of one?

Is he, suddenly, an expert on how to train boys because he has been doing some things with his one son?

His heart was crying out for me, and he had sins in his life that I had in my life.

I thought, “One and one makes two.” I put it together, and I knew that there was nobody--nobody on Planet Earth--not a pastor, not a youth group leader, not a Sunday school teacher, not a PE teacher--nobody on Planet Earth that could wade into this little boy’s life and do something for him like one man on Planet Earth. And that was me.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: I am so happy to hear he decided to fulfill some of his responsibility as a father.

Based on what I hear of many men, Swanson is by no means alone in his former neglect of his son. Each one of us fathers needs to consider how we should interact with our kids most effectively. I am sincerely grateful for Swanson to challenge us with this need to be involved in our kids'--and especially, if possible, our sons' lives.

So God called me to this and for the last five or six years, that’s what we’re doing. We travel together. We don’t really homeschool. We car school and we office school and conference-room school. And we come out here and we school. We’re just schooling all over the place. It’s kind of all mixed up. Everything’s sort of integrated together.

I’m not really sure how it’s gonna work out. It’s really crazy. We just try to catch a little math in the car from time to time.

A couple years ago, we were traveling down Road 98 near our house. It’s all dirt, where we live. So we’re down this dirt road. I’m doing typical 65 miles per hour. My son turns to me and says, “Dad, I’m having a hard time with this trinomial over here. Can you help me, here, with this trinomial?”

So I start working the problem on the gearshift. I forgot that I’m driving the car. So I look up, and suddenly, we’re coming right to 1721. I hit the brakes, going, “Aggghhh.” We stopped right there by the ditch, and we didn’t fall in the ditch, so everything’s fine. "Okay, so let’s finish this problem, now. Let’s work it." That’s pretty much the way our homeschooling works.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: And this is supposed to somehow show us how involved Swanson is in his son's life? That he "grabs a moment" from his otherwise busy life and almost kills the two of them while he works a problem with his son?

*******

I don't want to be too hard on Swanson, but I think it is worth asking: How is this model that he holds out for "the rest of us" supposed to work for the dad who has a different vocation than does Swanson?

Besides being the executive director of CHEC, Swanson is an entrepreneur and a pastor. I can see how having one of your children tag along might work in many situations for such a person. But what if a dad works in aerospace, or in a manufacturing job, at a meatpacking plant, or elsewhere where there is no way a child will be permitted to tag along? Is Swanson going to tell such a man he has to give up his job because anything else is to disobey Deuteronomy 6:6-8?

He seems to imply No. He says, "I’m not trying to impose my particular regimen on all you guys, here. I’m not trying to do that."

And yet. And yet. He seems strongly to imply we really are in sin if we don't do it in the same way he does.

So what is such a man to do? Give up his job? Feel like he's a failure as a dad if he doesn't give up his job?

Or, forget the problems associated with a dad who won't give up a job for which he is suited and that pays the family's bills. What if a father has two or three or four son? Would the kind of on-the-go lifestyle Swanson seems to advocate work for such a father?

I don't think so. Even if he had a job that would allow so many sons to stay by their father's side.

Imagine a man in very much the same circumstances as Swanson himself. Suppose his son were not as . . . ummmm . . . quiescent as is Swanson's son? Could dad serve his son in the manner Swanson has found he is able to? I don't think so! . . .

Please don't misunderstand my purpose, here.

I think it is wonderful that Swanson has found a "solution" that meets his and his family's needs at this time. But while it is wonderful that he has found a "solution" that works for him and his son, I think it is not workable for many--perhaps most--others. And I believe Swanson should recognize that and perhaps tone down or shade the way he seems to speak of his unique situation as a model for everyone.

It’s kind of a mess, but my son’s in my life, and that’s what matters. He is sitting right there, on the front row of my life, and I need his heart.

In Proverbs Chapter 23, it says, “My Son, give me your heart. Come close and observe my ways.” See, he’s inviting his son into his life. He says, “Son, come on. Sit right here in my office. I want you sitting right across from me, so you can listen to me when I raise my voice in impatience, and then I’ve got to ask forgiveness, and then I’ve got to deal with this issue, and deal with that issue.”

You know what, guys? It’s difficult. There’s accountability between him and I, and the sins that I see in his life are the same sins in my life. I’m all ready to correct him, saying, “Son, you’re speaking to your sisters in an impatient tone of voice. That sarcasm has got to stop.”

And I think, “He’s using the same sarcasm that I used with him yesterday.”

See, it’s a very difficult thing when you invite relationships into your life, guys. We have protected ourselves from relationships, to a great extent. I think one of the reasons is because it does bring sin to the surface. When you walk into somebody’s life--you start working with somebody--you begin to take a vital interest in their life. You want to see their success. You want to see them grow in Christ. Then, you realize that you’ve got the same issues. Now, you’ve got to deal with yourself. God is working in you, as He is working in him. He sometimes uses the work in you to effect the work that goes on in him.

Sometimes I look at [my son] and I think to myself, “He’s really irritating me, right now. Do I really like him? 'Kevin, do you love this person, here? Do you love him? After just what he did--after the way he blew that--after his disobedience--do you love this boy?'”

Then, I hear another voice, “Hey, wait, wait, wait. Here’s another question: do you love Me? Do you love Me?” Then, I put it together and I understand that I do love You because You first loved me. Then He says, “Well then, love him. Love him with all his warts and foibles and his sins and all the stuff that I see in your life. I want you to love him the way that I loved you, and feel.”

Brothers, relationships is the real core of the education of a child. As I plead for his heart, I recognize there are a lot of competing forces that go for a son’s heart. This happens all the time. This is not an automatic thing, to have your son’s heart. Sometimes it’s there; sometimes it’s not. You have to pray for it. You have to ask for it, and you have to spend the time.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 10:18 PM: Good stuff.
I think it’s a matter of quantity time, not quality time. Shepherding boys--somebody once said--a friend of mine had six or seven boys. He said it’s like duck hunting. You spend about three hours behind the blind for about 30 seconds of action. That’s kind of the way it is. You just hang out together, and you hang out together for hours upon hours upon hours, and then you get 30 seconds of action. You get a real good conversation, and you’ve got his heart.
ETA on 5/22/09 at 9:45 PM: Maybe.

--I liked this illustration, though, enough to blog it on Strategic Inheritance. I think there is a lot of truth there. Guys are not as prone to open, deep, soul-baring conversations as are girls and women (one of the reasons, in general, that I seem to prefer talking with women).

The world is after him. In fact, the Proverbs talk about binding the commandments of God around your neck and your wrist--taking the commandments of your father and tying them around your wrist. When it refers to the commandments of God, we know what that refers to. When it refers to the commandments of a father, brothers, it ultimately is the applications of a father. It’s the way the father incarnates and applies the Word of God to his family.

So what we learn, from our fathers, is a biblical application or enculturation of the commandments of God.

Let’s say there’s a son who says, “Dad, you talk about respect; you talk about honor. I’m with you there, Dad, but I don’t agree when you say I’ve got to say Yes, Sir or No, Sir. I’m not gonna tuck in my shirt at the table. I’m not gonna wear clothes that are clean and are presentable and respectful to my parents or to others. I’m just not gonna do that, because I don’t see anything in the Word of God about tucking in your shirt. Jesus never tucked in His shirt. They don’t have a Yes, Sir or No, Sir in the Bible, here. Dad, come on, you’re being legalistic with me.”

Okay. Your son gets all lawyer-like with you like that.

It’s because he doesn’t understand what the Proverbs are saying. When the Proverb says, Take the approaches, the dress, the attitudes, the perspectives, the language that your parents have incorporated, in order to apply the Word of God--in order to, as best as they can, express honor for others and for the parents--you just incorporate those into your own life. You tie those commandments around your neck and you walk in your parents’ ways, to the extent that they have, to the best of their ability, tried to bring about the commandments of God in their lives.

Now, as our sons honor us, and honor these applications--honor our culture--they will stand upon our shoulders. Now, if they dishonor, they will cut us off at the knees, and they will destroy the culture. So this is what we’re trying to do as we teach our children, as we are discipling our sons in the ways of God, and trying to apply the ways of God in our children’s lives.

Now, the last thing I have learned about these relationships is that I’m teaching my son how to live. My son is on the front-row of my life. He’s understanding the issues that I’m dealing with. He’s right there, and it’s hard, sometimes, to be transparent because if you’re transparent, and you’ve got a guy sitting at the front-row of your life, you’re gonna have to start stripping off layers of hypocrisy. You’re gonna have to start confessing your sins, in a humble sense, to your own son.

As we get older--as our sons get older, and they start walking beside us--we have to increase that transparency with our own sons. That’s difficult, and that’s a tug at my heart. That’s calling for humbling myself before my own son. But see, I don’t want to deal with his sins anymore, either. I want him to deal with his own sins.

When he was very young, he was behind me. I was fighting his battles for him. Now, he’s right beside me. I’ve invited him right beside me, and I see him battle. I can look at him across the entire room, and look in my son’s eyes, and tell when he’s battling with a sin; I know him that well. When he’s got pride in his life--I’ve been discipling him for six years; I can smell pride at 40 feet. I can tell when he’s got some selfish issues. I can tell when he’s starting to get this sin or that sin creeping up on him. I say, “Son, I want you fighting in this war. I want you engaged in the battle.” I hand him the sword, and he takes it, and I say, “Son, you stab it. Come on; bring the Word of God to bear. I want to see some blood on that sword. You’ve seen blood on my sword. You’ve seen me confess my sins. I want you to humble yourself, and I want you to start cutting out flesh, right there, right here. Let’s get on our knees, and let’s pray to God, that He would help us in this battle."

"Oh, God, help us” -- my son will pray in tears. “Oh, God, help me to overcome these things.”

Brothers, when you are in this kind of discipling relationship, you know that the stakes are higher.

I think somebody once said if you’re gonna teach somebody else’s children, you hardly ever raise your voice; you’re not getting angry. But somehow, you invite your own children into your life, and before you know it, you’re raising your voice. You’re getting upset. Sometimes, that’s anger, and sometimes, that’s just passion because you are impassioned that this child learn how not to be a scoffer as she studies her Algebra. You are intense. You want to see victory over these sins. You know what’s at stake.

Your heart is wrapped around that child because you’ve been walking with that child for the last 6 or 7 years, or 12 or 13 years.

So, brothers, there are times when you hit the wall; when you just hit the wall. We have corrected this sin for 478 times, and here we are, right together again; we’re correcting this child, on this sin, again. After all of these years that we’ve been working on it, here we are again, and that child turns to me and says, “Daddy, I can’t be good. I can’t be good.”

At that point, what do we say? "Yes! You got it! You can’t be good. Speak into the microphone. You can’t be good. Everybody, she can’t be good. But I know Somebody who can help you, there, and that is Jesus."

But what do you say, when they come to you and say, “Daddy, I don’t want to be good”? What do you say then? "O, God--O, God, help us now. There’s nothing I can do."

Brothers, we’ve got to come to the end of ourselves in the education of our children.

*******

I started with the question: are you qualified for educating your children? Are you qualified? Well, what do the experts say? The experts said, “Unqualified persons should not perform brain surgery, and they shouldn’t try to teach children.”

I agree.

But we’re not performing brain surgery. We’re performing heart surgery, and nobody’s qualified for that. Amen?

This, my friends, is why what you’re doing is impossible.
Once more--though I, personally, would probably speak to my kids using language that's a bit more direct than Swanson's metaphorical references to the Bible as the sword of the Spirit with which we need to "stab" sins--I sense Swanson is "right on" in his analysis, here. And he has a message, I'm afraid, too many fathers (including this one!) really need to take to heart.



1 Swanson says the 50th percentile is "lousy." It is not. It is simply what it is: it is the mathematical average of all samples in the (large) group of American students. Period. Exactly the mid-point. 50% of all participants score lower and 50% score higher.

Now. Any smaller group may enjoy a mid-point/average that is lower, higher, or the same as the larger/national average. In the case of homeschoolers, it seems, the average trends high, indeed, significantly high--as Swanson says, by an average of about 36%--so that homeschoolers' 50th percentile is the equivalent of the 86th percentile for all students who take these exams in the United States as a whole . . . and the improved averages are consistent across socio-economic, racial, and other factors. Return to text.

CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part III (The Principle of Individuality)

#9 in an ongoing series on Christian Home Educators of Colorado 2009 "Men's Leadership Summit" (otherwise known as the "The Vision of the Leadership Summit") held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at one of the hotels owned by Bill Gothard's group over the weekend of March 5-7, 2009. Previous post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part II (Keep the PURPOSE in Mind). First post in the series: 2009 Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) "Men's Leadership Summit," Part I.

********

The following content is Part III (my divisions!) from Kevin Swanson's second speech at the 2009 CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" ("MLS")--"Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision"--delivered on Friday, March 6, 2009 and available in full, audio form from ResoundingVoice.com.



Having stressed the need for education to have practical implications, Swanson moved on to what he called the "Principle of Liberty" or "Principle of Individuality":
The Word of God says, “If the Son shall make you free, you will be free, indeed.” [John 8:36 --JAH] . . .

Guys, . . . [t]here is nowhere in the Word of God where we read a 12-year-old has got to be reading Aristotle. There is nowhere in the Word of God where it says a 13-year-old has got to be able to read.

Parents that come to me and say, “Oh, Mr. Swanson, my little Joey is 9 years old, and he can’t read, and we have been bolting him to a desk, like the Department of Education tells us to, four compulsory hours, every single day, for 172 days out of every year, and he just sits there and he vibrates. He’s got ADD and ADHD and ABD – American Boy Disease – and everything else. What do I do?”

I say, “Here’s what you do: when that little boy is young, you just let him go out and plow the fields with dad all day long. Let him fish for an hour in the afternoon. He can come home; you read to him a little bit and put him to bed. Do that until he’s 11-, 12-, 13-, 14-years old. And don’t give him any television, whatsoever. And don’t give him any of those drugs.

"You come back to me when he’s 13-14 years old, and we’ll talk about whether he’s ready to learn how to read.”

Okay, now. Is there anybody in this room, right now, that says, “Oh, that’s illegal! Oh, the Department of Education’s gonna come after us, now!”?

No, brothers – if the Son will make you free, you will be free, indeed.

You are the parent, here. You are the father and the mother. There’s nobody who knows that child and loves that child more than you do. So if you come to me and you say, “My little boy can’t read. He’s not ready to read until he’s 13. Yes, his little sister’s reading at 3." --I say, “Great! Big deal about the little sister; that’s the way it is for her. She’s got gifts and talents and abilities that God has given her, and that’s just fine.”

See, my daughter, Emily, is a zero at math. And it was frustrating for me. At first, I was really getting all tight inside because she was slipping behind. Being as I like math and all . . . she was not performing. And I was getting pretty stressed about it.

We left Saxon Math in the dust, and we went with Math-U-See. We have the little block things, and you put the little block things together, and you can feel them and touch them.

That didn’t do any good.

Then we had her in CalcuLadders for a while, where the CalcuLadders – you just keep repeating it over and over again: "3+3=6. 1+1=2. . . ."

"It doesn’t matter what it means, just say, '1+1=2.' Just memorize that. . . . Whenever you see a one and one together, do something like this."

We worked on that for a while. And then, after a while, just out of the blue, Emily gets it. Just out of the blue. I don’t know how she got it; she just got it.

What I found is that children do not learn on a nice neat little line like this. Some learn like this. Some learn like this. Some learn like this. Some don’t learn anything for 14 years, and [then suddenly] they pick it up.

And some are like Rebecca, just the other day.

Rebecca has learned math very nicely, and then, my wife came to me and says, “Rebecca, yesterday, forgot everything she’s ever learned. Five years, gone.”

I said, “Well, just start over again, I guess. We’ll go back to one. It’s okay.”

Then, a couple weeks later, she picks it up.

It’s just the way it works.

Every child is completely different, guys. . . .

My little Rebecca Joy . . . My other kids are way ahead in some of their subjects (whatever ahead means). But on the standardized tests . . . In Colorado, we’ve got to take the standardized tests.

My older children were doing the 95s and 99s, and Rebecca Joy comes along, and she does the 56s. Of course, I’m Executive Director of Christian Home Educators of Colorado. I want to do something for the average.

You heard about Brian Ray’s study. You know, [homeschoolers a]re at the 86th percentile, and right now, [Rebecca Joy] has taken our average down to, like, 72. So, "Come on! Let’s go!"

I was concerned about this, but see, Rebecca Joy is just completely different from the other children. She’s just a very artsy person. She walks like this. She’s got a style to everything. She does dishes in an artsy sort of way, with her fingers up and stuff. It usually takes a little more time, but she’s got to do it artistically. It’s got to be right.

I’m watching her doing the standardized test. One year, I’m coming to her – she’s doing the fifth grade – and I’m coming to her. I say, “Okay, now I’m gonna watch and see how this happens.” Well, she’s doing this test, and she is – before she gets on with things, she’s got to do these little drawings on the margins of the tests. I’m sitting there going, “Honey, this is a timed test. Can’t we get on with things, here?” But she has to make it very pretty first.

That’s just the way she is. And you can’t rush her through these things, otherwise she gets all tight inside.

So we’d send the tests in for grading, and, do you know: they don’t actually even bother looking at the margins of the tests? The machines just kind of [ignore that kind of stuff].

Ask yourself: Is that fair? Is that right? My little girl, Rebecca Joy, has been so blessed by God with these talents, gifts and abilities, and these machines are not looking at her drawings! I just think that’s wrong. We ought to be respecting the talents and abilities that God has given.

By the way, at one point I was gloating over my son’s – he had the 99. He got the 99, and I’m saying, "Too bad they didn’t give us the decimal point – could have [come out as] 99.99 or something."

My wife, she nails it. She says, “Yeah, but you notice that they didn’t give him a mark on character, there, anywhere.”

What did we just say was preeminent in the education of a child, per God? Does anybody remember that far back? I think it was something to do with character, right? Isn’t that right?

Where are our priorities? What are we doing?

See, we have the wrong system, here. We have the wrong system.

You know that it’s parents that know and love their children the best, normatively. So I think it makes perfect sense why God has established the paideia of a child, and placed that child in the hands of parents. Moreover, the Principle of Relationships, I think, is the key issue, here.
--We'll continue on the theme of the Principle of Relationships in my next post in this series.
*******

Once more: I think this is great content, good stuff we need to pay attention to.

I'm not sure I want to encourage parents to ignore all academic education for their "ADD, ADHD, ABD" sons until they are young teens. But, even there, I think Swanson is offering a useful counterbalancing/antidote to the extreme pro-academic perspective too often advocated in our world today.

Just last night, as we have been doing rather frequently lately, when our daughter and son-in-law came over, we read a few more chapters in Ralph Moody's astonishingly wonderful autobiographical Little Britches series of books.

We stopped at a certain point. Ralph's father dies in the first volume and we are halfway through volume 2. It seems a number of men in the community were smitten by Mrs. Moody. "So why is she so uninterested in them?"--the question seemed to hang in the air.

An interesting question. The men were all successful in their own ways. But none of them were educated (we're talking "book learning"). "Book learning" is obviously a high priority for Ralph's mom. (She won't let him drop out of school at 11 years old, though that would have been his preference and it was still legal in Colorado back in 1910 when this story takes place.)

"But Ralph's dad hadn't graduated from high school . . . "

"No."

So we talked about it.

Mrs. Moody was clearly not looking merely for a "successful" man--someone who could make lots of money and provide a (physically) comfortable life for her and her children. She wanted a man of high character.

And Mr. Moody--Ralph's father--had obviously been such a man. Maybe not school-educated. But he was smart and he had good character.

So she had married him.

But she had also recognized the handicap under which he had labored due to his lack of education.

So. My point: I agree with Mrs. Moody of a hundred years ago that I prefer character over book learning. But, frankly (honestly), I'd prefer both.

I wanted both in my wife.

If I were a woman, I would want both in the man who would be my husband.

********

Back to the primary subject of Swanson's speech, however: I agree with him: Parents (and other educators) need to concentrate on their children's (or students') unique, individual characteristics and pay less attention to whatever "the norm" is. Find your kids' strengths and maximize them rather than seeking to make them conform to the way "everyone else" is.

********

One last comment.

For what it's worth.

This comes from something I learned from Dan Sullivan in his Strategic Coach program program. It's explained rather thoroughly in the book Unique Ability and developed also in Now, Discover Your Strengths.

Basic idea: You don't have to become "good" or even "excellent" at the things where you lack natural ability. Indeed, you will waste a lot of time and energy (both physical and emotional) if you concentrate on improving your abilities in areas of weakness. Rather, you need to find ways to "manage around" your weaknesses so you can concentrate on your strengths to use them and make them stronger. Concentrate on your unique abilities rather than your myriad weaknesses.

--If everyone concentrated on maximizing their ability to use their strengths (what Christians might call "gifts"), the world would be a better place, indeed.

--For a little more on this last theme, see my post on the Strategic Inheritance blog titled Family wealth, unique abilities, and personal resumés and/or my post, right here on John's Corner, titled Strengths & Talents: Finding one's life mission or purpose.




Next post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part IV (The Principle of Relationships).

CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part II (Keep the PURPOSE in Mind)

#8 in an ongoing series on Christian Home Educators of Colorado 2009 "Men's Leadership Summit" (otherwise known as the "The Vision of the Leadership Summit") held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at one of the hotels owned by Bill Gothard's group over the weekend of March 5-7, 2009. Previous post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part I (Character in Academics). First post in the series: 2009 Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) "Men's Leadership Summit," Part I.

********

The following content is Part II (my divisions!) from Kevin Swanson's second speech at the 2009 CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" ("MLS")--"Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision"--delivered on Friday, March 6, 2009 and available in full, audio form from ResoundingVoice.com.



Swanson spoke about the need to apply the knowledge one learns. Academic training ought to issue forth not merely in head knowledge, but practical knowledge. Thus,
[D]oing . . . is essential. In fact, brothers, if you guys are sitting through two or three days of these talks, and you guys are just absorbing a few things, but you’re not gonna go out there and do anything, you might as well have not have come to this conference. It’s just the way it works. It’s the way it works with the preaching of the Word of God. It’s the way it works with education; with knowledge and wisdom of any sorts, whatsoever. If we’re not doers of the Word, we’re wasting our time. What happens in education is you get, again, this very, very distinct separation from the inculcation of knowledge and the application of it.

We see this again and again, and this really came home to us one night. . . . We’re going to bed – the kids have been in bed for an hour – and [my wife i]s going, “Emily forgot to do her grammar today!” Kinda this panic thing. “What are we gonna do? The Department of Education’s gonna come and get us.”

I kinda got into the flurry of the whole thing for a minute or two. I said, “Well, let’s just get Emily out of bed and we’ll work –” which was kind of a stupid idea, on the outset. Then, sort of some better sense came back, and I said, “What was Emily doing all day, if she wasn’t doing her grammar?” She was doing something. It was at the time where Emily was writing a lot of letters.

My wife comes back: “She was writing a letter to grandma.”

She was writing a letter to grandma. That’s why she didn’t do her grammar today. She was writing a letter to grandma.

It was a three-page, single-spaced type [letter]. For a 9-year-old, that’s not bad, right? But she was writing the chronicles of the Swanson life, which is actually – turned out to be a little bit embarrassing because she liked to go through everything that happened in our house. But she was writing this letter to grandma.

So before we got everybody out of bed, I said, “Okay, stop. Stop. Why do we do grammar?” It’s one of those questions, right, that comes to your mind, occasionally. Not very often, but occasionally, you get the obvious question: "Why do we do grammar?"

Is it so that when you’re 25 years old, you get out of bed and say, “Oh, it’s time to do grammar, today. I’ve prepared, all my life, to do some grammar”? No.

The reason you study grammar is so that you can write letters to grandma. Duh.

But see, in our minds, we have so separated these things, brothers. It’s like we’re learning how to ride a bike by "taking Bike" for 12 years. We have Bike 101, Bike 102, Bike Accident Recovery Workshop, Bike Metallurgy, Bike Statics, Bike Dynamics. We get all the Bike, and yet, for 12 years, we’ve never really gotten on the bike.

When, a thousand years ago, we took education out of the real-life situation of family and church and business, and we put it on a sterile little island out here in the middle of nowhere called schools, where teachers teach, and where people say, “If you can’t work, teach. If you can’t teach, write a textbook,” and where, when you graduate, A students wind up teaching on the island, and B students wind up working for C students. You see, this is something fundamentally wrong with education. It’s fundamentally wrong.

We’ve got to bring the knowing and the doing together – the knowledge and the faith and the character into the academics of the education of our children, and teach them the fear of God as the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.

I think it begins with worship in the classroom – the worship of the living God in the classroom.
*******

I'm not exactly sure what he means or where he intended to go with that last sentence. (He didn't follow up on it. He immediately transitioned to another topic.)

I agree, we want to worship God--indeed, we want to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to the LORD, which is, we are told, spiritual [or rational/reasonable] worship (Romans 12:1). We want to "love the LORD [our] God with all [our] heart and soul and mind and strength" (Mark 12:30). We want to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17). "In everything," we want to "give thanks" (1 Thessalonians 5:18).

So, no question, since education, too, falls under life (offering bodies as living sacrifices) and has something to do with our hearts and souls and minds (and, possibly, strength); and since we don't want to cease praying or fail to give thanks in education anymore than in anything else: then I absolutely agree that worship is--or ought to be--integral to our educational regimen. May that be.

I "simply" don't understand why Swanson seemed to "throw in" that last comment at the end of his discussion of (what I thought was his bigger thematic element) the idea--as best as I could understand his point--that our educational program needs to seek practical application and not mere theoretical understanding.

I believe it can be very helpful to have the theoretical understanding. But, ultimately, the theory must give way to application.

Good stuff, it seems to me!




Next post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part III (The Principle of Individuality).

Monday, May 11, 2009

CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part I (Character in Academics)

#7 in an ongoing series on Christian Home Educators of Colorado 2009 "Men's Leadership Summit" (otherwise known as the "The Vision of the Leadership Summit") held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at one of the hotels owned by Bill Gothard's group over the weekend of March 5-7, 2009. Previous post in this series: More on Doug Phillips' vision for the future of homeschooling in America. First post in the series: 2009 Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) "Men's Leadership Summit," Part I.

********

A small note: A blogger with more experience and success than I urged me, for a number or good reasons, to break my posts into smaller pieces. I hope to do justice to the messages of the various speakers whose messages I am attempting to report and analyze. Please recognize, however, that what follows is only a very small portion of Mr. Swanson's entire speech. Lord willing, more will follow. --John

********

The following content is from Kevin Swanson's second speech at the 2009 CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" ("MLS")--"Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision"--delivered on Friday, March 6, 2009 and available in full, audio form from ResoundingVoice.com.



Top Reasons to Homeschool

Swanson sought to warm up his audience with a "Top 10 List of Reasons to Homeschool" . . . or "Blessings We Enjoy from Home Education." They included everything from "We don’t have to ask the school district for permission if we want to go hunting in the middle of October for two weeks" . . . to "We can pray any time we want to . . . in fact, we can pray all day long . . . we can pray without ceasing, if we want" . . . to "We’ve never missed the bus. In fact, we like to wave at it from time to time. . . . The kids call it 'the jail bus': 'Look at the inmates. Everybody wave'" . . . on down to "You can bring guns to school" . . . to, #1: "The teaching staff is totally in love with each other, and we make out in front of the class. (You can’t do that in your conventional schools. They frown on that kind of stuff. But our kids love it."

"So much liberty, isn’t there?" Swanson exulted. "'If the Son will make you free, you will be free, indeed.' [John 8:36 --JAH] I’ll tell you what: there’s a lot of freedom people are not enjoying."

Swanson's Homeschool Heritage

Swanson noted that he, himself, was "homeschooled" back in the late '60s and '70s while his parents served as missionaries in Japan. And he became personally involved in his family's--and especially his oldest son's--education (as the "teacher") about six years ago.
Back six years ago, my wife is trying to homeschool this 11-year-old boy, and it was getting more and more difficult. There [were] some resistant issues; there [were] some sins in his life that seemed to have some generational components to it, . . . and I was recognizing some of the things.

My wife turned to me and said, “Kevin, Kevin, you have been talking about homeschooling, as the expert . . . for the last five years. How would you like to try it?”

I said, “Hey, that sounds like a lot of fun. Let me give it a shot.”

So I’ve been doing it for six years, now.. . .
I should note: Swanson took on the one son. He said that, before doing that, "[M]y wife was trying to homeschool five children, simultaneously, along with an 11-year-old boy." [NOTE: The Swansons have five children--one son and four daughters--total. The 11-year-old (now 17-year-old) boy is #1 of five. --JAH] --So Swanson took on his son while his wife continued to take primary responsibility for the daughters.

The Heart of Education
I got a notice from a local Christian school . . . They have this beautiful, glossy set of brochures that were written by some experts. involved. . . . [I]t said, “It takes a professional to educate a child. There are some people, in some circles, that attempt to do this by themselves, without certification or college degree.”

That would be us.

Then it says, “Unqualified surgeons do not perform brain surgery, and parents should not try to teach their children at home.”

Don’t try this at home because you could really mess up your kids. --That’s what that means, doesn’t it?
*******

I want to break in here because Swanson makes no further comments about this particular brochure at this moment in his speech. He will return to it much later. But you should keep it in mind. And, moreover, I would like to note--as Swanson himself makes very clear, later in his speech, that this kind of attack on homeschooling is really unwarranted, unjustified, and, fundamentally, wrong-headed. I will let Swanson make that point when he gets to it. I think he does a great job. But while we're here, I thought I would get my plug in as well: this brochure levels some fundamentally inappropriate charges against homeschoolers.

*******

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Modern Education
This whole idea of professional teachers really dates back, I think, to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was the father of modern education.

Now, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote a very important book called Emile, in which he chronicled how to educate a child in the modern world.

The book was published in the 1760s.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that you must develop an education that is funded by the state, where a child is removed from the parents as early as possible, and tutored by an unmarried, professional tutor.

That was his system of education. He patterned it after Plato’s Republic, which he said is the best book ever written on the education of a child, in which Plato said what you do is you’ve got to separate the child from the parents, on its birthday.

These are Plato’s words: “No child shall know his parent, and no parent shall know his child.”

There shall be no relationships within the family. The family needs to be obliterated and de-prioritized and de-relevantized, and the family is only effective for the producing of these children. In fact, the husband and wife are only together for a temporary liaison.

This is the system of education that was promulgated by Plato and Rousseau – and I would throw in Marx, as well.

Well, today, brothers, we have inherited this system of education. It is without parents, and I think also, without relationships. . . .
Swanson said that "Ground Zero of the major worldview war, . . . the Omaha Beach of this battle, is what is happening in the education of children. Because that’s what sets the future in terms of the minds and the souls of the next generation."

Swanson indicated he has been working for quite some time on this issue of what God has to say about education. See, for example, his book Upgrade: 10 Secrets to the Best Education for Your Child, published in 2006.

While the Bible doesn't mention the word education, Swanson said, it does speak about equipping God's people for every good work, "which happens to include the education of the next generation."

When he searched in his concordance for words like children, sons and daughters, however, he said, "I wound up, in one particular book of the Bible a great deal of the time, and that of course, is the Book of Proverbs."

"I wasn’t really thinking that there was a book in the Bible directed to this particular area, but it turns out" the Book of Proverbs, though it has "very little to say about geography, about geometry, about geology," and so forth, teaches us a lot about basic principles of education. "In fact," said Swanson, "God is smarter than John Dewey and Horace Mann and Rousseau and a lot of other people."

He mentioned how he and his wife "became very convicted" because they had been training their children very carefully in the standard academic subjects, but "at the expense of the Bible." So six years ago they decided to establish a new priority system for their family:
Even if we miss a Saxon Math lesson, we’re gonna make sure that we hit three verses in the Book of Proverbs every day. Why? Because God is very smart, and because God wants our children to learn the Book of Proverbs.
Actually, later in his speech Swanson states this more strongly:
"[O]ur children . . . need to know the Book of Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, Genesis . . . better than they know their Saxon Algebra." Indeed, "Make [the Bible] the core education.
I found our children understood Saxon Math better than they knew the Book of Psalms. They didn’t know what the Messianic Psalms were. They didn’t know what the Exhortation Psalms were. They didn’t know the emotional fabric of the Psalms, and the Word of God, which is basically God’s 'Worship 101 Manual.'

They didn’t understand all the – they hadn’t had the themes of 150 Psalms memorized.

They didn’t know what Psalm to go to when they were looking for deliverance from the attacks of evil men.

They didn’t understand Psalms and the Proverbs and these sorts of things.

So that’s one of the reasons why we make sure that our education is focused on the teaching of the Word of God, and it usually happens for about an hour every day, as we sit around, and I am the teacher.

So our education system involves the study of the Word of God.
Swanson put together some devotionals called “The Psalms: A Family Bible Study Series,” for his own children that he has now published for others.
If your children don’t understand the Psalms as well as they know their Saxon math, or their geography or geometry, I would suggest that you get some books on the Psalms and have them study the Psalms. Unfortunately, I don’t find much curriculum specifically about the Psalms or the Proverbs or Genesis or Matthew in many of our curriculum fairs today.
But back to the matter of math lessons.

Swanson demonstrated how he believes academic pursuits should be made subject to the pursuit of improved character.

Character Training in Academics

Swanson told his audience how his son will complain if Swanson makes him re-work a math lesson that he did sloppily.

"Oh, no, Dad! No! . . . [Y]ou don’t understand how much work I put into the last five chapters! Dad, I already know this stuff! [Don't make me do it again!]"

And Swanson's reply: “Son, I know you know this stuff. You’re my smart son. But I’m not trying to teach you math today; I’m trying to teach you character. I’m just using math to do it.”

Similarly if or when his son will complain that a math problem is too difficult:
Have you ever heard the proverb that says, "There’s a lion in the street, and from the lion in the street, the slothful will not go to work"? [A paraphrase of Proverbs 22:13 and 26:13. --JAH] Well, math serves as the lion in the street. There’s these obstacles that you will inevitably confront as you’re studying math. So when my son – or anybody else – hits this obstacle, a lot of times what happens is, he just stops. The work isn't getting done anymore. . . .

I say, “Son . . . Do you know what you do when there’s a lion in the street – when there’s an obstacle in the math book, or anywhere else? Here’s what you do: you go and get your .45 or your big, old muzzle loader, whatever it is, and you put a bullet through the head of the lion, and then you go to work. That’s how you deal with it.”

Math is an excellent way in which that can be done. . . . [An]other example . . .: “The slothful man does not take or eat what he’s taken in hunting.” [A paraphrase of Proverbs 12:27. --JAH] Remember that? In other words, he’s not precise enough; he wastes things. He grabs his little slice of meat and it’s good enough, for now, but he doesn’t do all of the work necessary to produce what he could produce at any given point in time.. . .

Well, math is an excellent way in which we can teach this element of conscientious diligence because math has this wonderful way of presenting a problem that takes 20 minutes to work through. You fill out two pages of notebook paper, working through that complex Algebra problem. Now, at the very end of the problem, after all of that work, you missed the answer because you forgot to put the decimal point in the right place, so you didn’t have a parenthesis in the right place. Then your son comes back to you and says, “But Dad, I’ve worked for that. Can’t I get some extra credit?” and you turn to him and say, “When the bridge comes down, nobody gets extra credit, buddy. You’ve got to be conscientious. You’ve got to be cutting off every little slice of that meat."

Math is an excellent way in which we can teach our children this kind of character.
"I’m trying to demonstrate for you how important it is to teach character within the academic program," Swanson concluded. "It’s got to be a priority. It’s got to be preeminent, guys."

*******

I appreciate the challenge Swanson raises, the question he brings to any and every Christian parent of school age children: "What is your goal? What do you want from and for your children?"

I think we all can and will benefit if we will seriously consider these questions.

I think we all--Mr. Swanson included--would say we would prefer our kids learned math and character, character and math. But the truth is, most of us--perhaps every one of us--tend[s] to stress one or the other. And the question is: Which is our priority?

And in the midst of that question, I think, Swanson knows he is poking at a nerve that will flare up for most parents--Christian or non--the moment he touches it. Because he knows that, in practice, most parents in our society follow Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the secularist society around them: We take the math and all the other academic subjects offered in our local schools and . . . Ahem! . . . Well, if our kids' character conforms to the society they keep--the unhappy, unmotivated, cynical, grouchy, complaining kids with whom they spend half their waking hours in the classroom schools that they attend . . . Well, most of us ask, . . . What else can we do?

That's the attitude of most parents, isn't it?

As I noted in my last post in this series, most parents--certainly most classroom schooling parents--seem to think they have no options. And so they stand by passively as the world around them--the students and teachers in their local public or private schools--conform their kids to their (the students' and teachers') image rather than the other way around. They let their kids' minds be "renewed" through conformity with "the world"--exactly opposite what Paul taught in Romans 12:2 ("Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind. . . .")

What I've just described, I believe, is not only of value to parents who send their kids to classroom schools. I think Swanson's example should be encouraging and helpful to a number of (especially newer) homeschoolers as well. Too many of us, I'm afraid, become so fixated on the academic content of our children's educations that we will ignore the issues of character that arise in the midst of the educational process. (Of course, it is far too easy to ignore these kinds of lessons at other times, too!)

******

I wouldn't say anything more than what I have just said except as a result of comments Bill Roach (president of CHEC) and Swanson (CHEC's executive director) made back in December when they and several of their cohorts from CHEC met with a number of Sonlight representatives when Sonlight was seeking to find out why CHEC had banned it from exhibiting at the CHEC convention.

As I noted in my January 31st post on that subject, it seemed to become clear during our December meeting that part of the reason CHEC no longer wants Sonlight to show at its conventions is because the decision-makers at CHEC are convinced that Sonlight features too high a proportion of books written by non-Christians. But now, based on what Swanson said at the "Men's Leadership Summit," I wonder if something else may be at work as well.

Sonlight, no question, believes and acts upon the belief--as St. Paul teaches--that "[a]ll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). Sonlight believes--and acts upon the belief--that Scripture memorization is a valuable discipline. The portion of Sonlight's Bible program that is built into its Core Instructor's Guides, includes weekly Scripture memorization.

But Sonlight has never declared--and I can't imagine it ever will declare--what Swansoon does: that "God wants our children to learn the Book of Proverbs" and,
"[O]ur children . . . need to know the Book of Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, Genesis . . . better than they know their Saxon Algebra." . . . Nor can I imagine Sonlight would suggest, as Swanson did, that any but a very select group of students would benefit from being able to identify and/or list "the Messianic Psalms, . . . the Exhortation Psalms," or "the themes of [the] 150 Psalms."

Indeed, I can imagine that such "head knowledge" could be rather damaging to a sizable group of students. It would be the very kind of knowledge that "puffs up" rather than "edifies" (1 Corinthians 8:1).

*******

With that off my chest, let me return to Swanson's speech.

*******

Character Training in Academics (cont'd.)
Now, it’s really interesting that Aristotle does an entire book on rhetoric. I bring up Aristotle because he is the grandpa of classical humanist education, so he does a huge book on rhetoric. I taught rhetoric through that book one time, and there’s so much lacking in that book that I don’t teach out if it much, anymore. But one of the things that’s lacking is any reference to fear and reverence and humility, and yet Peter – the apostle Peter – has one tiny little verse on rhetoric – on teaching rhetoric. He says, “Be prepared to give an answer to every man for the faith that’s within you, yet do it with meekness and fear.” [1 Peter 3:15 --JAH] He has one little verse on rhetoric. He doesn’t forget to include two very, very, very vital issues.

He says if you dare practice rhetoric; if you dare stand up and give an answer; if you dare to get involved in the activity of the exchange of information and knowledge – he says, whatever you do, make sure you don’t forget to do it in the fear of God, and in humility before man. I’ll tell you, guys, the No. 1 sin that seems to be rampant in our society today, among educated people--and I’m talking about pastors, I’m talking about classical educators, I’m talking about kids that are out there blogging, I’m talking about pseudo-smart people who are trying to argue their point on the blogosphere--I’ll tell you, the No. 1 problem I see is the problem of pride. It’s everywhere. It’s insidious, and it’s ripping apart relationships in churches. It rips apart relationships in this movement.

My guess is, there are some brothers here in this congregation, today, that need to humble themselves before God, and go to their brother and work out issues, but they can’t hardly do it because they’ve got pride in their systems.

Because we have so separated the issues of humility and fear from our academics – because I never had a college professor, in four years, I never had a seminary professor in three years, who ever said, “Kevin, it looks like you’ve got a little pride, here. I notice you’ve got some sarcasm, a little bit of pride coming through, here, as you’re attacking somebody who takes a position that’s somewhat close to you. I’m just sensing some pride because I know you. I have been with you, now, for a year; for two years; for three years. I know you and you’ve got pride, right now, creeping up and we’ve got to address that issue.”

Professors don’t do that, guys. It’s very rare, where you have relationships that are developed, such that they can do that. Once you get into high school, you get a different teacher every year, or in every class. Moreover, it’s very difficult, for teachers today, to teach character in the Algebra class. Why? Because they are not allowed to do two things: 1) hug the child; and 2) spank the child.

Now, you tell me, how in the world can we bring together a biblical concept of education – the preeminence of faith and character, in the life of a child – into a classroom, if you cannot hug and kiss a child, and you cannot spank a child, or discipline them in a biblical manner. It is impossible, but the teachers are saying, “We don’t need to do it. That’s the parents’ job. Don’t you know, since Aquinas, we have been separating humility and fear from the education of a child? We’ve not been doing that for 1,000 years. Of course, we don’t need to discipline them. Of course, we don’t need a relationship with them. Of course, we don’t need to disciple them. That’s not what we do. All we do is give them knowledge, and it’s a knowledge that puffeth up, and not a charity that edifies. [1 Corinthians 8:1 in King James English. --JAH]"

Guys, I’m telling you, this has been toxic. This has been toxic. It’s turned education, families and churches into dysfunctional units. God wants us teaching the beginning of wisdom and knowledge as the fear of God.

Six verses into the Book of Proverbs, we get the very beginning of education, and that is the fear of God – the trembling before God of the science class, and of course, the humility before men. The entire Book of Proverbs is, largely, about the faith and character. That’s what it is. God wants these principles inculcated in the lives of our children.

It’s interesting; Dr. Thomas Stanley does a book on success in America. . . . [H]e interviews 722 millionaires in America, most of whom are entrepreneurs; [and] he’d say, “Okay, what was it that made you so successful – at least, in the economic sense?” . . . Well, most of the millionaires are putting “My grades in high school,” “My Ph.D. in chemistry,” or whatever--they're putting education and academic preparation way down at the bottom – No. 22 – Factor No. 22, education and academics, not important at all, but the No. 1 factor millionaires said, “Man, this stood me in good stead in the American free marketplace.” --The No. 1 factor was, guess what? Tell the truth.

I did a statistical survey of the Book of Proverbs one time. . . . I did a Pareto chart and prioritized the lessons by how many times God mentioned them. Some of the lessons God mentions again and again and again and again. Usually, if God is gonna mention something 100 times, it’s really, really important, so you better get it down. So I did this Pareto chart, and the No. 1 most repeated lesson in the Book of Proverbs was, guess what? Tell the truth in the use of the tongue.

Then, as you go down the list of those millionaires and other things, you found out the hard work and diligence; getting along with others; self-discipline; all there – and every single one of those, of course, is preeminent in the Book of Proverbs – very important in the Book of Proverbs.

No. 5 is really interesting. I thought it was really interesting. It said the No. 5 most important priority and factor that contributed to the success of millionaires was getting a supportive spouse. So this is important. If you’re gonna be successful, you better have a spouse that supports you in this. By the way, I’ve talked to many entrepreneurs. They said, “If my wife wasn’t with me the entire distance, we would not have made it.” That’s what they said. Well, guess what shows up in the Book of Proverbs? In fact, Chapter 31 – we have an entire chapter on “her price is far above rubies."

"You’ve got to get her, son. This is what she looks like. This is your supportive spouse. Go get her.” Now, as I was reading the Tom Stanley book, I’m thinking to myself, “Wow! God picked up some things from these millionaires.”

Or maybe it was the other way around. I’m just testing your epistemology, right now.

What is your ultimate commitment, in terms of authority? Why didn’t we go with the Book of Proverbs, from the beginning? Did you have to buy the Dr. Thomas Stanley book before you actually went out and did what God wanted you to do? Come on, guys; let’s just take it at face value and go with it.

The other principle of life integration is really similar – very important, I think, in the education of a child because it’s also in the Word of God. James, Chapter 1, is very clear: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. If anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he’s like a man who looks himself in the mirror, and straightaway forgets what manner of man he was."
*******

I really didn't expect to say anything more here, at the end of my post. What's not to like about Swanson's talk so far? It's good, isn't it? Solid. Biblical. Who is going to complain about a preacher who calls us to trust in God's Word and do it? --That's biblical, isn't it?

Absolutely.

And I don't want to complain about any exhortation to hear God's Word, believe it, and obey.

And yet.

And yet.

There is something in what Swanson said there, at the end of this section--about Stanley's book--that triggered something in my heart.

I had been uncomfortable, earlier, as Swanson referenced the Proverbs about a lion in the street and a slothful hunter. When, at the end of this section, he went on implicitly to mock anyone who might hesitate to apply the Proverbs until they saw Stanley's book, I think I was able, finally, to put my finger on what, exactly, made me uncomfortable.

Swanson said,
Now, as I was reading the Tom Stanley book, I’m thinking to myself, “Wow! God picked up some things from these millionaires.”

Or maybe it was the other way around. I’m just testing your epistemology, right now.

What is your ultimate commitment, in terms of authority? Why didn’t we go with the Book of Proverbs, from the beginning? Did you have to buy the Dr. Thomas Stanley book before you actually went out and did what God wanted you to do? Come on, guys; let’s just take it at face value and go with it.
Reality: Most of us nowadays don't face lions in the street. Far fewer American men hunt than don't. So most of us can hardly imagine what these proverbs should look like in real life. We can't imagine how they would have looked and felt to the original readers much less how they ought to look in practice to those of us who live in modern America today. It's just not that easy to read a more-or-less 3,000-year-old text and "take it at face value and go with it."

My point: I'm not convinced it's an epistemological question or question of authority so much as it is a practical question and a question of interpretation. How shall we apply Scriptures that speak of lions in the street and slothful hunters?

As Francis Schaeffer expressed it in the title of one of his books: "How shall we then live" . . . in today's society?

********

Postscript: I hope, in the next few days, to share a little "lion in the street" experience I've been facing over the last many years . . . and the "solutions" I've adopted over the years with greater and lesser degrees of success.




Next post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part II (Keep the PURPOSE in Mind).

More on Doug Phillips' vision for the future of homeschooling in America

#6 in an ongoing series on Christian Home Educators of Colorado 2009 "Men's Leadership Summit" (otherwise known as the "The Vision of the Leadership Summit") held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at one of the hotels owned by Bill Gothard's group over the weekend of March 5-7, 2009. Previous post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit," Part V - "Visionary Fathers". First post in the series: 2009 Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) "Men's Leadership Summit," Part I.


Karen Campbell/"thatmom" has written a thoughtful follow-up to my post about Doug Phillips' second speech at the CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" back in early March. I encourage you to read her post.

Her comments--especially about Phillips' calls to abolish government-run schools, Child Protective Services, and church-based or church-run schools) reminded me of some things I had thought about but forgot to mention when I wrote my post:
As I grew up, my parents' home was absolutely not a haven of rest. It was a place from which I attempted to escape as much and as often as possible. The anger, the verbal abuse, the (occasional) physical violence my parents expressed one toward the other (which, of course, impacted all six of us children): I needed to escape.

And guess what? My effective "family," for almost all practical purposes, was our church--i.e., of course, not the church building, but the loving, caring, nurturing people, the youth group leaders, the pastors, the Youth for Christ/Campus Life leader, and others who were willing to take me in and provide aid and comfort if and as I needed it.

My parents loved me. They cared for me. But there were so many dysfunctionalities in our family, they couldn't provide--they were incapable of providing--a goodly portion of the help I needed in order to grow in the grace of Christ.

. . . Moving on from my time at home--during the time I was in college--again I found my "family" in the church and in the Navigators, Campus Crusade, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

I was so thankful for all these ministries. I was so thankful for their larger world view. --Again, things that were far beyond my parents' ability to provide.

. . . Yet Phillips, Swanson, and friends seem so antagonistic to such ministries and opportunities.

How sad for kids like I was if their vision were to come to pass!
Here's another thought that came about as a result of discussing Doug's speech with our eldest son.

We got talking about how the emphasis on "family-integrated church" (which, sometimes, may mean "family church"--i.e., "church" that includes no one besides one's close family members) . . . such an emphasis can lead to sadly out-of-balance, misshapen disciples.

Voddie Baucham, in his second speech at the Men's Summit (as we will see in a while) railed against parents who permit their children to attend classroom schools. To do so, he suggested, is to permit our children to become the companions of fools. And the Scripture says (Proverbs 13:20), "Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm." So, he urged, we should keep our children at home.

"But," my son asked, especially in light of Phillips' call for the abolition of Child Protective Services and the public school system, etc.--"how do these guys know that they are not fools themselves (or that we, the parents, are not fools)? What if we are fools? Then what?"

I was reminded of something my mentor, Dr. Ralph Winter of the U.S. Center for World Mission, once said about one reason (among many) that international missionary endeavors are so vital to the church: Missionary outreach ensures that the various branches of the church, worldwide, are forced to confront their own narrow, and potentially heretical, teachings. We are--each branch--hopefully, brought closer to a balanced perspective when we recognize how our brothers and sisters from other cultures and in other contexts interpret the same Scriptures.

I think he is right.

Therefore, on the one side, I am extremely grateful to the FIC (Family-Integrated Church) movement for challenging the mega- and, almost, "commercial" church movement that seems so common in the United States. I think it is legitimate--as Voddie did in his first speech--for them to challenge churches and parents with respect to their individual and mutual responsibilities. For example, I think some (indeed, many, and, possibly, most) parents leave too much in the hands of their churches and local public schools. And I think it would be really wonderful for the FIC to raise questions in these parents' minds about what, exactly, they think they are doing.

--I am reminded of my experience when we first looked at the public classroom school option for our oldest daughter.

I went down to the high school and asked the person at the front desk if I might look at a syllabus for one of the classes we were told our daughter would have to take. It was some kind of worldview course and I wanted to know what they would be teaching, how they would teach it, and how I might want to prepare our daughter for whatever-it-was they would be attempting to teach her.

The man behind the counter scowled at me and demanded to know why I wanted to see the syllabus.

Frankly, I was taken aback by his response, though I quickly realized that, "of course," he was unused to having people ask about the content of courses. The public school is used to telling parents and students what they "need" or "should" or "will" be taught. They are not used to having anyone ask why . . . or to question what, specifically, will be included in a course.

Anyway, I wanted to say something about being the "customer."

I don't remember what, specifically, I told the guy. But I realized, at the time, that my entire approach to the school had been impacted by my experiences through the years as a homeschooling parent. I viewed education very much as a consumer and not as a person who is "stuck" with whatever the monopoly deigns to provide.

I viewed (and still view!) education as an open field of alternatives, opportunities. The question is not "What will 'they' stick me with?" Rather, it is, "What will I choose to use?"

The public schools with which I'm familiar have no sense that they are in a competitive, commercial environment. They don't view parents and students as customers. I think they view us more as something like their property, their appropriate servants. They have no responsibility to answer to us; we have a responsibility to answer to them! We will do what they tell us.

. . . So I think it was good that I interfaced with that teacher in the local public high school and--to whatever extent and however I did it--forced him to consider that maybe--just maybe--he didn't have a "right" either to my subservience or to my daughter's presence in his classroom. (As it turned out, the man I approached was the person who developed the particular class whose syllabus I requested to see!)

Similarly, I think it would be most valuable to many parents and pastors and local church staff members if they, too, were to hear some of the "alternative" views of advocates for the Family-Integrated Church model. (While anti-FIC advocates may complain about the overwhelming conformity required of participants in those churches, some of the more "mainstream" churches would probably benefit from hearing the stories of people like the woman whose story I quoted last month, whose family, she said, was kicked out of one church by the pastor "because we broke the rules and brought our sleeping infant" into the "adult" worship hall ("the 'Family Room' (what they call the sanctuary.........what a joke)," she said bitterly).

Again: My point: I think we need each other! We need to hear the insights that each of us has to bring to the table.

But if and as we declare fools everyone with whom we think we disagree, and if and as we cut ourselves off from the larger body of Christ--all members of which exhibit unique foibles, failures and foolishness--I am afraid we will find ourselves more and more out-of-balance and off-kilter and less and less able to reflect the beauty of Christ in the world.



Next post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit" - "Homeschooling - Capturing the Vision," Part I (Character in Academics).

Sunday, March 29, 2009

CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit," Part II--"For Such a Time as This -- The 1000-Year Battle Over the Hearts and Minds of the Next Generation"

#2 in an ongoing series on Christian Home Educators of Colorado 2009 "Men's Leadership Summit" (otherwise known as the "The Vision of the Leadership Summit") held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at one of the hotels owned by Bill Gothard's group over the weekend of March 5-7, 2009. Previous (and first) post in this series: 2009 Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC) "Men's Leadership Summit," Part I.



I should note that, in my last post on this theme, I was quoting from my informant's summary notes about the CHEC 2009 Men's Leadership Summit held at the Indianapolis Training Center of Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles.

I decided, if I was going to report any more, I had better listen to the recordings from the meeting and convey very accurately the specific messages of those who spoke at the convention.

This post comes from the opening speech Kevin Swanson made to the convention on Thursday evening, March 5, 2009 and is available in full, audio form from ResoundingVoice.com.

*******

After some introductory comments about his family and his father-in-law's deathbed conversion from anti-Christian zealot to believer, Swanson transitioned to the primary subject of his speech, "The 1000 Year Battle Over the Hearts and Minds of the Next Generation."

He began with an expression of thanks:
Let's thank God for the men and women who went before us--the R.J. Rushdoonys, the Gordon Clarks, the Cornelius Van Tils--who created the materials that we are using today. I've also read some great materials written by Gregg Harris and Chris Klicka and Mike Farris. These guys were writing things in the 1980s that we are saying today. . . .

We here, today, stand on the shoulders of guys who went before us 20 and 30 years ago who started The Reformation of the 20th Century [the homeschool/home discipleship movement].

Let us also thank God for the many Deborahs and Esthers--the many, many women who were faithfully teaching their children in the '80s, '90s and 2000s. . . .

But if men don’t step up to the plate today, this Reformation will not move on. . . . We have been raised up for such a time as this.
And with that, he was off and running, first with a littany of societal failures.

Key points:
  • "Manhood has virtually become extinct. Men are not being men." Evidence for this claim:
    • 70% of young men, according to Newsweek magazine, are not grown up by 30 years of age. ("That's up from 35% in the 1970s.")
    • They don’t have steady jobs.
    • They are making less money than their parents did in the 1970s and less than women their same age.
    • They live at home with their parents.
    • More girls are in college and involved in student government than are young men. (57% of the people in college today are women; 43% men. "In our local public high school, where our church meets for worship, there are pictures for all the members of student council: 18 are women; three are little boys.")
    "I believe you're seeing, here, a picture of the future of this nation if men are not men."
By contrast,
  • 1 Samuel 23 shows us mighty men of God, the mighty men of David, men who, for a span of 40 years, had the opportunity to advance the kingdom of God. They were men of vision and courage. And we need such men today to discern the real dragons and take them on.

    "I believe, with the 480 men here, today, we can see some significant positive change in hundreds and hundreds of churches and families across America."
What are the dragons Swanson believes these men must slay?
  • "We need to engage in the battle of Ideas--the most dangerous battle today. We need to take down everything/every thought that puts itself above Christ."
But,
  • "We need to engage in this conflict together."

    "People are engaged in vision-casting, but not involved in a battle for unity."

    Swanson noted that in Ephesians 4:1-3, Paul says, "I want you to strive [Swanson: "like a gladiator, fighting for your very life"] to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
     
  • We need to "destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God," and "take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). But at the same time, we need to engage in the battle of love.
     
  • We need to give our lives.

    "I want men willing to die, to shed their blood for the Christ who shed His blood for us. Oh, would that God would make us willing to bleed for the Kingdom, to bleed for the truth, and to bleed for the love of the brothers!"

    Therefore, "Don't you dare bring your vision to the dinner table where you are slicing differences between brothers. No. You engage in vision-casting as you bring brothers together at the same time.
And with those principles in mind, then, Swanson noted, "I have been working with many of you on a Homeschool Manifesto. But I'm not bringing the Homeschool Manifesto out to split the homeschool movement. No! I'm bringing a vision, a manifesto, that we can agree upon. . . . "

At this point, then, he inserted a side note about the Manifesto many of the men who attended the Summit expected they were going to be working on:
By the way, we are going to put off the publishing of the Manifesto. We're not doing it this week, because we don't think we have cultivated it enough. We're going to give you an outline, a preview of that Manifesto. And we're going to beg for your wisdom, for your vision, as we continue to mold this vision of a Christian education manifesto for the 21st century.

I think it's about time we had such a manifesto because, number one, education is falling apart in America. Our culture is falling apart. And the culture, the social system, is a derivative of the educational system. And the political system is a derivative of the social system. And it's all falling apart. Is that clear to anybody who has picked up the Wall Street Journal lately . . . or any newspaper? Our world is falling apart! I mean, the character of this nation is in free-fall. [He then recapitulated the statistics he quoted already plus a lot, lot more--a very grim report about Western culture and how it is destroying everything it touches.] . . .

Call it what you will, existentialistic, humanistic, materialistic, whatever it is, it is enveloping our culture, our academic system, our universities, our economic system. It is raging. And if our little children even get one little toe in that river, it will suck them through and [make] them join the millions upon millions of Christian children who have been taken into this river.
It's against this bleak backdrop of a virtually irredeemable culture that Swanson then builds his case for a new model, a new vision for education--not education; not homeschooling, but discipleship and nurture.

He begins with a little intellectual history lesson and a statement of how he, himself, would prefer we teach world history--the history of what he calls the City of God and the City of Man.

What is the source of all the cultural decay he summarized for us?
I think we're coming to the end of an about 1000-year project of building the City of Man.

The City of Man is built by the Cains of this world, the humanists, those that refuse to fear and love and worship the living God. It is their project. And this project has been worked on for the last 1000 years. . . .

[W]hat we see over the last 1000 years is the slow growth of the modern empires, beginning with the Holy Roman Empire, moving on to the Spanish Empire, then the French Empire, then the English Empire, and, finally, the American Empire. . . .
"We need to teach our children the history" of these empires, says Swanson. "About 30 seconds for the City of Man."

What is the City of Man?
  • Egypt. It builds its towers, then they fall down.

  • Assyria does the same.

  • Then Persia.

  • Then Greece.

  • Then the Romans.

  • Then the Spaniards.

  • The French.

  • The English.

  • The Americans.
They all fall down.

That's the history of the City of Man. And that's all our children need to know. About 30 seconds.

THEN we need to take about four years to teach them about the City of God--church history, what God is doing around the world. We should take about four years to teach about the City of God, the Kingdom that will never die. "We want to give our children a radically different education than what they will get in the City of Man."

"Schaeffer said that the City of Man always builds its towers so high that they all fall down. They start with optimism, but they end in pessimism." That's why these empires begin with tremendous literature, and then they stop writing. "It all ends in pessimism . . . because they are not focused on the eternal, the Kingdom that will last forever."

Examples:
  • Swanson mentioned several examples of optimistic literature with which various (modern European) empires began and then contrasted those to Nietsche, Schopenhauer, Jean Paul Sartre, the Existentialists, and so forth.

  • In terms of popular culture:

    • "The '80s most popular hit was 'My grandfather's clock' ("My grandfather's clock was too large for the shelf, so it stood 90 years on the floor . . ."). --Yes, the '80s. The 1880s."

    Contrast that to

    • The most popular album two years ago which included a song that referred to the singer's mother as a female dog. Or

    • The #1 song last year--it spent 8 weeks as #1 on the charts--was by Katy Perry, a pastor's daughter . . . "and it encourages girls to be lesbians!" [Well, not quite. Though it definitely comes close. The song is titled "I Kissed a Girl (and I liked it)." --JAH]
"How do we get to the culture we have today? From a fairly Christian Europe to a thoroughly secular culture we have today?"

Swanson suggests,
It all started back about 1000 years ago when Aquinas said [Summa, Part I, Question 1, Article 1--"Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?"--JAH], "Theology, included in sacred doctrine, differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy." What he says is, "You've got your Christian theology over here. You've got yourself about the trinity, about the redemption, about the atonement, about the incarnation. You've got all that over here. And then we've got our philosophy over here and that's the stuff the Greeks gave us. That's science, that's physics, and that's chemistry. And never the twain shall meet. They don't have contact with one another. They are not a division of one another. They are just separate forms of learning."

Moreover he says [Summa, Part I, Question 1, Article 2--"Whether sacred doctrine is a science?"--JAH], "[J]ust as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God."

So you've got the authority of the scientists and the mathematicians over here, and you've got the authority of God over here. And he has this radical separation in mind.

And why is this important? Because this is the beginning of the secular university. This produces the intellectual apology for Christians to engage in building the City of Man.

See, Christians wouldn't have been involved in these things--Christians wouldn't have gotten into these horrific systems that leave God out--if they weren’t taught a thousand years ago that you can have your theology over here and your philosophy over here, and these things are separate things.
[I am sorely tempted to comment on what he says at this point, but I would like to let him finish his "argument," and then I will say a few things. So let us continue. --JAH]

Illustrations of this radical separation:

  • In seminary: "I never had a seminary professor ask me about my personal walk with God. If you have seminary professors teaching theology without getting involved in nurturing and discipling, you've got a problem."

  • A 13-year-old girl from his church was babysitting a three-year-old girl who, the babysitter knew, went with her parents to a certain mega-church in the area. At one point in the evening, something happened so that the 13-year-old said to the 3-year-old, "We need to praise God for this." And the 3-year-old replied, "No we don't! We only do that on Sunday!"

  • I do not understand how 35% of evangelical young people could vote for Barack Obama.

  • Book in Barnes & Noble called Galaxy. "'The heavens declare the glory of God . . . '--but that verse was never mentioned in the book. God is nowhere mentioned in the book."

"Guys," says Swanson, "if you teach science, if you teach chemistry, . . . don't you dare to do it without stopping from time to time and saying, '. . . Children, let's worship [the God who made these things]. Get down on your knees and worship the God who made these things.'"
Universities haven't taught that way in hundreds of years. I'll tell you, that's what's ruining chemistry and biology and science in our modern age. It's a scary thing what's happening. You teach science without the fear of God for a hundred years, I fear what they will do to that science. They'll destroy it.
As an example of what he expects dads to do, he tells of a science class his family held centered on the dissection of a road-kill raccoon his wife picked up one day on her way home from the store. Apparently, they invited a number of other families to join in the lesson. There were "about 25 kids and moms" all ready to begin when, Swanson says,
I said, "Let's lift our hands and praise the God Who made this animal. Let's worship God in this. . . . Have you made a raccoon like this lately? . . . Let's worship God." So we worshiped God together. We lifted our hands and we worshiped God who made this beautiful raccoon. . . . I know that's weird because we're a thousand years away from doing that kind of stuff. But we've got to restore "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge" in all of these various areas of life.

I believe that the reformation of the modern era began in the 1960s . . . with Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb who said, "There is a God who made these things."

I know that evolutionism and deism and Unitarianism has distanced us from God over 200 years of our history. And we have been learning these things in laboratories that have not been teaching the fear of God and the worship of God. There has been nobody trembling before this God as they wonder at His universe. And, by the way, this is one reason why science is so dull. Because you take a book like Galaxy, and you gut God from that book, and you start saying, "Hey, it was chance that put it together. There is no purpose, no meaning in any of that. It's just a random event that create-- . . . I'm sorry. It just happened. . . ." --When they complete their explanation of the metaphysic, we're all wondering why we should stand in wonder about all these things. . . .

If you can't fear a personal God Who is behind it, Who made all this, then you have no reason to be interested or engaged or in amazement in any chemistry class or astronomy class or biology class.

May God help us to restore these things.
Another point:

If you had the choice to subject your children either to four hours a day of study under a public school teacher or four hours a day of interaction with their peers--one or the other but not both: which would you choose? I think, with the average child, I would go with the teacher. Why is that? . . . Because, it turns out, the people who do the most to discipleship, the most education, the most training in terms of a child's education, academics, attitude, perspectives, etc., etc., are not so much the teacher as Hollywood. The Hannah Montanas, the Eminems and the Nicholas Cages and the Katy Perrys of the world that have a tremendous amount of influence upon the attitudes, the perspectives, the dress, the language of our children--far more than the average teacher. And this is why we are concerned. [Not sure who, exactly, the "we" is in this sentence. But that is the word Swanson used. "We are concerned." --JAH]

We see a raging river that is sucking our children into an alternate worldview, an alternate perspective, an alternate culture, an alternate social system. And we think that's extremely dangerous, and therefore, brothers, I'm telling you, where we are today is desperate times. And desperate times call for desperate measures. And this, I believe, is why you are here today. And this is why about 95% of our Christian friends out there don't understand what we are doing. They think we are pretty whacked. They think we are the radical right fringe of the Christian movement. That's because they believe there is a tiny little dent on the fender of their social system and that's about it, and there isn't something principally wrong with the way we've been educating in our private schools, even--our Christian schools as well as our public schools.

[But] we've got to reassess the way we are educating our children from the bottom up. "Desperate times call for desperate measures."
And so the solution? The "desperate measures"?
I think the solution we are talking about this weekend is . . . found in Deuteronomy 6:7.

[In] Deuteronomy 6:7 God says, "I want you to teach your children My Word as you sit in your house, as you walk by the way, as you rise up, as you lie down. I want it to be integrated and I want it to be like a frontlet between the eyes. Write it on the posts of your gates and on your house. Write it on the walls. Put it all over the place.

"I want your children to run into Me all the time, always confronted with the existence, the importance, the relevance, the fear and the reverence of Me. I don't want your children ever, ever, ever to get the impression they can go to Sunday school and learn their little God stuff on Sunday, but then Monday through Saturday they can enjoy their godless education, their godless art, their godless culture, their godless Eminem, their godless rape rap, or what have you. No! I want My Word to be integrated into every aspect of their lives. I want them to live in the atmosphere of the fear of God all the time. As the Proverbs say, ' . . . all the day long.'

"I don't want them ever to have the impression that they can pray on Sunday and do whatever they want the rest of the week."

Brothers, this begins by bringing the fear of God and passionate worship and the confession of our sins right into the algebra class.

I'm tired of segregating these things. And if I ever do any other kind of classes where I'm teaching anybody but my own children, I'm going to do the same thing I do with my own children: we are going to be on our knees worshiping God. We are going to be confessing our sins . . . as we study chemistry . . . because God says, "I want you to teach your children My truth as you sit in your house. You see, I want you to take the truth, the reality, the absolute truths, the ethics of God, the laws of God, the perspectives of God, and teach them My worldview, My truth, in the womb of relationship."

And I say we call that discipleship.

And that, brothers, is the Manifesto.

We are going to bring back the relevance of God. We're going to bring back worship, bring back confessions, bring back relationships in the education of our children.
Swanson describes some of the things he witnessed in the Christian school where, when he first started his church, he rented office space.
  • He says he saw a boy "[drop] his pants for a girl in the hallway."

  • And he heard a lot of "yelling and disrespectful language" and kids "taking God's name in vain." And in the midst of all this kind of behavior, a teacher stops the class and says, "Let's pray." Which they do. And then he has them open their "pagan textbooks which had no mention of God at all; God was irrelevant to these textbooks."
"Guys," says Swanson, "I think that's a travesty! If God made this world, I think He deserves a little more credit for it. And it bothers me when you've got these Aquinasites in these Christian schools that are saying, 'We'll have our little prayer over here, but, boy, that prayer, that relationship with God is sure not going to touch the way we do science. It's sure not going to touch the way we walk through the hallways. It's sure not going to touch the way we speak disrespectfully to the teachers in the classroom. . . .'"

A few moments later, Swanson makes a confession.
I taught in Christian schools myself and I tell you . . . I don't remember wading into some kid's life and discipling him. Now that is to my shame, but that is just what we did . . . at least in the early 90s when I was teaching in the Christian school movement.

As you read the Word of God what do you find? You don't find the word education. What do you find? You find words like discipleship, nurture, hearts ("My son, give me your heart." [Proverbs 23:26]). Can you remember a teacher say, "My student, give me your heart"? Did you ever have a college professor do that? "William, I'm concerned about you"? That's not taught in teaching colleges. They're not taught about hearts. They're not taught about relationships. They're not taught about discipleship and nurture and love. Maybe love. But I just don't think we've uncovered these things enough.

We need to call [Christians] to use words like discipleship and nurture. Stop talking schools with me. Don't talk about education with me. Let's not talk about home education and Christian education, Christian schools. Let's talk about discipleship. Let's talk about a focus on faith and character. Let's focus on the discipling of a child.
To make the distinction he's trying to make absolutely clear, Swanson notes that, if the public schools were ever to collapse . . . so that those who currently send their children to the public schools were to begin teaching their children at home, that wouldn't solve any of the great societal problems he mentioned.

Discipleship, however, "teaching to obey all things Jesus commanded us": that is transformative.
So, brothers, let's restore the concept of discipleship in our homes and in our families. Let's take the arms of those little children and say, "Let me lead you to Jesus. Let me teach you about Christ." Let's nurture them in these relationships. Let's nurture them in the algebra class. Let's disciple them in the chemistry class. Let's worship God in the physics class. And then we'll shock everybody when we begin confessing our sins in the geography class.

That's education!
Swanson closed with an appeal to teach a few deeply rather than the many in only the shallowest manner.
"See," he says, "what I see happening throughout Christian history, . . . is a trade-off between quality and quantity. . . .
[O]ver the last 200 years, thanks to the 19th-century missionary movement--and I praise God for it--we have had a massive increase in the quantity of the Christian faith in places like Africa and Asia. And I say, praise God for that. But at the same time, most of that Christianity went a mile wide and an inch deep. Now I think we need to make a very important, deliberate strategy change in the way that we do missions, evangelism, Kingdom work on Planet Earth and that is to apply ourselves to more of a quality effort in establishing the Kingdom of God.
And where will that quality effort come from?

First and foremost, from Christian families discipling their children--and in the case of the men who were listening to him speak, from the fathers discipling their sons in the way they should go.



John's Commentary

I want to begin my commentary by noting that I agree with much of Swanson's analysis, most of his attitudes, and, over-all, his revulsion at the way our culture--and most of the evangelical Christian subculture--has gone (and is still going).

I can't imagine responding in any different way. The stuff that is happening is truly horrifying.

I agree, too, with the majority of his prescription for solution. Let us "go deep." (Indeed, that is what my wife and I attempted with our own kids while they were living at home and we homeschooled them; it is what we continue to do even today as they are now young adults in their 20s and very early 30s. We continue to speak into their lives. Regularly. Not only--nor, necessarily, even, primarily, by words. But by deeds. How we live our lives.)

But then. Then. Then there is something--I have a hard time putting my finger on it, but there is something--I just can't quite go along with in what he says.


[ETA at 4:00 p.m. on 3/29/09] I can identify and fairly easily parse one piece that bothers me. From his conclusions surrounding the raccoon story.

He says he called his children and the other students to worship God. "So we worshiped God together. We lifted our hands and we worshiped God who made this beautiful raccoon."

I think that's beautiful.

And I appreciated his comment about the feelings such behavior tends to engender:
I know that's weird because we're a thousand years away from doing that kind of stuff. But we've got to restore "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge" in all of these various areas of life.
I know what he's talking about. I get some of the same feelings sometimes (though not much, anymore, since these have become such deeply engrained "habits of life" after years of practice; but . . . ). I get those feelings sometimes when I have to interrupt someone at the start of a business meeting at Sonlight: "Hold on a second! We start our meetings with prayer!" (Clearly, what is habitual and "normal" for us, who have led the company for several years, is not habitual for any of our external advisors nor most of our employees.) Or when our family goes to a restaurant and bows for prayer.

So I'm "all up with him" in this matter of worship.

But I have a harder time with his comment about "the reformation of the modern era began in the 1960s . . . with Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb who said, 'There is a God who made these things.'"

I'm sorry. Weren't any other evangelical Christians saying God had made--or created (even ex nihilo)--everything there is?

Even if they didn't advocate for a young-earth and/or instantaneous, God-spoke-it-and-poof-it-came-into-existence kind of scenario, is it legitimate to suggest that these, our spiritual forebears, didn't say, "There is a God who made these things"?

Having said what I just said, however, I find my heart beating in rhythm with what Swanson says about how "evolutionism and deism and Unitarianism has distanced us from God."

And it disturbs me every bit as much as it seems to disturb Swanson that--I dare say--very, very few Christians have been teaching "the fear of God and the worship of God" in the sciences in the last 100 years or more. Our advocacy for methodological naturalism comes far too close, far too often, to real ontological naturalism (as I discussed in my post on Seeking to distinguish "methodological" from "ontological" naturalism). Far too often, I'm afraid, we really do operate (as I confessed I operate too often) as "functional atheists."

And so I applaud Swanson when he seeks to indict us for failing to tremble before God as we wonder at His universe. Swanson is onto something when he says, "[Y]ou take a book like Galaxy, and you gut God from that book, and you start saying, 'Hey, it was chance that put it together. There is no purpose, no meaning in any of that. It's just a random event that create-- . . . I'm sorry. It just happened. . . .'" --You do that, and, I agree, there is good reason to ask "why we should stand in wonder about all these things. . . ."

And I join him in praying that God will help us to restore the fear of God as the recognized beginning of wisdom in our culture.

At the same time, however, I'm not convinced he and his friends "have it right" when they suggest the only proper, the only possible solution to the perceived purposelessness of our culture is to be found in a young-earth, poof-God-made-it-appear-in-an-instant "metaphysic."

He (and they) may be right. But, as I've been discussing here in John's Corner of the World, I sense the young-earther's philosophically-based opposition to the so-called "random chance" aspects of modern evolutionary theory not only fail to reply appropriately to the challenges raised by atheists when it comes to the modern theory of evolution, but it fails to respond properly to the philosophical problems in Christian theology associated with God's sovereignty over apparent randomness, chance, and chaos ("chaos theory") as these relate to everyday issues . . . whether the throw of the dice, the flipping of a coin, or any other apparently unpredictable event.

It doesn't help us understand--nor seem to show much confidence in--God's sovereign oversight of history. If God is acknowledged by Christians as only in control when He controls through obviously miraculous means, then it appears there is something wrong with the statements found in such passages as Proverbs 16:33 ("The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from [Jehovah]."); Proverbs 16:9 ("The mind of man plans his way, But [Jehovah] directs his steps."); Proverbs 21:31 ("The horse is prepared for the day of battle, But victory belongs to [Jehovah]."); and so forth. (See the section on "Historical Science" in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2c - Evolution and Creation - Excursus 2: Science.)

*******

Moving on.


Perhaps it is his own It's not quite as clear to me, but I think some of my discomfort with Swanson's speech comes from his extension of the bifurcation Aquinas noted in his Summa essays.

Swanson pulled two sentences--in fact, two pieces of sentences--from larger sections. And when I read those portions-of-sentences within context, I get a different sense, a different meaning, than what Swanson (and, potentially, many others) may have pulled from them.

For example, the first quote: "[T]heology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy." That is the final sentence in a longer (though only an 8-1/2" x 11" page long) article in which Aquinas notes that, in accordance with what we learn from 2 Timothy 3:16 (as well as other Scriptures), "It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason." Yet there are truths which God has granted us humans to learn by means other than the Scriptures. Thus, "the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round"--a conclusion learned not from Scripture but from these "philosophical sciences."

Yet Swanson seems bent on criticizing Aquinas for making that observation. Why? Is he trying to make points where none, rightly, ought to be made?

Then again, he says,
[W]hy [are these things that Aquinas says] important? Because this is the beginning of the secular university. This produces the intellectual apology for Christians to engage in building the City of Man.

See, Christians wouldn't have been involved in these things--Christians wouldn't have gotten into these horrific systems that leave God out--if they weren’t taught a thousand years ago that you can have your theology over here and your philosophy over here, and these things are separate things.
And I think, "What are you talking about? God's people have always been involved in culture-building, the same kinds of activities that Swanson identifies as "building the City of Man."

God has called His people to the responsibilities of fiduciaries, the responsibilities of stewards, the responsibilities of exercising dominion under His dominion. And responsibilities include--and have always included--food gathering or production; the building of houses; the caring for children; protection with lethal force, if necessary; trade. . . .

The question is not whether Christians are permitted to "engage in building the City of Man." The question is, "whom will we serve" while doing it (Joshua 24:15)?

Sadly, I have seen many Christians--even those who are outspokenly in line with the Swanson/Phillips/Baucham camp--engage in building their own "Cities of Man." Perhaps their empires are no larger than the influence they exert on their own families and the people and groups they directly touch outside their families.1 But the fact remains: the key question is and always will be--even moment by moment: "Whom will you serve . . . now?" And, "How will you serve?"

Suppose I determine to honor God through analyzing weather patterns (which analysis may contribute to the saving of human lives, the protection of crops, or all manner of other "City of Man" kinds of benefits). And suppose I engage in that kind of activity through the use of complex computer models created on supercomputers developed by God-hating atheists: Is all my work for naught, because, somehow, I am building the City of Man?

Listening to Swanson, I get the idea he thinks such work would, indeed, be defective for just such reasons.

But I don't think so.

On the other hand, perhaps I am missing his point.

******

There are a couple of final things I would like to note.

"It bothers me," he says, "when you've got these Aquinasites in these Christian schools that are saying, 'We'll have our little prayer over here, but, boy, that prayer, that relationship with God is sure not going to touch the way we do science. It's sure not going to touch the way we walk through the hallways. It's sure not going to touch the way we speak disrespectfully to the teachers in the classroom. . . .'"

I wonder who he means to be criticizing with these words.

It sounds as if he is criticizing the Christian school teacher himself for calling his class to prayer in the midst of all manner of coarse and God-dishonoring behavior. It sounds as if he is criticizing the school administrators and those who support such schools.

But isn't it the students (primarily) who ought to be called on the carpet for their failure to recognize God in their daily activities?

Oh, yes! The teachers (and, probably more, the parents), I have no doubt, need to call their children to account for their behavior. But the heart change is something that has to take place in the God-dishonoring students themselves.

Now, Swanson criticizes the Christian school for using a "pagan" textbook. And perhaps the criticism is deserved. I don't know what book they were using nor the alternatives available to them. I don't know to what degree the instructor may have wrestled with the text to note its deficiencies in the hearing of his students.

Perhaps his teaching was wholly inadequate, and he, himself, needs a major dose of education and discipleship so he begins to see God's hand at work in and through the very subject matter he is attempting to teach.

But I think I'd like to throw Swanson's comment a bit back in his lap. He obviously doesn't like that "little prayer" offered in the midst of a crowd of students who have, themselves, clearly not bought-in to a vibrant Christian faith.

But what should we say about the "little worship" (or even "big worship") Swanson wants to tack on to all his science, math, and "even" geography classes? Suppose his own children (or whoever is present for one of his lessons) happens not to believe in God or desire to serve God: is Swanson's worship, then, invalid? Or is it, for some reason, more valid or efficacious than the "little prayer" of the teacher he implicitly criticizes in the Christian school classroom?

I'd like to press the point one step further. What if a teacher in the Christian school (or public school) were to take Swanson's admonition to "nurture" and "disciple" to heart? What if such a teacher were to do the very thing Swanson says he never did when he was a teacher in the Christian school? Might that teacher have a profound impact on his or her students?

(I believe he or she would.)

Let me confess: My kids have been nurtured and discipled by a caring Christian teacher or two in the public high school where they attended. They received similar ministry from Christian professors at the universities and colleges where they attended. I was nurtured and discipled by some Navigator disciplers when I attended Michigan State back in the mid-1970s. I am very grateful for all these people's ministries.

I think it is fine for Swanson to call us to deeper and more effective ministry to our children and others--both children and adults. But I don't think it is necessary or right for him to suggest (or, at least, strongly imply) that only he and his group and those who follow him--and no one else--"does it right."

******

Finally: I really appreciate his call for us to seek the hearts of the next generation. May we do that very thing.

May it be said of us, or of our children after us:

"Thank you, teacher, for saying, 'Give me your heart.' Thank you, professor, for saying, '_________, I'm concerned about you.' --Your personal concern made a profound difference in my life."




1 4 April 2009, 11:59 AM emendation: This sentence originally featured a parenthetical clause that offered an example of such City-of-Man empire-building: "failing to pay legitimate bills, for example, while keeping funds for [one's own family]."

The clause included two links to a site that, when I wrote this article, gave documentary evidence for such behavior on the part of a modestly well-known "leader" in homeschool circles--someone who was present at the 2009 CHEC Men's Leadership Summit but did not speak.

Under threat of legal action for making such information known, the owner of the website I referenced has since removed the documentation.

Since I have no direct or personal knowledge of the situation; since I now lack the documentary evidence to back the example; and since I, myself, do not want to become embroiled in a lawsuit; I have decided to remove the reference.

*******

This circumstance, however, has gotten me thinking about a new idea. I have posted a separate post to cover that idea.

Return to text.



Next post in this series: CHEC "Men's Leadership Summit," Part III - "The Battle for Faith and Family".