End of an increasingly sad legacy?

It started with so much hope and promise. And then . . . What happened? Nasty, nasty stuff! You get into the comments of Jen Fishburne's blog and find out how truly awful the Vision Forum situation is—and/or is likely yet to become.

Still, watchful, careful commenters--like “Johnny”--write:

I must remind folks to be careful about speculation. This blog can do a lot of good, but folks should stop speculating where they don’t really know the truth; case in point, this statement above: “as far as we can determine from the tax records, VFI has never paid any rent to VFM and which, if VFI were to have complied with the tax code, it would have had to do. No one gets to occupy a separate legal entity’s property rent free.”

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but VFI has paid rent to VFM all along. . . .

Jen (the blogger) replied:

Johnny, you are correct that a small amount of rent was being paid, but certainly not anywhere near fair market value. . . .

On Vision Forum’s Form 990, it [shows (see p. 9--JAH)] a small amount of rent collected. Vision Forum Ministries owns two buildings: the warehouse/office that houses Vision Forum (both ministry and business), and Doug’s house. Since Doug has previously stated that he pays rent for his home to VFI, the very small amount of rent collected could conceivably be split between the two buildings. Even if it was just for one of the buildings, it would be FAR from fair market value. Considering it must cover both buildings, it is pitifully small. Here are the numbers.

Doug’s house has a current tax appraisal value of $681,900. Fair market rent for that particular home would be at least $5000 per month.

The Vision Forum land/building was appraised at $848,600 in 2011. If we figure that Vision Forum, Inc. uses about 80% of the 28,634 square feet of the building, and that the warehouse uses 90% of that, and the retail store uses 10%, if we were to assess 2011 commercial rates for the warehouse portion and separate rents for the retail store portion, fair market value commercial rent for that particular property should be approximately $14,400 a month.

Between the two properties, Vision Forum Ministries should have received approximately $232,832 in annual rents received. In reality, only $18,452 was collected by VFM between the two properties, leaving an annual shortfall of $214,380 (and an actual stated rental LOSS of $29,386; see p. 9 of the VFM 2011 990--JAH). Doesn’t seem like fair market value to me.

Another commenter noted that Jen is a certified tax preparer. . .

And then there was/is this comment by Peter Bradrick on his Facebook page. (Bradrick was Phillips’ executive assistant, now the operations manager for the National Center for Family Integrated Churches). He closes with the verse that always seems to go through my mind when we hear of someone's "fall from grace." But whether we feel ourselves likely to fall into the same errors or sins or not, I think of this verse in terms of being wary lest we gloat over someone else’s downfall, period. Let justice be done. But let us grieve at the cause:

The past decade of my life has been defined by my close relationship with my mentor and former spiritual father. Those who know me recognize my longstanding, fierce commitment to his family, his work, and his legacy. As soon as I caught wind of what was going on, I became very involved in working towards fulfilling the duties of friendship and brotherhood – to confront a man who has been like a father to me for a third of my life and plead with him to truthfully confess, and to genuinely take responsibility for longstanding betrayal of everything we had fought together for with the hope of ultimate restoration.

Friends... truth and justice are mercy. Covering sin is not mercy. (Proverbs 28:13, “He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.”) This was the message of the men that joined me to go in person to plead with him. Men he’s called “bosom brothers”, son’s in the Lord, close friends, and a mentor of his. What for us was a tender, emotional, mission of mercy and plea for true repentance was met with something, and by someone I never could have imagined. Instead of being received as the “wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6), I was formally disowned and declared to be a “destroyer” to my face.

There is no way to describe the soul crushing blow I was dealt that day and it's overall impact on my life. It's was like experiencing the scene from Braveheart… where William Wallace finds out he's been betrayed by Robert the Bruce, over and over again. Walking away from that meeting, I couldn’t speak for hours I was so stunned. I am still physically, emotionally and spiritually broken and asking God to give me wisdom. I know many people are so very hurt and confused regarding what has transpired and my prayer for myself, my family, and everyone involved is that we look to Christ alone with hearts of love, mercy, and repentance seeking to root out the sin in our own lives. Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

This post was "inspired" by Vision Forum Inc. to Permanently Close December 31 . . . and previous posts about the goings-on at Vision Forum.

Absolutely heart-breaking.

A quick summary of statistics related to homeschooling and homeschoolers

I thought this was interesting . . .


Source: TopMastersInEducation.com

What should a good Christian "origins" science program cover?

Considering the discussion over the last few days, I thought I would attempt a first-draft summary statement of what I think a really quality Christian science program would cover when it comes to origins.

My view: A top-quality science curriculum should discuss the various views and talk not only about the arguments in favor of each view, but about their problems . . . i.e., why advocates of each view are in favor of the view, and why opponents find fault with them. –It can be exceptionally difficult to present all of these positions fairly, but, I believe, fairness is necessary.

Okay. So what views should one cover?

Some typical viewpoints I have seen discussed include these:

• non-theistic evolution
   
• theistic evolution
   
• young-earth creationism
   
• old-earth creationism.

Some may also throw in a discussion of Intelligent Design.

I think such a list is good . . . as far as it goes.

The problem I find--and I am thankful to Ken Ham and friends at Answers in Genesis for opening my eyes to this matter 14 years ago . . . --The problem I find is how such a list tends to cut out any discussion of the biblical evidence. And it is the Bible that leads in AiG's/Ken Ham's young-earth creationist argument. And, in my mind--again in agreement with Ham and AiG--any curriculum that claims to be Christian needs a discussion of biblical evidence to play a central role . . . at least to the extent that the Bible has evidence to bring to the table.

As a result, I believe a discussion of origins requires quite a bit more nuance than the four (or, possibly, five) options mentioned above.

And so I would like to propose the following divisions for discussion/presentation in a thorough Christian "origins" program:

• Theism or naturalism? --Clearly, Christians will opt for theism. But the topic of biblical theism v. naturalism and, perhaps, pantheism, needs to be discussed. I imagine this is the place you might want to address the Intelligent Design school of argumentation, though I don't see its success as essential to a theistic worldview, nor its failure as a death knell for such a worldview.

Assuming a biblical theistic viewpoint, then, I believe we need to discuss the following matters:

• Biblical concordism or non-concordism? Some questions to address: How should we read Genesis 1-3 (let alone 4-11)?
  
  • Should we look for concord [agreement/peace] between what we read in Genesis 1 and 2 (at least) and how a scientist might describe the beginnings of the cosmos, the biosphere and humankind? [I.e.: Even though the language of the Bible, obviously, isn't going to be scientifically precise in any modern sense of the term, do the biblical descriptions of the beginning of the world and humankind generally match what modern scientists would say? Or, put another way: If we look at the “testimony” of science, should we expect to find that it corroborates what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? (If our answer is YES, then we are concordists. Examples of concordist positions: young-earth creationism; progressive creationism (Hugh Ross); gap theory; day-age theory; etc.)]
  —OR—
  
  • Should we abandon any attempt to find concord between science and Genesis 1 and 2 and, instead, look solely to science for clues with respect to how and when God created? [I.e.: Even though, based on numerous Scriptural references, we should recognize that God created the cosmos and everything in it, should we read the text of Genesis 1 and 2 as something other than literal history and, therefore, not expect or even attempt to show some kind of correlation to what scientists would have to say and what we read in Genesis 1 and 2? –If our answer to this question is YES, then we are non-concordists. Examples of non-concordist positions: John Walton’s “cosmic temple” interpretation; Johnny Miller and John Soden’s “apologetic against Egyptian mythology” interpretation; etc.)]
   
• Old-earth (i.e., billions of years) or young-earth (i.e., 6,000 to possibly 10,000 or maybe even 12,000 years old)? Questions to ask: What are we to believe about how old the earth is? What evidence do we find for how old the earth is?
  
  NOTE: For presuppositionalist young-earthers like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, the Bible itself provides much or virtually all of the evidence . . . all of the evidence that really matters. As Tas Walker of AiG expressed it to me back in 1999: “Since we believe the Bible is the Word of God, we start with the Bible. . . . The Bible clearly teaches that the world is young. . . . So, now that we have established that the world is young (~6000 years), we are ready to come to the [scientific] evidence.”
  
  I mention this because, once more, if someone is going to argue against a presuppositionalist young-earth viewpoint, he or she must present strong evidence for why he or she believes the Bible does not teach a young (approximately 6,000-year-old) earth history . . . and/or, even more difficult, convince these evangelicals why the standard formulas of evangelical beliefs about the Bible should be abandoned or reformulated.
  

  (When I say what I just said, I am referring to such documents as The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics which, in Part 2 of Article XIII, declares, “We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly by imposed on Biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.” That certainly sounds good, but how do we know whether a biblical narrative is presenting itself as factual? --The Statement doesn't address the problem. Though The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does state,
  

  ARTICLE XXII
  We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
  We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

  And the grounds for affirming the full factuality of Genesis 1-11? . . . --I'm sorry. I'm not trying to get into the details of what a solid Christian course in "origins" will cover. But I am trying to tease out at least a few of the ugly/niggly details that such a course--and/or the advocates of certain positions--will need to address.
  
  My point here was "simply" to show that those who want to argue against a young-earth presuppositionalist view are going to have to address issues related to well-accepted evangelical statements of faith and not only the scientific evidence.)

• What mechanism did God use to create the earth and all that is within it: Unmediated (“word spoken --[yields]-- thing created”) or Mediated (“word spoken --[creates/establishes]-- PROCESS (some type of evolution?) --[which yields]-- thing created”)? To what kind of evidence can we point for our views?

Once we tease out these four primary questions, we find the following options:

Atheistic	Theistic
Evolution	Mediated Creation (i.e., in the current scientific environment, Evolutionary Creation)
	Unmediated Creation

And then, as best as I can understand, these are the theistic options:

		Relationship of Scripture and Science
		Concordist	Non-Concordist
Age of Earth	Old-Earth	Progressive Creation (à la Hugh Ross) -OR- Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation (includes Day-Age, Gap, and other such theories)	Mediated (Evolutionary) Creation -OR- (at least hypothetically) Unmediated Creation [I am unaware of any unmediated non-concordist creationists]
	Young-Earth	Unmediated Creation (à la Ken Ham)	[Scientific data w/o concordist interpretation generally leads away from Young-Earth view]

If you have any additional suggestions, recommendations, criticisms, or other contributions to make, I would be most grateful for your input!

Not super pleasant (to put it mildly), but educational . . .

My last two posts (here and here) have obviously generated quite a bit of discussion--more, I think, than any posts on this blog have generated before. I am sure it is all thanks to Ken Ham. I didn't particularly enjoy his post, but I thank him for it, anyway. Thank you, Ken.

A strong reason for thanksgiving: The discussions that have followed have helped me to learn; they have enabled me to say some things I have never said before (see the “other matters that I think need to be addressed," below; I have never expressed what I say in items #1 and #2 of these "other matters"; and I think I have never expressed so clearly what I attempt to say in item #3 [again, within the "other matters" portion, below]).

As I read the comments of various posters on a thread in HomeSchoolReviews.com, I felt led to write and post the following:

I received a Google notification that this conversation was happening. So I came over, read many of the posts, and thought I should probably sign up on HomeSchool Reviews so that I could speak. Especially since it was my post to which Mr. Ham was replying.

A few points of clarification:

* SONLIGHT did not call Ken Ham "Pope Ham." *I*, John Holzmann, called him a pope. I did so in my personal blog (a Google Blogger blog) "John's Corner" (http://johnscorner.blogspot.com).

* If my comments reveal my character (or Sonlight's character, if you are determined to drag Sonlight into the matter, despite the fact that the company had nothing to do with my post), I ask that you

1) please look at my response when I was made aware of my wrong-doing. (I have apologized.)

2) please consider the provocations that elicited my inappropriate response. (Mr. Ham has made false statements about me on numerous occasions dating back to 1999. He has made false statements about Sonlight Curriculum as well.)

3) consider whether you REALLY believe my behavior, per se, is (or was) as heinous as some have made it out to be. Let me reiterate: I BELIEVE I WAS IN THE WRONG. I shouldn't have stooped to name-calling. But if you believe my name-calling is as heinous as some seem to believe it was, I am astonished that the Christian homeschooling community has not risen in indignation over Mr. Ham's name-calling and his sponsorship--in his magazine and on his website--of IDENTICAL language to that which I used. (I could talk about OTHER language. But let us focus solely on the “pope” idea. [NOTE: I was not aware of this until I happened to bump into the article yesterday. But . . . ] For IDENTICAL language used by Answers in Genesis, see the article "Evangelical Popes" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/evangelical-popes).)

*********

What I have just written speaks, I believe, to the primary matters that seem to be of concern with respect to my POST.

HOWEVER, there are other matters that I think need to be addressed.

* The matter of "compromise" and "error" and, at least as importantly, the "Gospel" and "authority" questions Mr. Ham raises.

1) I would like to note that I hold Mr. Ham in very high regard for his repeated--CONSISTENT--"banging of the drum" about the fundamental issues related to Gospel and authority that can arise if one attempts to correlate a “straightforward” reading of Genesis 1-3 (as Mr. Ham--and, I'm sure, most readers here--would define “straightforward”) with the views of most modern scientists. As Mr. Ham told me about 14 years ago (I'm not going to quote him, because I'm recalling this from memory, and I don't have a perfect memory; but, he said something like), “You will find that there is no solid foundation with an old-earth view. They don't have a consistent view of the Bible. The Biblical narrative doesn't hang together under an old-earth view.” --Something like that.

I have to say that, in general, I AGREE WITH HIM. What I have found is that most old-earthers take the “scientific” view and kind of wave their hands over the Bible and say, “I don't know how it all goes together, but I believe the Bible and I believe science. And so . . . (I am an old-earther.)”

But I have been uncomfortable with such a position.

THEREFORE,

2) I agree with Mr. Ham that, if someone is going to teach old-earth (creationism or evolutionism or anything else), and they are going to claim to be Bible-believing Christians, then they should deal with the problems. They should address the kinds of things about which Mr. Ham keeps banging the drum. They SHOULDN'T simply “wave their hands.”

As different people in the homeschool community have made clear to me, our view of Genesis 1-11 will affect how we teach history (is there history before 4004 BC . . . or not? Are Adam and Eve to be included in our regular history course . . . or “only” in Bible? . . . If we include them only in a Bible program, aren't we indicating that they aren't part of regular history? Etc.); it will affect how we teach science; it will affect how we teach the Bible itself. . . . --These are not mere “hand-waving” kinds of matters!

HOWEVER,

3) In the same way that (most of us, anyway!) seem to be able to at least let each other pursue our own beliefs and practices without charging each other with “compromise” and “error” and an unwillingness to bow to the authority of Scripture when it comes to matters like women wearing head coverings in church; or when it comes to how we observe (or fail to observe) the Sabbath; or “dresses only”; or baptism; or the end times; so I believe it ought to be here, with respect to our views on how we should interpret Genesis 1-11.

I am NOT suggesting people should not discuss these matters (anymore than I would suggest we ought not to discuss head coverings, Sabbath observances, our manner or dress, baptism, end-times prophecy, or anything else).

What I am attempting to say is that . . .

IN THE SAME MANNER as we are able to discuss these matters without charging one another with compromise and error with respect to our fundamental view of Scripture (i.e., when we disagree with one another, we don't charge those on the opposite side with the obvious sin of calling the authority of Scripture into question!) . . . so, here, with respect to our interpretations of Genesis 1-11.

I believe we should CHALLENGE each other to think through the implications of our views (like the people who pointed out that a person’s view of Genesis 1-11 is going to impact their view of history). We should raise all of the kinds of issues and concerns that Ken Ham consistently raises. ASK people of another opinion how their views square with the idea (say) of death before the fall. ASK how they interpret Romans 5:12ff. DISCUSS how we view these passages and why.

I believe we do the body of Christ damage when, rather than behaving in this way, we take the far more offensive road and call anyone who disagrees with us “compromisers” or “snakes in the grass.” This shuts off communication. It divides the church. It precludes useful discussion and the opportunity to learn. (Participants on neither side of a “conversation” in which we are being told we are either imbeciles (or such terms; I am thinking of less pretty comments probably more likely to come from the mouth of an old-earther, though I have heard young-earthers use similar verbiage with respect to those with whom they disagree!), or a “conversation” in which we are being told we are “compromisers” (etc.): Participants in those kinds of “conversations” don't usually wind up actually conversing! And we don't benefit one another.)

I want us to provide room for one another to hear each other out, to be challenged, and to grow in the grace and knowledge and wisdom and powerful work of Christ in the world.

Let us, as the founders of the United States once said, “hang together” . . . that we might not “hang separately.”

Blessings!

John Holzmann

Mr. Ham responds to my “pope” comment. Kind of.

NOTE: I write here on my own account. This is my personal blog. I am and have been largely disengaged from Sonlight Curriculum for over five years. I am still a co-owner. I do take an interest in the company's success. I also seek to stand by my wife, the president of the company, who is still involved—very involved—on a day-to-day, strategic and detailed basis. I hate it when men like Ken Ham come along and make false claims about Sonlight, the company of which my wife is president and the curriculum she has written and whose content she oversees.

******

I received an email notice about a comment on my last post at 1:18 this afternoon. Then another, moments later. And a third seven minutes after that. And a fourth 13 minutes later. . . .

“Whoa! Someone must have posted about my post!” I thought. “I wonder who?”

By 3:15, I had received eight notices. And then I got a phone call from some people at the Sonlight Curriculum office: “Ken Ham wrote a response to your blog post , and now people are commenting on our Facebook page. They think Sonlight wrote something about Mr. Ham, but, obviously, we didn't. It was you. . . . And we don’t know how to respond. . . .”

I said I would have to look at what Mr. Ham wrote . . . and look at the posts on the Sonlight Facebook page to see what, if anything, I could or should write in response.

I found that Mr. Ham concluded the opening paragraph in his post with a question: “Why would [John Holzmann] name-call like this?”

It’s “funny” that he would ask such a question, considering our (his and my) long history.

ANSWER TO KEN HAM’S QUESTION: It has to do with his repeated bearing of false testimony against me and against the company that I happen to have co-founded (still co-own, and, as a co-owner, still take an interest in). It has to do with the fact that his repeated and very public false testimonies against me and against Sonlight Curriculum over the years have quite successfully consigned the company my wife heads and of which I am part-owner to some rather searing flames of public disapprobation.

In essence, as far as I can tell, Ken Ham's behavior—and the effects of his behavior—are very much like those of the medieval popes. And so I spoke of him in such terms.

It has been my longstanding belief and attitude that most evangelicals nowadays are able to agree that—even though they may strongly differ on matters like baptism or eschatology—they grant fellow believers space on these issues. They grant that these brothers and sisters might possibly have some good reasons to view the Bible’s teachings on these subjects from alternative perspectives.

And I have pleaded with the Christian homeschool community to grant that space in the area of the age of the earth.

But granting space is not Mr. Ham’s way. At least not when it comes to his interpretation of Genesis 1-11. After all, from his perspective, he isn't really interpreting Genesis 1-11; he is "merely" telling you what it means. Because he knows what it means.

Kind of the way the Pope, apparently--at least when speaking ex cathedra--infallibly knows and speaks the Truth.

Kind of.

And so I referred to Mr. Ham as a kind of pope.

It is my understanding that popes have—or had—the power of life and death over those they ruled. Based on the decisions that the popes made, someone’s teachings could be declared heretical. And if someone’s teaching was declared heretical: woe unto him! He was a social outcast at best, a dead man at worst.

And it seems that that is the kind of power Mr. Ham wields. He speaks . . . and people (and companies) pay some very heavy prices, whether Mr. Ham speaks accurately or not.

Yep. Being cast into the outer darkness of the evangelical Christian homeschool community as I and Sonlight Curriculum have been by Mr. Ham and those who follow him . . . on the grounds of his quick-to-condemn say-so alone: It’s pretty hard to take.

I pray you never get caught crosswise with someone who has as much clout in the public sphere as Ken Ham obviously has, someone who might misrepresent you and your views as Mr. Ham has repeatedly misrepresented me and Sonlight Curriculum through the years.

IN CONCLUSION: Please forgive me for failing to honor Mr. Ham the way I, myself, would want to be honored. I believe he acts like a pope and bears a lot of the power of a pope (whether he is fully aware of that power or not). But I certainly didn't need to call him a pope or speak of him--as I did--as "Pope Ham."

I would like to beg forgiveness for failing to act with appropriate graciousness. My failure in this regard has no justification. 

At the same time, I would like to appeal to a few of the people who have (appropriately) called me on the carpet for my behavior to please appeal to him to publicly apologize for and, in future, refrain from the egregious and repeated name-calling and false testimonies he has made (and, obviously, as of a few weeks ago, has continued to make) about me and/or about Sonlight Curriculum. (In case you are unaware, you can see a relatively decent summary of his history in that regard here; actual history begins with the sentence that begins, It was very obvious that; but don't ignore this additional post, either. Do a search for Remember the first article Answers in Genesis published that referenced me? That really does give you the first part of the story.)

Thanks!

The conservative (evangelical/fundamentalist) Christian homeschool pope

Edited to add (7/5/2013):  After being "called" on calling Mr. Ham "Pope Ham," I have apologized publicly. (I [Edited 7/9/2013]still need to go went to him personally/privately on Friday, 7/5/2013.) I have also been able to state--I think more clearly than ever before--not only why his article bothered me so much but, far more importantly, what I appreciate about him and how and why I wish he would alter some of his methodologies. You can find that post here.

*******
In the latest Answers magazine (p. 35), Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, claims that Sonlight’s treatment of old- and/or young-earth and/or evolutionary creation is not balanced:

Already, two publishers—Sonlight and Christian Schools International—don't openly support a young-earth position. They claim to offer a "balanced" treatment, but it isn't.

He adds no commentary that would bolster his position. He simply makes the claim.

Note: In his primary article, Ham references an Atlantic magazine article that spurred a Christianity Today article where Sarita and I are quoted which, in turn, speaks of Sonlight as “an exception” to the curricula that emphasize young-earth creationist views to the exclusion of others. The Atlantic article mentions Christian Schools International; it doesn't reference Sonlight. However, the author of the CT article writes that

Sonlight . . . offers a diversity of homeschool curricula that allow parents to teach various theories of origins. "The YEC position is strong and ingrained in the homeschool movement," said Sonlight president Sarita Holzmann, who homeschools her children and believes in a young earth. "That might be to our detriment." She says students need to be able to evaluate different positions.

The author and/or editor of the article made several obvious mistakes in her comments about Sonlight.

For example: When it comes to origins, Sonlight only features young-earth creationist books and provides virtually no counter-balancing arguments against anything that those books say. The curriculum does include a few books in areas other than science that obviously assume an evolutionary perspective. The fact that the company simply carries those books seems to have led to its being banned from the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference.

But rather than actually presenting full-blown arguments for the various theories of origins (as the CT article seems to suggest it does), wherever non-young-earth or pro-evolutionary references occur in its texts, Sonlight either refuses to assign those pages or it dutifully offers young-earth creationist "arguments" against the pro-evolutionary content.

Meanwhile, Sonlight does offer some mild notes of encouragement to non-young-earth-creationist parents as it "permits" or even "encourages" such parents (along with the young-earthers) to teach as they see fit.

But the fact is, there is little if any content in the curriculum that would enable students truly to "evaluate" positions other than young-earth creationism.

Indeed, even outside its curriculum, while in the past the company carried a few titles in the back section of its catalog that questioned a young-earth perspective, those books disappeared from the catalog several years ago.

Still, that, apparently, is not good enough for Mr. Ham.

Considering what Sonlight actually does, I would dearly love to know what Ham thinks “balanced” looks like. I am particularly curious because of what he says in the main body of his article (p. 34):

Does [what I have said] mean that homeschooling parents should never expose their children to evolutionary ideas? Of course not. Homeschoolers certainly need to address different views about origins and other controversial issues in their teaching, but they need to do so in the clear context that God's Word is truth and compromising views are error!

Ahh! That last phrase actually answers my question, doesn't it?

If I'm reading him accurately, a “balanced” presentation, from Mr. Ham's perspective, means one that not only “openly support[s] a young-earth position,” but vigorously opposes any other. And Sonlight doesn't oppose alternative perspectives vigorously enough. It offers too much legitimacy to such alternative positions.

You see, the truth is, Sonlight mildly--almost to the point of silence--does "address" different views about origins by simply defining viewpoints other than the young-earth perspective and acknowledging that some Christians hold these viewpoints. Moreover, it acknowledges that some Christian homeschoolers might hold such views and suggests that they can feel free to teach them.

And that, apparently, is too much for Mr. Ham.

Because the truth is, from everything I have seen, Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities within its curriculum--i.e., from within the books it carries or from its Instructor's Guide notes-- . . . Sonlight nowhere offers opportunities for opponents of the young-earth perspective to speak for themselves. It simply acknowledges that some parents might believe differently and suggests that they can teach as they see fit.

And that is what Ham and people like him disapprove. Sonlight does not come out strongly enough with statements to the effect that views alternative to or opposing a young-earth perspective are clearly "compromising" and "in error."

*****

It strikes me: Ham seems to view himself much like a Pope. He has a lock on the Truth. He speaks definitively and infallibly concerning how the Bible is to be interpreted. Like religious leaders of yesteryear who were willing to burn at the stake those who held differing opinions about baptism; or like those even today who break fellowship over different perspectives on eschatology (pre-, post-, or a-mill; preterist; or whatever), so Mr. Ham seems bent on ensuring his followers remain separated from those with whom he disagrees.

If you agree with Ham about the age of the earth and the basic young-earth viewpoint, that's okay, but not good enough.

If you teach a young-earth viewpoint, that's not good enough, either.

You must never suggest that you "merely" believe in young-earth creationism. You must adamantly assert that young-earth creationism is true: THE truth. Indeed, you will have gone too far over to "the other side" if you even contemplate the idea that those with whom you disagree might have some potentially good reasons to view the Bible from a perspective different from yours, because--so Pope Ham has decreed--anyone who holds a view different from yours (i.e., different from Ham's) is, simply, wrong, "compromising," "in error." End of discussion.

Whew!

Yipes! Off the charts phenomenal.

Okay. Okay. The first guy: Good. Really good. But . . . not all that amazing. I mean, I can see how someone could do that. (Percussion with his mouth. First minute and a half.)

Second guy, too. Fun. Real fun. (Vocal harmonica. Next minute and 45 seconds or so.) Well worth watching. Amazing! But, again, sorry . . . his show is highly imaginable.

Third guy (beginning about 3:20) . . . oh, my goodness! What a voice! And quite hilarious. (Human bass fiddle with a concluding number that ought to get you out of your seat. The rest of the vocal band provides a "full experience." Fancy footwork thrown in for fun. Ends at about 5:05.)

But then the show goes off the charts.

Fourth guy: the vocal DJ. Now I'm impressed. Blown away. "How does he do that?!?" (Ends at about 6:25.)

And for the grand finale?

Sorry. You've got to watch and listen to the human electric guitar.

Yowzie! (About 6:30 to 7:22.) I didn't know a guy--any guy--could make his voice go that high, much less while he's blowing the speakers. But you've got to listen to it. Jimmi Hendrix has been . . . superseded. (I was going to say pwned, but I get the sense that that's so . . . 2009.)



With thanks to my brother David.

Beyond beyond . . .

Un. Be. Lievable!

Michael Grab must have a deep sense of balance.

First, a photo. Stone balance art by Gravity Glue:



But now, watch Grab make a design like this, from scratch, in three and a half minutes.

I have done rock piles where I am "simply" trying to stack rocks as solidly as possible. Grab seems to relish the challenge of piling rocks in such a way that each one touches the rock beneath on a single point or line:



--With thanks to Robert Krulwich of NPR's RadioLab.

New "Common Core Standards" for reading in education

The Educrats have got to be insane. And those among us who let them rule the asylum are just as crazy.

From

Alexandra Petri of The Washington Post:

Forget “The Great Gatsby.”

New Common Core standards (which affect 46 states and the District of Columbia) will require that, by 2014, 70 percent of high school seniors' reading assignments be nonfiction. Some suggested texts include “FedViews” by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the EPA's “Recommended Levels of Insulation” and “Invasive Plant Inventory” by California's Invasive Plant Council.

Forget “Catcher in the Rye” (seems to encourage assassins), “The Great Gatsby” (too 1 percenty), “Huckleberry Finn” (anything written before 1970 must be racist) and “To Kill A Mockingbird” (probably a Suzanne Collins rip-off). Bring out the woodchipping manuals!

I like reading. I love reading. I always have. I read recreationally still. . . . And it's all because, as a child, my parents took the time to read me “Recommended Levels of Insulation.” . . . That was always my favorite, although “Invasive Plant Inventory” was a close second. (What phrases in literature or life will ever top the rich resonance of that “The Inventory categorizes plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species’ negative ecological impact in California. Other factors, such as economic impact or difficulty of management, are not included in this assessment.” "And we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" has nothing on it!)

“It is important to note that even Limited species are invasive and should be of concern to land managers,” I frequently tell myself, in moments of crisis. “Although the impact of each plant varies regionally, its rating represents cumulative impacts statewide.” How true that is, even today. Those words have brought me through moments of joy and moments of sorrow. They are graven on my heart. I bound them as a seal on my hand.

My dog-eared, beaten copy of “Recommended Levels of Insulation” still sits on my desk. I even got it autographed. Their delay in making a movie of this classic astounds me. That was where I first learned the magic of literature.

“Insulation level are specified by R-Value. R-Value is a measure of insulation's ability to resist heat traveling through it.” What authority in that sentence! . . .

I remember curling up with [“Recommended Levels of Insulation”] and reading it over and over again. It was this that drove me to pursue writing as a career — the hope one day of crafting a sentence that sang the way “Drill holes in the sheathing and blow insulation into the empty wall cavity before installing the new siding and” sings.

But I doubt I will ever achieve this lambent perfection.

Look, I was an English major, so I may be biased. . . . [But l]ife is full of enough instruction manuals.

The best way to understand what words can do is to see them in their natural habitat, not constrained in the dull straitjackets of legalese and regulationish and manualect. . . . Words in regulations and manuals have been mangled and tortured and bent into unnatural positions, and the later you have to discover such cruelty, the better.

The people behind the core have sought to defend it, saying that this was not meant to supplant literature. This increased emphasis on nonfiction would not be a concern if the core worked the way it was supposed to, with teachers in other disciplines like math and science assigning the hard technical texts that went along with their subjects.

But teachers worry that this will not happen. Principals seem to be having trouble comprehending the requirement themselves. Besides, the other teachers are too busy, well, teaching their subjects to inflict technical manuals on their students too, and they may expect the English department to pick up the slack. And hence the great Purge of Literature . . .

All in all, . . . a great way to make the kids who like reading hate reading.

[But, hey, t]hat’s certainly one way of addressing the reading gap.

Read more here.

By the way: Is Petri overstating the case or misstating what the Educrats are really demanding?

I urge you to read the links in the article itself. The last one, in particular, makes clear: those who wrote the standards "didn't intend" them to be implemented in the manner Petri suggests. But who cares? It's how they are being implemented that matters.

Yes, the standards do require increasing amounts of nonfiction, [said David Coleman, who led the effort to write the standards with a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]. But that refers to reading across all subjects, he said.

Teachers in social studies, science and math should require more reading, which would allow English teachers to continue to assign literature, he said.

The standards explicitly say that Shakespeare and classic American literature should be taught, Coleman said. “It does really concern me that these facts are not as clear as they should be.”

In practice, the burden of teaching the nonfiction texts is falling to English teachers, said Mark Bauerlein, an English professor at Emory University: “You have chemistry teachers, history teachers saying, ‘We’re not going to teach reading and writing, we have to teach our subject matter. That’s what you English teachers do.’ ”

Sheridan Blau, a professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, said teachers across the country have told him that their principals are insisting that English teachers make 70 percent of their readings nonfiction. “The effect of the new standards is to drive literature out of the English classroom,” he said.

Perfect!

Merry Digital Christmas!

Moving on in faith . . . and in life -- Part 5

This is a response to a question/objection raised by my brother Pete.

You can find this post--and the entire series--on my Forbidden Questions blog.

Don't wring your hands in despair; you CAN do something worthwhile (A different perspective on the killings in Connecticut)

One of my friends has posted several rather sad comments about the Newtown, CT, shootings. She says she just doesn't know what to do that might really make a difference other than pray for the people who have been so hurt by this evil deed, and to post articles about how guns hurt people and we need better mental healthcare.

Then I just saw an article by another friend titled A different perspective on the killings.

Yowza! I encourage you to read it.

One key section:

You wanna talk about the world going to hell in a handbasket? Let’s talk about Lenin and Stalin. Let’s talk about Mao’s China and his “Great Leap Forward” and his “Cultural Revolution.”

Those guys, in their quest for power, didn’t kill 27 innocent people every now and then. They killed 27 innocent people EVERY 15 MINUTES. FOR SIXTY YEARS.

Sixty million total.

Now here’s the punchline:

How did they accomplish this?

They accomplished it by exploiting peoples’ existing despair over their existing circumstances, convincing everyone that all was hopeless — hopeless without a fearless all-powerful leader who would finally and ultimately purge the world of the ‘bad guys.’

They received their power because hundreds of millions of ordinary people, who were really no different than you and me, GAVE UP and CAPITULATED TO DESPAIR and gave their assent to the idea that the world really was going to hell in a handbasket.

Long before they had guns and armies, power was literally surrendered to these tyrants by the people who listened to their words.

The common people were seduced by the power of despair.

That is why – no matter what your opinion about guns or mental hospitals or how we might have rescued some killer’s dying inner child – you must not give an inch to this creeping sense of helplessness and victimhood.

My friend makes some practical recommendations. I encourage you to read the rest of his article.

Get On the Bus: The Freedom Riders of 1961

Yow!

As I am looking for the best photos to go in my revision of Dr. Daniel Boorstin's The Landmark History of the American People, I came across an article that riveted me: Get On the Bus: The Freedom Riders of 1961 from NPR. Truly astonishing the things various brave people have done for the sake of justice.

I put myself, in my mind's eye, on that bus as it entered Anniston, Alabama, on Sunday, May 14, 1961:

Hank Thomas did not recall seeing anyone on the streets. He did remember the strange feeling that he and the other Riders experienced as the bus eased into the station parking lot just after 1:00 P.M.

The station was locked shut, and there was silence — and then suddenly, as if out of nowhere, a screaming mob led by Anniston Klan leader William Chappell rushed the bus. Thomas thought he heard Jones encourage the attackers with a sly greeting. "Well, boys, here they are," the driver reportedly said with a smirk. "I brought you some niggers and nigger-lovers." But it all happened so fast that no one was quite sure who was saying what to whom.

As the crowd of about fifty surrounded the bus, an eighteen-year-old Klansman and ex-convict named Roger Couch stretched out on the pavement in front of the bus to block any attempt to leave, while the rest — carrying metal pipes, clubs, and chains — milled around menacingly, some screaming, "Dirty Communists" and "Sieg heil!"

There was no sign of any police, even though Herman Glass, the manager of the Anniston Greyhound station, had warned local officials earlier in the day that a potentially violent mob had gathered around the station. After the driver opened the door, [two plain-clothes Alabama State Troopers (whose identities were unknown to the Freedom Riders] hurried to the front to prevent anyone from entering. Leaning on the door lever, the two unarmed investigators managed to close the door and seal the bus, but they could not stop several of the most frenzied attackers from smashing windows, denting the sides of the bus, and slashing tires.

"One man stood on the steps, yelling, and calling us cowards," [one of the Riders] noticed, but her attention soon turned to a second man who "walked by the side of the bus, slipped a pistol from his pocket and stared at me for some minutes." When she heard a loud noise and shattering glass, she yelled, "Duck, down everyone," thinking that a bullet had hit one of the windows. The projectile turned out to be a rock, but another assailant soon cracked the window above her seat with a fist full of brass knuckles. Joe Perkins's window later suffered a similar fate, as the siege continued for almost twenty minutes.

By the time the Anniston police arrived on the scene, the bus looked like it had been in a serious collision. Swaggering through the crowd with billy clubs in hand, the police officers examined the broken windows and slashed tires but showed no interest in arresting anyone. After a few minutes of friendly banter with members of the crowd, the officers suddenly cleared a path and motioned for the bus to exit the parking lot.

A police car escorted the battered Greyhound to the city limits but then turned back, once again leaving the bus to the mercy of the mob. A long line of cars and pickup trucks, plus one car carrying a news reporter and a photographer, had followed the police escort from the station and was ready to resume the assault.

Once the entourage reached an isolated stretch of Highway 202 east of Bynum, two of the cars (one of which was driven by Roger Couch's older brother Jerome) raced around the front of the bus and then slowed to a crawl, forcing the bus driver to slow down. Trailing behind were thirty or forty cars and trucks jammed with shrieking whites. Many, like Chappell and the Couches, were Klansmen, though none wore hoods or robes. Some, having just come from church, were dressed in their Sunday best — coats and ties and polished shoes — and a few even had children with them.

The whole scene was darkly surreal and became even more so when a pair of flat tires forced the bus driver to pull over to the side of the road in front of the Forsyth and Son grocery store six miles southwest of town, only a few hundred yards from the Anniston Army Depot. Flinging open the door, the driver, with Robinson trailing close behind, ran into the grocery store and began calling local garages in what turned out to be a futile effort to find replacement tires for the bus.

In the meantime, the passengers were left vulnerable to a swarm of onrushing vigilantes. Cowling[, one of the Alabama State Highway Patrolmen,] had just enough time to retrieve his revolver from the baggage compartment before the mob surrounded the bus. The first to reach the Greyhound was a teenage boy who smashed a crowbar through one of the side windows. While one group of men and boys rocked the bus in a vain attempt to turn the vehicle on its side, a second tried to enter through the front door.

With gun in hand, Cowling stood in the doorway to block the intruders, but he soon retreated, locking the door behind him. For the next twenty minutes Chappell and other Klansmen pounded on the bus demanding that the Freedom Riders come out to take what was coming to them, but they stayed in their seats, even after the arrival of two highway patrolmen. When neither patrolman made any effort to disperse the crowd, Cowling, Sims [the other Highway Patrolman onboard], and the Riders decided to stay put.

Eventually, however, two members of the mob, Roger Couch and Cecil "Goober" Lewallyn, decided that they had waited long enough. After returning to his car, which was parked a few yards behind the disabled Greyhound, Lewallyn suddenly ran toward the bus and tossed a flaming bundle of rags through a broken window. Within seconds the bundle exploded, sending dark gray smoke throughout the bus. . . .

The story continues. Not only about the Greyhound bus in Anniston, but about the fate of the Riders on a Trailways bus that wound up in Birmingham. (Horrifying.)

But I began this post with a comment about brave people seeking justice.

How's this for a 12-year-old girl in Anniston as she reached out with basic human kindness to the victims of the bus bombing? I haven't quoted the discussion of the choking smoke that filled the bus as the menacing mob seethed outside.

When one of the bus's gas tanks exploded, the people on board finally tumbled out.

I'm skipping more of the story, more gory details. But then there was this:

One little girl, twelve-year-old Janie Miller, supplied the choking victims with water, filling and refilling a five-gallon bucket while braving the insults and taunts of Klansmen. Later ostracized and threatened for this act of kindness, she and her family found it impossible to remain in Anniston in the aftermath of the bus bombing.

I am humbled. Would I exhibit that kind of bravery?

I urge you to read the rest of the article for yourself. Very powerful.

We're not in Kansas anymore: US National Debt and the Fiscal Cliff

I saw this in my inbox this morning. Combined with Jeff Opdyke's commentary about the difference between a real social safety net and the Social Security system the United States (and virtually every other western country) has today, and Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns's The Clash of Generations, and I think my own views concerning the current so-called "debate" between Democrats and Republicans are coming into sharp focus.

I see so many of my Democratic friends touting the "compassion" and "love" being shown by their favorite politicians, and I think: "Really?"

It's all well and good to speak of compassion. But who can pay for this so-called compassion--much less who is willing to pay for it (with their own money)? Please don't talk to me about your great compassion when you are willing to saddle future (not-yet-able-to-vote and/or not-yet-aware-enough-to-vote) generations with massive debt that they will never be able to repay [that's the message I get from Kotlikoff and Burns; good summary of their book here]. And please don't talk about compassion when the supposed social safety net is being used, today (and for the foreseeable future--unless Congress decides to change the system) as a primary vehicle of retirement funding [the message I get from Jeff Opdyke's article].

The following, by Alexander Green of InvestmentU in last Friday's Investment U Plus newsletter, provides further perspective, I think:

Imagine that your 18-year-old son goes off to college for the first term of his freshman year. You are happy to pay for his education costs - room, board, tuition, books, etc. - but you also give him a credit card "in case of emergencies."

When he comes home for Christmas, you discover that he has run up $70,000 on his MasterCard. You hit the roof and demand an explanation.

"Now hold on, Dad," he says. "Before we start talking about how much less I might spend, let's talk about how much more money you [really ought to be giving] me."

Consider your response - and whether it would be printable in a family paper. Yet Congress makes our hypothetical spendthrift look like a piker.

Most reasonably well-informed Americans know that our $16.1-trillion federal budget deficit is now larger than the nation's GDP. But what most don't realize is this figure doesn't include the unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Prescription Drug Benefit. That's another $121.6 trillion. [According to Kotlikoff and Burns, it's actually more than $200 trillion. But what is $80, $90, or $100 trillion between friends? --JAH] Combine the federal budget deficit with the unfunded liabilities for current entitlement programs (excluding ObamaCare) and it comes to a mindboggling $1.2 million per taxpayer.

Some will argue that this is exactly why we need to stick it to the ultra-rich, an approach that has clear populist appeal. But here's a bit of perspective. Less than a hundred years ago, the nation's richest man, John D. Rockefeller, could have written a personal check and paid off the entire national debt, every penny accumulated since 1776. Today the government could confiscate the entire net worth of the nation's wealthiest man, Bill Gates, and it wouldn't pay six weeks' interest [NOTE: That's interest! --JAH] on the national debt. . . .

Writing in The Wall Street Journal this week, former Congressional Committee Chairmen Chris Cox and Bill Archer note that even if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of every individual and corporation in America, it still wouldn't cover U.S. entitlement obligations. Yet the first order of business according to President Obama, Senator Reid and Mr. Buffett is not to reform entitlements or rein in spending but to raise tax rates? You might as well try bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.

Congress has a world-class spending addiction, but then so do most other Western democracies, including Canada, Britain, Western Europe and Japan. In every case, politicians on both sides of the aisle have learned that promising lush government benefits paid for by "someone else" is a big winner at the polls.

As for the current fiscal cliff negotiations, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising the top marginal tax rate to 39.6% - as Obama proposes - would generate approximately $70 billion a year. That's not an inconsequential sum. But it won't come close to fixing this year's $1.1-trillion federal budget deficit. Where would we get the other $1.03 trillion?

And why did I title this post "We're not in Kansas anymore"? 

Because I get the impression that the American empire has run its course. It can no longer maintain the illusion. Reality is beginning to set in. The U.S. cannot continue to inflate away its debt problems and expect its citizens not to feel the impact. We all--wealthy and poor--are going to experience the results of almost  three decades of spending beyond our ability to pay.

Just in time for the Holidays! Best iPad sales presentation ever!

It's in German. I'm afraid I would have to spend too much time watching and re-watching it to figure out what the guy is SAYING, but . . . you don't have to understand German to be absolutely THRILLED with the guy's [highest quality professional sleight-of-hand] "demonstration" of the iPad's amazing capabilities.


Enjoy! 5:24. No filler.



With thanks to my brother Ted for the link!

Moving on in faith . . . and in life -- Part 4

Yep. One more in my series. I should probably do a better job of trying to "sell" you on what I've been thinking about. But I don't feel particularly motivated to push you.

Let me say, simply, that this series has to do with a radical rethinking of my beliefs about the Bible. I would say that is a fair summary.

You will find my latest post here.

Moving on in faith . . . and in life -- Part 3

I encourage you to read my third post in the series I began several weeks ago.

Check it out on my Forbidden Questions blog.

Next in my series about "moving on" in faith and life

My second (lengthy post) about my new faith paradigm. Or, perhaps more accurately, about how I have come to--or am coming to--a new faith paradigm.

Moving on in life . . . in thought . . . in faith

I've been involved in what to me has been a most unpleasant project for the last 12 or 13 years. I am hoping, finally, that maybe it is coming to an end.

I blog about it here.

If you want to know about one of those once-in-a-decade (or less frequent) major changes in outlook that a guy like me might go through, you may want to take the time to look.

The "so-called" presidential debates

I rather appreciate(d) Charles Goyette's comments on the--what he termed--"so-called" Presidential Debates yesterday:

Maybe Tuesday night’s presidential debate wasn’t a game-changer, but at least Republican nominee Mitt Romney didn’t get to debate Clint Eastwood’s empty chair.
President Barack Obama showed up this time instead.

And while two candidates in a debate are better than one, three candidates would be a big improvement. That way, someone could hold the Republicans and Democrats accountable for generations of vote-buying and deficit spending.

The last time that happened was in 1992 when Ross Perot was the third candidate in the debates. Perot responded to attacks on his experience by saying, “They’re right. I don’t have any experience running up a $4 trillion debt.”

“It’s not the Republicans’ fault,” said Perot of the incipient debt crisis. “And it’s not the Democrats’ fault. What I’m looking for is, who did it?”

This year’s second presidential debate was a tasty little treat for the media people, who love a good comeback story.

But for more serious people, those who understand America will be shaken to its core by economic calamity, the debates are like junk food meals of empty calories.

What About the Fed?

Once again, there was not a word about the Federal Reserve, and not a word about QE III.

This is a most-peculiar oversight.

It’s like Perot’s description of the crazy aunt kept down in the basement. “All the neighbors know she’s there, but nobody wants to talk about her.”

The country is mired in an economic malaise, and both candidates wish to be seen as holding the keys to our recovery. But neither candidate uttered a word about monetary conditions or the monetary authorities.

Since money is half of every commercial transaction, the failure to address the subject is more than a casual oversight. It means that there is a taboo against addressing 50% of the nation’s economic activity.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this studious avoidance of monetary policy is that, regardless of the election’s outcome, the fundamental policies that boom and bust the economy will still be decided by the Federal Reserve on behalf of the banking cartel.

So-Called Debates Yield So-Called Solutions

I watched the debate remembering the words of Ron Paul this week, when he suggested that our future could hold results more-severe than what we’ve seen in the streets of Greece.

That’s why, Congressman Paul says, he gets so annoyed with “the so-called debates” that are going on now. . . .

“How often have you heard in the last couple of weeks or couple of months of the campaign about the seriousness of the debt and the debt crisis, the dollar crisis, the financial crisis?” [Paul asked.]

“We’re at the end of the line when it comes to debt. When the markets recognize this, we won’t be able to print money to get out of it.”

In the 1992 debates, Perot said that “giant sucking sound you hear” is jobs leaving this country. Today we have Depression-era levels of unemployment and our manufacturing base has been hollowed out.

Back then Perot was the only one of the candidates to address the nation’s growing debt seriously. “The facts are,” he said, “we have to fix it.”

Still Broke . . .

That was 20 years ago. Nothing has been fixed.

Twenty years ago, Perot concluded that, since the Republicans and Democrats were both shirking and disclaiming responsibility for the nation’s debt, it must all have been the doing of extra-terrestrials.

Must be. The debt has quadrupled since then and nobody else has been in charge except Republicans and Democrats.

Clearly, we need a third man in the debates again. I nominate Ron Paul.

I'll buy that.