I ran across this story on Slashdot not too long ago which stated:
“According to Newsweek, the local teachers union is infuriated over the disclosure of teacher performance metrics. Quoting: ‘Do parents have the right to know which of their kids’ teachers are the most and least effective? That’s the controversy roaring in California this week with the publication of an investigative series by the Los Angeles Times’s Jason Song and Jason Felch, who used seven years of math and English test data to publicly identify the best and the worst third- to fifth-grade teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The newspaper’s announcement of its plans to release data later this month on all 6,000 of the city’s elementary-school teachers has prompted the local teachers’ union to rally members to organize a boycott of the newspaper.’ According to the linked Times article, United Teachers Los Angeles president A.J. Duffy said the database was ‘an irresponsible, offensive intrusion into your professional life that will do nothing to improve student learning.’”
One comment in particular caught my eye:
“I get evaluated at my job, should i be outraged?”
Should you get outraged if your evaluation is printed in a major daily newspaper as an example? Without a reporter even as much as contacting you for a chance at filling in your side of the story?
Here is my response with a subsequent follow up:
A key difference for most of us is that we are not public employees and therefore our ultimate source of income is not the pockets of taxpayers. So yes, their evaluations should be published publicly, especially if voters are to be informed when they go to vote for politicians who support unions who harbor bad teachers.
Ultimately everyone is answerable to market forces. Public servants are answerable to their market which is taxpayers while private sector employees are ultimately answerable to their market, the consumers. Your output in either position lets your direct employers, the state or local municipality in the case of public workers, or the corporate chain of command in the private sector, decide whether or not you are helping or hurting them in their efforts to satisfy their intended markets.
A key difference here, though, is that private institutions respond to markets by either growing or shrinking in their income whereas public institutions enjoy a sort of monopolistic safety where the only thing they have to fear is a change in policy enacted by elected officials who are, in turn, selected by the market of voters.
Another corollary can be drawn here with SEC filings of publicly traded companies in order to keep potential traders well-informed (or at least that is the aim). People need to be able to make well-informed decisions, whether it be with their votes or with their dollars. And disclosures like these only serve to aid that effort.
Tags: economics, market forces, performance, teacher's unions, unions, votes
From “the sage of Mac-O-Chee“, Donn Piatt:
True education means that development of the intellectual qualities which facilitate thought. Popular education is a mere exercise of memory. To store away facts without the power to assimilate them is the grand elevating process that is to lift our youth by platoons to the same plane.
Memory, however necessary it is to secure information, is not the mind. On the contrary, when made monstrous by over use and stimulation, it eventually destroys the intellectual facilities it meant to aid.
The impatient child of genius who doubts or disputes the fact given to him to swallow is plucked and expelled while the dull plodding fellow who pigeon holes away a vast store of facts he cannot comprehend is graduated.
The student of books who learns to attribute intellectual motives to human action, finds himself alone and at a loss when dealing with the masses.
A mother’s love and a father’s care train good citizens and give stability to the government. We are enthusiastic over common schools and public institutions and firmly determined to make the pedagogue do the duty of the parent.
The popular superstition that tells us that teaching a child from books elevates its nature, and is all that is called for in the way of training, is curing itself through the most costly of learning, that of experience.
The mind is the most subtle, delicate, and important part of us and yet we turn this over to the stupid pedagogue who is capable of teaching precisely in proportion as he is incapable of other pursuits.
The common schools are worst than Godless; they are idolatrous, for the false god worshipped is memory.
For years I’ve struggled to eloquently express my deep frustration with the educational system in our country. Little did I know that men like Donn Piatt explored this issue nearly a century earlier in an era where home-based schooling was the norm and widespread state-funded and sponsored public schooling was still a new and hotly debated concept.
Tags: education, homeschooling, memorization, memory, public education
Here is an exchange I had recently with a brother in Christ on the topic of presuppositionalism and it’s possible pitfalls when it comes to being a basis for apologetics and evangelization:
They:
when the presuppositionalist claims there is no common ground, how duz the classical apologist respond?
Because one of my seminary buddies (he’s in seminary, I’m not) said that all we can do is deliver the Gospel and if God wants to save He will. Then my buddy quotes something from Romans 10 about how faith comes from the Gospel.
My response:
I think your friend needs to take a few courses or read a few good books on epistemology. Specifically, I would recommend Alvin Plantinga’s work as it is widely recognized as some of the best epistemological work in that area. I think Plantinga still comes down in the presupposionalist camp, but his exploration of the topic shows that there is a lot more there than Van Til (the father of presuppositionalism) thought.
As for faith, I don’t think it is accurate or logically valid to say that faith is given to us by something/someone else. I would contend that the Biblical view of faith is “to trust” and that it ultimately falls under the category of epistemology or how you know what you know. Faith is not an object and therefore cannot be given or taken away from anyone. Here is a piece I wrote on the dynamics of faith.
As for the common ground. Not all presupposionalists take that view. Some (like myself) will use presuppositionalism to point out that different sets of presuppositions lead one to different conclusions so that a philosophical naturalist and a theist will approach the subject of the resurrection differently. In that case presuppositionalism is used more as a line of argument in a cumulative case for the rationality of Christianity.
In that respect I find great value in presuppositionalism. However the other side, what you elude to, is the view that since we start off in different epistemological camps and since man cannot change his own mind (which entails the negation of limited freedom in any meaningful sense which is quite beyond the scope of this post), there is no use even attempting to change someone else’s mind through reason and evidence.
It is that view of presuppositionalism that I find quite unfortunate in the Christian community as it necessarily undercuts any sort of evangelism as it essentially requires the other person to come without any objections.
Since our culture is becoming increasingly hostile to Christianity I also believe the second view of presuppositionalism is not only unwise and unhelpful but downright dangerous and detrimental to the Christian church as the clear message it sends to non-believers is “we will not engage you, you must just accept what we say on blind faith”.
I believe that persuasion is the center piece of evangelism. Therefore I think anything that hinders or nullifies our ability to persuade others (in an intellectually honest fashion) is unhelpful and wrong.
Tags: apologetics, evangelism, intellectual honesty, methods, persuasion, presuppostionalism, tactics
Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true. Venerable, because it has perfect knowledge of man; lovable because it promises the true good.
-Blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III: Of the Necessity of the Wager, #187
From “the sage of Mac-O-Chee((Further reading here.))”, Donn Piatt:
Recognizing as I do that Democracy is the organized ignorance of the country and the Republican party the organized greed, I could not belong to one or the other.
American politics has crystallized into two hostile camps that differ from each other only in name and possession of offices.
Ask a Democrat why he’s a Democrat and he will tell you it is because he is not a Republican and a Republican, asked the same question will give the same answer reversed. The ludicrous part of this lies in the fact that neither party dares avow opinions because such avowal may loose them votes!
A man can be a Republican and hold any political opinions he pleases, provided he stands by the camp and votes the ticket. This is like the condition of the Democratic organization.
Instead of views being promulgated as a test of party fealty, they are avoid or concealed. Success depends on the number of votes obtained and as opinions are apt to offend, they are hidden or ignored. Nothing is so amusing as a platform, as it is called, solemnly proclaimed at intervals.
It is the nature of human beings to lose in an organization itself, the purpose for which it was organized. This obtains in politics as in religion.
It is worth pointing out a few things here. First that Donn was largely responsible for establishing a strong Democratic party in western Ohio. And second that Donn was also one of the primary founders of the Republican party. President Abraham Lincoln was among his friends, Donn campaigned hard for Abraham Lincoln.
So Donn’s comment about not belonging to a political party is not to say he was not political or did not join with a political party when He believed it served him. Donn’s political involvement truly centered around the issues. It’s probably why his political career was so very short. Donn only served one term in the Ohio state senate.
While I don’t agree with Donn’s entire quote above. For example his views on economics are downright deplorable, some of which you can see above in his swipe at the Republican party. I think Donn is spot-on when it comes to how dreadfully few politicians are true statesmen in his word, the difference being a focus on the issues (statesmen) rather than the votes (politicians).
Tags: democrat, partisianship, political parties, politics, republican
There’s really nothing conservative — and certainly nothing evangelical — about a laissez-faire view of a lack of government regulation,” Moore says, “because we, as Christians, believe in sin.
I ran across this gem in an article on blackchristiannews.com. This reminds me of the comment Frank Turek made out of frustration in a recent interview:
Money, Greed and God. How do those things go together, and why should we even be worried about them? And what does this have to do with apologetics? Well, in a few minutes, friends, you’re going to see that it has everything to do with apologetics. You know, you need money to do apologetics. You’re listening right now to a radio program that takes money to run. When you go buy an apologetics book, you need to pay for it. Somebody has gotten resources together – some of them immaterial resources, some of them material resources – they’ve put them together and they’ve marketed this piece to that you would buy it. That takes money. It takes money to preach the gospel across the world. It takes money to send missionaries overseas. It takes money to put on a TV program. It takes money to run an institute like the Discovery Institute. It takes money to run a seminary like Southern Evangelical Seminary or a ministry like CrossExamined.org. Money is essential to what we do. Well, you say “well, gee, you know, we’re Christians, we can’t really be concerned about money”. NONSENSE!
My friend Wintery Knight is right. Christians desperately need to learn more about economics and stop following the ephemeral fashions of the world such as environmentalism and starry-eyed socialism. We need to learn that not only is capitalism compatible with Christianity, but that it is actually one of the most Biblical economic systems ever devised. It is actually no small wonder that capitalism was invented in the area of the world that was populated predominantly by Christians.
History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom -Milton Freeman
Tags: capitalism, economics, environmentalism, green movement, pantheism
There is a secular case to be made for government involvement in the institution of marriage. Marriage is the only institution wherein a new life may be created. No, the generation of new life is not an automatic given nor are those who choose, for whatever reason, not to generate new life to be considered less in any way than those of us who do. But the fact is that without children, marriage would really devolve into little more than a contract or partnership.
Now one of the problems that clouds the whole debate on marriage is that most people tend to think that the issue is only a positive one. That is, that the issue is about the creation of a marriage and the state’s recognition thereof. That is sadly not the case, if that were all there were to it then the state would really have no reason to create and maintain such a registry at all. No, the real debate is on the unfortunate and often unavoidable issues that arise at the end or dissolution of a marriage. Who gets what and, more importantly, what about the children?
You see, marriage exists to proactively protects the rights of the children. Among these rights are the right to know and have a relationship with both of their parents, which means their mother and father. Marriage in this respect, serves to attach mothers and fathers to children and to each other. Can this be done outside of a legal marriage? Perhaps, but statistics show that without the commitment that comes along with marriage men are far less likely to remain in a family unit and children are far more likely to be hurt in all kinda of ways, including physically, emotionally, mentally, developmentally, etc.
When it comes to homosexual unions, the issue of children’s rights becomes even more sticky, and it is the rights of the children that are often overlooked altogether. You see, while people are busy talking about the rights of the gay and lesbian couple few people seem to be concerned with the rights of the children that are inherently and necessarily violated.
These rights are inherently violated because a homosexual union cannot biologically bring about new life, therefore they must either adopt which has historically been seen as an exception to the rule, but homosexual marriage would make it the rule and biological parentage the exception. In other words, the state would move from recognizing parentage based on biological fact to assigning parentage based on subjective standards. Something that has been done in countries like Canada that have already implemented homosexual marriage, and something that is being considered in homosexual-friendly states like Massachusetts.
Children’s rights are also necessarily violated because if marriage is not kept to the natural, historical, and biological definition, the state is required to intervene in the affairs of married couples even more than it does currently. Currently the state only intervenes when there is a dispute. That means that the only role the state has in regards to marriage is to resolve disputes if they arise. Ideally, most marriages will not require much, if any, intervention. However if marriage is redefined, the state must go from being a passive spectator that only intervenes when a dispute arises to intervening in many areas now, especially when children are involved, to cover over the biological gaps opened up when we separate from a biologically-based definition of marriage.
Sure, governments also interact with the institution terms of offering tax breaks (or supposed tax breaks) to encourage the formation and sustaining of healthy marriages. However that is really out of a selfish motive as biologically-based marriages are historically self-sustaining, requiring little in the way of government services or interference and also capable of producing well adjusted offspring by themselves. By contrast, on average, single parents (mostly mothers thanks to our sexually permissive culture) and homosexual unions require much in the way of government assistance, services, and general interference (ie. to strip/assign parentage in the case of homosexual marriages). If for nothing else than out of a commitment to limited government, the idea of homosexual marriage ought to be rejected.
So while families may not necessarily be defined by legal marriage but they are most certainly modeled on them if they wish to be anything short of a train wreck and an unnecessary drag on society.
Tags: children, gay marriage, homosexual marriage, marriage, progeny, rainbow, secular, traditional marriage
In an interview I recently came across (audio here), the author of “Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem”, Jay Wesley Richards, mentioned a relatively short article titled I, Pencil.
After tracking down the 1958 article by Economist Leonard Reed, hosted in full here at the Foundation for Economic Education, I discovered it indeed did offer one of the most elegant and simplest refutations of centralized economic planning ever written. What’s more, it is almost in a form I can read to my children to teach.
So take a minute and read the relatively short article. It is well worth it. And when you are done, here is an excellent How It’s Made video that helps illustrate the simple point Leonard made over 50 years ago.
Tags: anti statism, capitalism, economics
Where it came from
What the myth is
What the real problem is
The truth is that “overpopulation” is merely a myth. The population bomb was just a fairy tale. Aldus Huxley was wrong. The sky is not falling and the government does not need to take any drastic measures. However overpopulation continues to be a popular myth. Why? Because it often fits and in hand with social and enviromental agendas which require some sort of emergency to encourage people to want to undergo drastic social and political change.
The REAL problem, however, is under-population, broken families, poverty, etc. caused by poor social programs and solutions.
Bonus: What did John Lennon think about over-population?
But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning, knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned. -Titus 3:9-11
Every now and then, and especially in the course of slaughtering an individual or church’s sacred cows, I run into a well meaning Christian who decides to use this passage as an excuse to prematurely end our conversation (or prevent it from occurring).
Here is a typical parting shot1):
I have never seen or heard you clear up anything in the body of Christ. Instead you most often stir up divisions and arguments. Paul makes it clear in Romans 16:17, and Titus 2:9-11 exactly how I am to respond to someone who does exactly what you seem to find joy in doing everyday. So in obedience to my savior, goodbye Wes.
Here is another one:
I added that cause I wanted you to know that I do, love you, care for you, respect you: it is very easily separated. A person will not except change from a person who he does not respect. So you will not take correction from me, you have not in the past so I can not expect it in the future.
I am teaching Titus in Sunday School and these verses come to my mind:
Titus 3: 9-11.I am not cutting you off, I am not mad, I will say hi, will talk with you but make any effort of correction will not unless you ask.
Now, personal feelings aside (and the snippets cited above contain quite a bit of emotional/historical baggage), the question needs to be asked: What exactly are “foolish debates” that are mentioned in Titus 3:1-9 and how should they be understood today? This question is quite vital since, if misunderstood and misapplied, it can quite readily lead to a complete breakdown in any and all debate and, as an extension, any and all discussion, discourse, or, indeed, disagreement altogether. So it is very important that we get this issue right at the outset.2
First we need to examine the text itself:
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. -Titus 3:9-11
To begin to understand what Paul was writing about here it is helpful to understand the context. I highly encourage you to take a minute to read all of Titus. It’s only 3 chapters and the section quoted above comes right before the final greeting (Titus 3:12-15). So to get a good understanding of what Paul is talking about, we need to go back a bit as Titus 3:9-11 is likely a culmination of his letter’s primary train of thought rather than an independent, self-contained, section that is able to adequately stand on it’s own.
In chapter 1 we read:
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. -Titus 1:10-16
A few things need to be noted here. The first is that Paul is addressing an existing problem and the second is that this problem is between believers and unbelievers “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” and the third is that the way we are to tell them apart is by “their good works”. We can also deduce that the particular group Paul is addressing here are “especially those of the circumcision party”, meaning Jewish converts.
This kicks off what Paul focuses on for the rest of his letter, the presence and practice of good works. In fact, if one were so inclined, a word study in Titus on the phrase “good works” will undoubtedly yield much in the way of fruitful insights which are beyond the scope of this short post.
In chapter 2 Paul further develops his exhortation for believers to practice good works, namely what those good works look like and how they should set believers apart from the world around them. Likewise, in the beginning of chapter 3 we are given opposites of good works, the “evil deeds” we are supposed to look out for.
So it is reasonable to conclude that Titus 3:9-11, since it is Paul’s conclusion to his letter, is a reference to the beginning, Titus 1:10-16 and that the “foolish debates” are the “Jewish myths” mentioned in chapter 1. But what is more, these “foolish debates” are foolish, not because either party deems them to be so, but because the result of these debates is an “upsetting of whole families”. And this upsetting is not merely agitation or physiological discomfort. This upsetting is a damaging of others’ faith through false (lying) doctrine that is designed to draw others away from Christ. So the divisive persons here are primarily guilty of drawing others away from Christ and secondarily, from each other (as members of the Body of Christ).
In a post titled, Unity s ‘first tier’ doctrine, Alan Knox points out that:
According to Paul, a person who divides from brothers and sisters should be warned twice. If the person still remains divisive, then the church should separate from him. In other words, “divisiveness” is a reason supposing that someone is NOT a brother or sister in Christ.
He goes on to conclude:
In Scripture, there are very, very few reasons given for one believer to separate from another believer. This separation is the same as refusing to recognize someone as a brother or sister in Christ. Thus, “divisiveness” is a first-tier doctrine that is placed on the same level as teaching a false gospel, practicing gross immorality, and refusing to work to support yourself and others (yes, this is a ‘first tier’ doctrine also).
I believe Alan is spot-on here. Sadly, in an effort to quash what some pastors see as a threat they are quick to throw around passages such as Titus 3:9-11. What they often fail to realize is that in using this passage to quell what they perceive as division and discord, they actually end up coming dangerously close to participating in the same sort of divisive behavior Paul wrote to Titus about. That is, they seek to divide between brothers and sisters in Christ by calling into question (either intentionally or by implication) the salvation of the one they’ve (often unilaterally) deemed to be “divisive”.
So the next time you are tempted to apply Titus 3:9-11 to someone, take a step back and ask yourself whether they have earned such a label according to Paul’s previous exhortations. Do they have a history of immorality? Do they seek to draw others away from “sound doctrine”3? Do their arguments contain much speculation4? Do you have a real reason to question their salvation (apart from the present disagreement)? Do you really think they are headed to hell5? Is the other party, once warned, unwilling to continue a productive discourse on the issue at hand6?
The charge inherent in Titus 3:9-11 is not something to be taken or thrown about lightly.
- I use the phrase “parting shot” here because after citing this passage no other contact is made. Thus, the pattern seems to be 1. identify someone’s speech as undesirable, 2. claim the offending party is in violation of Titus 3:9-11, 3. have no further contact with them, cutting off any and all hope of further discourse (which includes reconciliation [↩]
- It is also important to settle this question in our own souls because if we leave this question unexamined it could lead to some serious personal spiritual damage. [↩]
- This does not include personal theological preference, ie. Calvinism, but sound doctrine as is found in 1 Corinthians 15 [↩]
- For a good example of “Jewish myths” that likely existed in Paul’s time, look into Kabbalah. [↩]
- and do you want them to go there? [↩]
- If they are, then you need to seriously consider whether it is you who are being divisive in this instance. [↩]
Tags: debates, disagreement, discussion, divisions, divisive, foolish debates
Recent Comments