Entitlements

Last Sunday's sermon was about "enduring hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ."  It was Brad N.'s first sermon at Center and for us it was a worthwhile listening experience.

Afterward, Arlyn N. (grade school principal) said publicly that he heard from a foreign missionary who observed that it's now more common than it used to be for short term missionaries to arrive on the field with a notable sense of entitlement. Arlyn was lamenting that fact and musing on why it is so.

Several months ago, I had written parenthetically here about this problem in the context of education.  Later, I read the writings of another teacher who wrote far more extensively and persuasively about this than I had.  This teacher also made a connection between students who feel entitled and eventually grow up unprepared for Christian ministry.  Suffice it to say that it's a phenomenon in evidence to more than one  teacher whom I know and respect.

I wondered how a sense of entitlement would look in a student.  Within one three-day span, I accumulated quite a list of how it might look, with each point below being something students sometimes do:

1.  Asking teachers to provide supplies that students are expected to supply.
2.  Frequent requests for privileges outside of normal classroom procedures.
3.  An expectation for exemption from whole-class assignments.
4.  An expectation for being excused from assigned jobs.
5.  Interrupting when a teacher is talking, or blurting out information without consideration of the disruption it may cause.
6.  Adjusting windows/ventilation to one's own comfort without inquiring about the preferences of others in the room.
7.  Appropriating for one's own use whatever is momentarily unattended.
8.  Expecting exemption from consequences for insufficient effort, carelessness, or lack of progress.
9.  Preoccupation with having fun, and campaigning for many diversions from the normal routines.
10. Frequent complaints about inconvenience or challenging requirements.
11.  Infrequent expressions of gratitude.
12.  Frequent disregard of deadlines.

I'm pleased to say that I also see many examples of behavior that is far more exemplary than the items on the above list.  Nevertheless, I grow weary sometimes of saying "no," issuing reminders, and teaching manners, when most of it would be unnecessary if there were no troublesome underlying sense of entitlement.  It's worthwhile noting that children always start out in life with a gargantuan sense of entitlement, and if they arrive at a mature age with that sense intact, it's probably because the adults responsible for their training have not done a very good job.  That's why I'll have to go right on saying "no," issuing reminders, and teaching manners, and why every parent needs the grace to do the same.

I've had a fresh object lesson on how it looks when aging adults operate out of a king-sized entitlement mentality, probably from lifelong habits.  Folks, it "aint" pretty, and, trust me, you don't want anyone you love to go there.

Trail West Dispatch #1

Here is the first column in the Trail West Dispatch series.  The target audience is people who attend the same church as I do.  I just sent out the fifth column, and am posting previous columns here in case late subscribers wish to read columns they missed when they were initially published.  

In an introductory letter to people at church, I wrote that the first number of columns will draw writing prompts from chapter titles in Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny.  New columns typically publish on Saturday evening.

*************

Trail West Dispatch #1                                                                       September 6, 2025

“Do not obey in advance.  Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.  In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.” -Timothy Snyder

Most of us understand that a Democracy or a Republic is a government that differs from Communism (Russia), pre-WW2 Fascism (Italy), Nazism (Germany) and Imperialism (Japan).  “Tyranny” is a feature of every government system in the second list.  It is a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.  None of us idealizes tyrannical forms of government.  They violate Christian norms on every hand, and often cause great suffering.  Yet, the United States looks less and less like the Democratic Republic envisioned and installed by the founders; and it has a growing number of tyrannical features. Timothy Snyder wants us to resist this trend, which he summarizes under the term “authoritarianism.”

“Do not obey in advance” sounds like good advice, and certainly seems like a better option than resisting the trend by breaking existing laws.   Acting on several related imperatives seems even better–all of which can be pursued outside of any kind of government structures without breaking laws.  
1.  Decide in advance that only God will have your absolute loyalty and obedience.  
2.  Do not try to ingratiate yourselves in any way with a corrupt ruler, including by obeying in advance.
3.  Never excuse or justify evil, especially when it occurs in the pursuit of power.  
4.  Seek to bring about change by loving and serving the people around you, as Jesus did.  
5.  Guard against “the deceitfulness of riches.”
6.  Pray.

The historical record from 1933-1945 does not cast the German Mennonites in a favorable light, partly because of how they failed in some of the above areas.  They chose loyalty to and complicity with Hitler, whose evil cruelty is legendary.  As Aryans (white non-Jewish), Mennonites were not in danger of being dehumanized and targeted for extermination.  Perhaps this favored racial identity gave them an inflated sense of their own virtue and entitlement, completely clouding their vision.

Germany had been humiliated and impoverished by being forced to pay steep reparations (for wartime destruction) after they were defeated in WW1.  Hitler was lawfully elected, promising to make the country prosperous and powerful again.  This appealed to the Mennonites, as it did to many other Germans.  Things fell apart swiftly, or came together beautifully, depending on one’s perspective. “[T]hrough constitutional means. . . Hitler systematically disabled and then dismantled his country’s democratic structures and processes” within 53 days. 

A group of Mennonites wrote a letter to Hitler in 1933, thanking him “for the powerful revival that God has given our nation through your energy, and [they promised] joyful cooperation in the upbuilding of our Fatherland through the power of the Gospel, faithful to the motto of our forefathers: No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.”  

Hitler wrote back and thanked them “For your loyalty and your readiness to cooperate in the upbuilding of the German nation . . .”

Other Christians, Hutterites among them, did not fare well under Hitler.  Many of them fled Germany, and most of those left behind were persecuted.  I am not aware that Mennonites ever used their voice to reprove Hitler or to defend the Jews, some of whom died near the homes and fields of German Mennonites, either in concentration camps or in portable gas chamber vans that traveled throughout the countryside.  This sobering record of complicity with an evil ruler, which was fueled by a desire for prosperity, prominence, and power should prompt deep reflection and humility for the American Mennonites of 2025.

A Good Job

Last Wednesday evening Harold had a topic on "Employer/employee" relationships. He had done a good piece of homework by gathering information from church people on both sides of the equation, and it was an interesting evening.

My dad quoted the president (not sure of his exact title) of Krause Plow, a local manufacturer of farm equipment, who had said publicly that they have trouble hiring well qualified people. In a phone call that Dad initiated, Mr. Brown named two reasons for why they usually have to process 25 applications in order to end up with one good employee a year later: 1) People in the work force often arrive with a sense of entitlement 2) People with a college education expect to be paid better than if they had none, even if the job and the education have no correlation.

I don't suppose this is the intended take-away lesson, but I think it's worth noting that if you want a good job, a college education isn't necessarily the ticket to that event. Especially if you equate "good job" with "high pay," you're likely to be disappointed, at least in the short term. If you dig all the money for a college education out of your own pocket, it's very likely that you'll spend years and many dollars during the first years of employment to pay it all back. Besides that, you've lost four years of time in which you might have been acquiring work-related skills on the job, and you might even have begun climbing whatever ladders you find within your field of work.

Compare that to the disappointment of having a pricey degree in hand and no one around hiring people with pricey degrees. The reality is that people with experience AND a degree are in a better position to get a job than people who have only a degree. This makes it seem advisable to get some job experience before college. Doing this has the added benefit of helping to clarify goals, and increases the chances that the degree earned is actually the one that will be the most help in a chosen career.

The take-away lesson for me is that if you want to attend college, do it with a goal other than a big income. Resolve to be satisfied with your choice, even if the big income never materializes. If you can't do that, don't waste your money. Education can be acquired in various ways, and the state-sanctioned way is not always the best way.

Joel added to the good employer list "Provision for Growth." That's one that's not on the radar for a lot of Mennonite-owned businesses, unless I'm misinformed, but it's ever-so-welcome, from an employee standpoint.

Good interpersonal skills, a solid work ethic, and a willingness to learn are qualities every employer appreciates--unless, of course, it's an employer who is not looking for good people, but instead is looking for automatons, who are good at NOT thinking--only good at working robotically. The Henry Ford-famous assembly line invention works best with this kind of employee. I think it's OK to resist being sucked into this kind of work arrangement, if there are other options. Such an environment is inhumane, and leaves one diminished instead of enriched.

Hard physical labor is not a disgrace, but it's a disgrace to treat other people as though they had only muscles and no heart or brain. Physical damage eventually results from interminable repetitive motions, and other kinds of damage have probably occurred long before the physical damage becomes apparent.

I wonder if anyone besides me thinks about the irony of having a topic on employer/employee relationships in an Amish Mennonite group, when there is no corresponding examination of the merits and challenges of being self-employed, or being a business owner without employees. This is one area in which we Amish people are not doing very well anymore at being Amish--to the detriment of our traditional way of life, I believe.

Fifty years ago, or less, the majority of family heads in our church would have fit into the latter category--not the employer/employee one. I wonder sometimes why we're not more proactive about encouraging the small family business way of life. I suspect that too many of the shakers and movers among us are also employers who have a vision mostly for growing their own business, and it's not directly to their benefit if the employment pool shrinks because of men choosing to work at or from home.

These business owners do offer a valuable service to people who will always be more comfortable working for someone else, or people whose employment years are just beginning. But, as a matter of principle, it would seem admirable to provide support and encouragement for other men to enjoy the same family friendly benefits as business owners enjoy. For them to do this would be like being a schoolteacher advocating for and providing support for homeschooling. Been there, done that.

Economics is probably not the biggest benefit of family businesses. Freedom for parents and children to work alongside each other ranks high on my list of benefits.

Being able to participate in volunteer service opportunities is also a benefit. I don't have any illusions about home business owners having lots of extra time. It feels very different, however, for a man who has worked with his family all week to volunteer a day of work away from home on a Saturday than it does for a man who has only Saturday to work alongside his family. If we value these "helping each other" traditions, can't we see how family businesses facilitate them, as well as other aspects of church body life? We feel better about going to an evening meeting when we've been home all day than if we've landed there just long enough to get ready to go away again.

How about the apprenticeship model of learning a trade? Does this no longer hold any appeal for us? It's true, of course, that learning a trade from one's parents is not the only possible apprenticeship arrangement, but learning that first has benefits that often transfer easily to learning a new skill later in life.

I've often prayed for the growth of a vision among us for helping each other establish family friendly ways of earning a living. I think I'll keep right on praying.

**********************

During Harold's topic several people shared Fred Mast anecdotes about work:

In a conversation Fred had with someone who was talking of hiring him, the man answered a question about how much he would pay Fred. "Whatever you're worth," he said.

"I won't work that cheap," Fred replied.

Another time when Fred inquired about a job, he made it clear that what he really wanted was a position--not work.

Fred was a member of our church when he died a a number of years ago. We miss his slightly offbeat sense of humor. He never actually worked for anyone else in my memory, and was probably well off financially, although you couldn't have told by his lifestyle. He was easygoing and generous, which endeared him to many.

In Search of Credence

So far, the "rights" posts about parents and teachers have focused on the negatives--the things both give up in a classroom setting.  Are comparable "Rights Parents and Teachers Have" lists even possible?  How about the veracity of a maxim I confidently put forth earlier:  Rights and responsibilities should always go together?  Should both parents and teachers have "responsibilities"  lists?

In the past 24 hours I've wondered a bit about my confidence in the above maxim.  Is that really true?

I first heard the expression in the context of employment.  One person referred to another who had found his role as an employee intolerable.  The observer felt that he understood the main problem:   the employee had been given heavy responsibility, but when he tried to accomplish what he was asked to do, his decisions were regularly overruled by his employer.  Most of us would agree that these working conditions were not satisfactory.  He was being given responsibility without rights.


My observation and experience tell me that the "rights and responsibilities" issue is indeed a problem for many classroom teachers and parents.  Lack of clarity about who the real employer is can enter in.  Is it the parents who donate to the school?  Is it the building principal?  Is it the school board?  All of the above?  So what happens if the signals from one of these entities differs from that of the others?  Parents also wonder sometimes about their role, or, even worse, perhaps never stop to think, but proceed confidently in the wrong direction--meddling in classroom matters, for example, in which they have no knowledge or experience. Perhaps they're also getting conflicting signals from the various people involved on the school side--the teacher, the principal, and the school board.  Puzzling out these matters can be a real challenge, but, in brief, I suggest that the crux of classroom school problems centers on parents, students, or teachers claiming rights without shouldering their own legitimate responsibilities.  

In Scripture, most of what we're taught is that rights must be yielded--not claimed,  (If a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die . . . it bringeth forth much fruit.) Dying, the ultimate yielding, is the picture Jesus gives us of what should happen in us.   "A Christian cannot be concerned with one's own entitlement" is how Andrew Schleicher put it.  With this background, it seems unwise to compile a "rights" list--even for the classroom, and expect it to provide useful guidance.

Scripture also teaches that responsibilities must be claimed and not cast away (To whom much is given, of him shall much be required.).    We know that a "responsibilities list" probably exists in the mind of God, so why do we have so much trouble discovering it and living by it--especially when it comes to operating classroom schools constructively?  I believe discovering and living by such a list is, in fact, possible and necessary, and we ought to be very concerned about getting this list right.  Without it, there's a lot of floundering in our future.

In searching this morning for teaching that addressed the rights/responsibilities matter from a Scriptural foundation, I came across Hebrews 10:19-25.  One teacher summarized the teaching there this way:  We have a right to two things--confidence and counsel.  We also have two responsibilities:  Come close (draw near) and cleave (hold fast).  While I don't see this passage as applying specifically to classroom schools, it does seem to apply in a general way, and add credence to the idea that rights and responsibilities should and do go together.




  

Long Exhale

This week my life included frantic finishing up of grade cards, two long evenings of parent-teacher conferences, a lot of time spent designing  a current events study on zoonoses--not zoo noses, but zoe-uh-noe-ses, teaching four composition and typing classes and one Bible class, attending a funeral, reading a very intense book on reactive attachment disorder (RAD)--Dandelion on My Pillow, Butcher Knife Beneath, listening to CD's on the book Heaven is for Real, and trying out the treadmill.  I also cogitated further on a book I read last week, How to Set Boundaries with your Adult Children--not because I feel that I'm in a crisis with my children, but I know others who are in crisis with theirs, and I'd like to be able to help.  For the first time in a number of weeks, I don't have anything to go to or any immediate deadline hanging over my head, although I need to get caught up with some grading.

My compressed brain is beginning to bloom again--not to be confused with blinking again.

**********************

Last week the results of a recent ballot were announced, in which the vote carried by a 4% majority to do any school construction on a site separate from a church.  Ervin Miller's funeral today reminded me of one reason why that makes good sense--perhaps the best reason of all.  The grade school had to clear out for calling hours yesterday afternoon and the funeral today because they could not both carry on at the same time in the same space.  The high school continued in a slightly altered format, with any students who attended the funeral being freely excused, and Wesley being the only teacher for much of the day.  Ervin was the grandfather of my co-teacher, Norma, so  not all classes continued as usual.  If the funeral had been at CCC, the high school would have had to be dismissed.  

With more than 40 people in our area churches age 80 or older,  we all know that funerals will be frequent in the years to come.   It would be nice to be able to continue with school when that happens.  

I heard from several people who voted in favor of doing school construction at a church--probably Center.  The reasons I heard for doing so included these:

1.  Economics--cheaper than starting new

2.  Simplifying the preservation of a distinctively religious character in education

3.  Minimizing a sense of entitlement for children--deliberately not choosing the biggest and best and forcing a certain level of accommodation for all involved
4.  A desire to see less money invested in local infrastructure and more invested in evangelism

On the other side of the question (building at a different site), in my circle of contacts, these reasons were given in favor of doing so:

1.  Potential awkwardness of building at a church if the sponsoring churches do not continue in exactly the same configuration as they are now

2.  Complications of building at a church if the grade school and high school are ever to be combined at the same location

3.  Clouding the lines of responsibility by building at a church because of how it reinforces the idea that education is primarily a church duty instead of a parental duty
4.  Keeping the school separate from other large gathering places makes a desirable statement about the value of education as distinct from recreation or socializing, and helps preserve a reverent atmosphere for places of worship and other milestone ceremonies.

5.  Better potential for accessing a rich natural environment at a separate location.  (Yeah, that last one was mine, although the shelterbelt across the road is a nice feature at Center.)

If you're interested in this discussion, feel free to weigh in with what seems important to  you.  

*************************

The high school boys have a campout planned for tonight.  I'm glad the weather is beautiful, unlike last weekend when the young people nearly froze at their retreat in an unheated facility.  Wesley plans to stay with them.

**************************

The expected arrival of Joel and Hilda's baby coincides with the time of year when deer/car accidents reach their peak.  I hope the deer stay far away if there's a need for a night time run to the birth center.

**************************

Jonny came to school last week with a tale of having spent a very unusual night just before the day when he told me the story.  He and a group of other men had spent most of the night--till 3:00 AM, gutting and presumably skinning about 13 cattle that had been severely injured or killed in an accident.  

Jonny had missed some of the earlier excitement when a big truck pulling a huge gooseneck trailer encountered a bovine on the hoof in the roadway.  He swerved to avoid hitting it and, as a result, he lost control and his truck and trailer went down over a very steep bank.  Somewhere along the line the trailer twisted upside down and came to rest against a power line pole, with severely scrambled cattle inside the trailer.  Before Jonny arrived officers and emergency workers had used the "Jaws of Life" to wrench an opening into the trailer to allow the live cattle to exit.  Apparently one irate animal that did so injured a firefighter before the cattle were all confined in a temporary corral.  The firefighter was the only one who had to go to the hospital.  Amazingly, the driver of the truck escaped injury.

The meat cooled naturally overnight, and plans were made to tackle further processing today.

The term "roadkill" just acquired an expanded definition in my mind.  Before, the fate that that bovine on the hoof escaped is what I thought the term meant.  I hope the term doesn't expand further in other people's minds during the consumption of a meal that includes beef.

The accident happened several miles south of Jake Kings in the Arlington area.

*************************

Random fact:  Ervin Miller's parents were Joseph and Josephine.  I sat across the table from Josephine's niece and namesake during the meal that followed the funeral.  From her I learned that they used to call Ervin's mother "Feeny."

How many such couples do you know--with the wife's name being an elaboration of the husband's?  I know Don and Donna, but surely somewhere a couple has one of the following combinations:

Glen and Glenda (or Glendora)

Daniel and Danielle

Carl and Carla

Gerald and Geraldine

Henry and Henrietta

Harry and Harriet

Paul and Paula

Joel and Joelle

Eugene and Eugenia

Loren and Lorene

Ken and Kendra

***************************

And now I am officially going to bed without setting an alarm.  

Almost Done--For Now

Earlier I referred to what was presented as the primary focus at our recent parent-teacher's meeting--the shared responsibility all adults have to nurture and disciple children.  The responsibility always, first and foremost, however, belongs to parents.  When parents fail to take this seriously enough, their children will not function well in a classroom school.  In my "ideal world,"  it would be possible to send such children back home to stay there until the job is far enough along to make their presence in the schoolroom work well again.

I fear that the reverse happens sometimes--the job is not getting done at home so the child is sent to school to see if it can be finished up there.  (I'm sure this is not usually a conscious decision-making process.)  This sets up a cascade of frustrating and fruitless events.  Parents erupt with criticism of what the teacher is failing to accomplish or the methods he/she is using to try to accomplish it.  Teachers feel no support or cooperation from the critical parents and can't find a way to solve the problem without the parents' cooperation.  The children flaunt their selfish and independent ways.  The only satisfactory way to solve this problem is for the parents to change and then to train their children differently.  Tweaking classroom procedures or changing personnel there will not solve the basic problem.  Is that stating it too strongly?

I would like to see school personnel immediately take such matters to church leaders.  If the problem is in the home, it's unlikely that it can be solved in the school anyway.  What is needed is discipling for the parents, and that, too, is not a role teachers should be saddled with--no more than any member to member expectations outside of school.  In the church, parents and teachers are on level ground, and both of them answering to a third party could often bring a lot of clarity to the real issues.

It would be wonderful if such interventions could be implemented before experienced and capable teachers resign in exhaustion and disillusionment.  Why are we willing to go to great lengths to save parents from having to carry out what is their primary parental responsibility?

Several decades ago I first realized that no educational approach can be strong without a solid sense of parental responsibility in the matter.  Along with this awareness came the realization that seeing classroom schooling as the default schooling choice was a mistaken focus.  That approach involves delegation, and ideally delegation is what should happen when the default (parents-as-educators/disciplers) can't happen for a legitimate reason--and I believe there are such.

When classroom schooling becomes the default, parents can very easily send their children away with a sense of entitlement intact for everyone in the family, and they may all share an accompanying sense of invincibility. (I/my children have a right to be here on our terms.) That is a recipe for disaster, and no teacher, method, or environment is likely to effect a change.  This is a case of wrongfully claiming rights and abdicating necessary responsibilities.

If parents have truly considered what they are able to do and have already followed through on what they were able to do, if the need arises for help outside the family, they will receive help humbly and gratefully.  Parents will be thoroughly familiar with their children's tendencies toward mischief and will not find it hard to believe if a teacher notices the same tendency. Teachers can add to the parents' teaching and discipling efforts fairly seamlessly in such cases.  Certainly, it's part of a teacher's responsibility toward his/her students, and it will likely be unencumbered with deep-seated reluctance on the students' part.

I know for a fact that our children did not always make their high school teachers' hearts glad.  In one such case, I suggested that our child (and perhaps others) do their work at home for a while.  It didn't happen.  I think the teachers thought it was their responsibility to make things work out at school without our help, and probably a good number of parents thought so too.  Maybe this was a case of teachers taking on too much responsibility, and failing to recognize parents' responsibility in the matter.  

This brings up the need for everyone on the classroom school side of the education scene to willingly relinquish responsibility that is not legitimately theirs.   A classroom is no place to build a fiefdom or kingdom, and a false sense of importance in any of those who serve there is a detriment to the learning process.  This kind of dis-order could well also be a matter benefiting from third-party mediation.

************************

Quotes from emails I once sent to a "wounded warrior" from a classroom teaching situation.

"Once you have made the decision to delegate your children's education, you have no right to complain about how it's done.  You have only brother to brother rights with the teacher, exactly as is true for any two members of the same Christian body."  [You can always do it yourself if it needs to be done your way.]

I think part of clearing up this issue is to give attention to what parents are responsible for.  When they're not doing what they are responsible for, their efforts to control things at school end up being destructive all around, and in such circumstances, giving them more control at school is obviously not the answer.

The bottom line of what is becoming clearer to  me is that the classroom school model has some significant inherent flaws, and until we recognize that, we will always be looking for something that is out of reach.  However, it's true also that not all the problems that occur at school originate there.  I believe that the proper response often would be to address the home/parenting issues, but the mechanisms for doing so require a lot of maturity, and school personnel usually can  not effectively address that because of their role otherwise--and possibly no one else sees [the need].

Shenanigans Like This

The confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh who was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Supreme Court has been difficult to watch.  Most recently Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified publicly, alleging that the nominee sexually assaulted her when both were high school age.  Mr. Kavanaugh vociferously denied the allegations, also in a public testimony.

Senators will soon vote whether to confirm or reject the president's nomination, now that the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to submit the nominee for the full Senate's approval.  The committee, however, is asking for one more step to be inserted before the Senate votes:  investigation by the FBI.  The outcome when the Senate votes is quite uncertain.

I will not venture an opinion about what should happen regarding Kavanaugh's confirmation.  I do have several observations related to the matter.

1.  I relate to Ford's actions in a small way--not as a victim of sexual assault, but in another way.  It has to do with being honest when I'm asked by an employer what I know about a potential employee.
Occasionally, someone who is considering hiring one of my former students will ask for my input on the student's suitability for the job being considered.  Although I couldn't imagine many (or any) other circumstances under which I would reveal any dishonesty or lack of integrity that I've personally observed in a student, I will do so when a potential employer inquires about a specific person--only if it applies, of course.  I remember also adding a "big caveat" in one such case, saying that I have hope that the former student no longer lives like that, but what I know would give me pause about employing that person.

I believe Ford had a very similar experience after Kavanaugh was nominated.  She was privy to negative information regarding the nominee that was not public knowledge.  Under these extraordinary circumstances, she felt compelled to share that information for the sake of those who were considering Kavanaugh as an "employee."

2.  It's fair to consider the possibility that a person who once made serious mistakes has made better choices since then, and may have in the interim become a trustworthy individual.  See "big caveat" sentence above.

I think it's very possible that Ford, who ascribes despicable behavior to Kavanaugh, and the people who speak now of Kavanaugh as a person of great courtesy and integrity may all be truthful. I'm not sure how long a person's old sins should be held against them.  I do know that forgiveness is a Christian principle, but also, when the stakes are especially high, great caution is in order when decisions are being made that affect multitudes.

3.   A person who drinks freely, as Kavanaugh apparently did, is in a poor position to claim honorable behavior while inebriated.

In Japan, people who wish to save face for having behaved badly often pass if off by saying "I was drunk, and don't remember what I did/said."  It's notable that this may not have actually been the case, but it's so commonly understood that being drunk interferes with both memory and good behavior that it "works" as a pseudo-apology for what is too shameful to admit.

Kavanaugh would do well to acknowledge that drinking may have affected both his behavior and his memory.  If he had dealt with this a long time ago and gone as far as possible in making things right, I can't imagine that Ford would have had anything to bring up now.

4.  Kavanaugh was the only child of two lawyers.  He attended an elite private school.  It doesn't stretch my imagination in the slightest to visualize Kavanaugh as an arrogant young man with a strong sense of entitlement.  I don't know that for sure, of course, but his public presentation in his own defense certainly did nothing to discredit what I'm visualizing.  He still comes across like that.

5.  As a matter of personal integrity, it's a bad idea to reflexively defend someone whose life you really don't know, especially political figures whose image-stoking activity is well-known.  I find it incredibly embarrassing when I see otherwise good people (my people!) do this.

Right now it's Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh who are in the limelight.  Years ago, under similar circumstances, it was Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.   I remember learning that Clarence Thomas' wife has a sister living in Hutchinson, and hearing her impressions of her brother-in-law made it hard not to see Thomas as being trustworthy--but the same was true of Anita Hill, who had no in-laws living in Hutchinson.  I feel the same way about Ford and Kavanaugh.  I feel sympathy with each of them.  Nevertheless I will not come out swinging in defense of them--or in condemnation of them either--because I don't know them, and all that . . .

6.  Any obstructionism going on in the Senate now is a repeat of the obstructionism that took place under the Obama administration when Merrick Garland was nominated for the Supreme Court.  Obstructionism, it seems, is an equal-opportunity option for partisan politicians.  Shenanigans like this are one more piece of evidence that steering clear of it all is an eminently defensible position.

Don't Ask

When was the last time you tried to explain to someone why they shouldn't presume that it's always OK to ask for things?  I've heard the habit defended in this way:  "What does it hurt if you're willing to take 'no' for an answer?"

My attempts to explain this have not always been a resounding success.  For some reason, Pennsylvania Dutch/German words always spring to mind on this topic--maybe because that's the language in which I was instructed in such matters: "Don't grongle (beg)."  "Don't be gnaaksich (whiney)."  I don't say those words though when I'm trying to explain.

I sometimes have resorted to pitiful means:  "Don't embarrass me like that."

"Don't intrude on other people's mind space/work time/possessions with your self-centered requests"  is probably a slightly more thoughtful response, but is still  not an overwhelmingly convincing one.  Still, one dear student had the grace to respond with a sincere apology in the face of such logic.

Did I mention how I hate having to explain this to anyone?  Someone has to do it though, given how toxic a sense of entitlement is to relationships and productive interactions.  

Two days ago, I saw a link on Facebook where someone addressed this matter.  Check out this link for more on the subject.  Where was this guy when I  needed him?

Revisiting a Minefield--Part 2

What do we learn from Scripture?

At the crux of the teaching in Scripture about child training (What is education if it is not this?) are two truths:

1)  It is primarily a parental responsibility.
2)  It must be undertaken with the goal of leading children to learn to love and serve God and others.

Hillary Clinton famously quoted an African proverb by saying "It takes a village to raise a child."  While there is certainly some truth in the saying, note that this is not a Bible verse.  It would, in fact,  be closer to Scripture to say, "It takes parents to raise a child," and it can be done well on a lonely farm as well as in a bustling village.  It's reasonable to conclude, however, that if parents are unable to do so, the "village" helps out.  In a Christian context, this is one of the ways people in a brotherhood can help bear each other's burdens.

Child training instructions in Scripture are always directed to parents.  Delegation of this responsibility is never commanded, and possibly never mentioned. From this I conclude that no matter what else varies in educational approaches, all of them must be built on this foundation :  The education of children is primarily a parental responsibility.  Note that it is not a state responsibility or a church responsibility--not primarily, at least.  When people come together in an educational effort without this understanding, the door opens to all manner of wasted effort, misunderstanding, and disillusionment.  This matter encompasses one of the systemic changes I believe are necessary if our church education programs are to continue effectively.  People simply must understand that when the question is "Who is primarily responsible for the teaching of children?" there is only one correct answer, and it is not the church and it is not the state.

Note that I am not saying that delegation is always wrong.  I am simply saying that it is not the default understanding taught in Scripture.

When the New Testament talks about the teaching that happens when Christians are gathered, it's  in the context of activities like worship, working together in an evangelism effort, in fellowship, or for the purpose of relating to other believers--encouraging, teaching, challenging, etc.--adult to adult interactions, in other words. Never is there an account given of children gathering in groups to be taught by adult Christians.  Jesus Himself, when the children came to him, did not teach them.  He touched them, received them, and blessed them.  Then he taught his disciples, while the children presumably went back to their parents.  

Jesus modeled discipling (training in loving and serving God and others)--the second foundational necessity in understanding Biblical child training--not by asking those who followed him to enroll in a discipleship class.  Instead, he walked with them, worked with them, lived with them, and taught along the way.  This way of teaching is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 6:7, where God says to His children, speaking of the commandments of the Lord:  "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up."  (KJV)  I don't see much here that describes a typical classroom scene.  This context for teaching and learning is clearly everyday home life--relaxing indoors, traveling or moving about in the course of working, going to sleep, getting up. 


How can the understanding that parents are primarily responsible for their children's education make a difference in a church's educational program?  All kinds of ways.  Only one predictable effect will be mentioned now:  Where parents have already taken up the primary burden of child training themselves, without automatic recourse to delegating it, people regard classroom schooling in ways that make a profound difference.  To summarize, there is no sense of entitlement among parents and students who access the services in a classroom school.  In its place is a profound sense of gratitude.   Parents feel the lifting of a burden they have already wrestled with and found too heavy to bear. Students who have regularly struggled to master difficult material on their own know how valuable a teacher's help is, and they appreciate all the help they get.  Students and parents will express gratitude regularly to the classroom teachers.  Students will respond eagerly to what they are taught.  They will do whatever they're asked to do without complaint.  Teachers will feel appreciated and affirmed, and not taken advantage of unfairly, or treated with disrespect and even disdain.  This is a huge and essential shift from business-as-usual in a classroom school.  It's as dramatic as a shift from a "welfare mentality" to a sense of personal responsibility and gratitude.  


I know whereof I speak--both from the standpoint of a homeschooling parent and a classroom teacher.  I have taught dozens of homeschooled students in a classroom setting where they have come for one class at a time--to join others who are full-time classroom students.  I have also felt deep gratitude for what other Godly teachers, men especially, could pour into my boys' minds and lives when their own father and I could simply not manage the course material or find the necessary time to do so ourselves.  


Regarding child training, the central truths to be conveyed to children are commonly understood in our circles, I believe.  Primary parental responsibility for doing so?  Not so much.  In this matter, there is widespread selective and very uneven application--only until age six, for example.  Until then, God forbid that any of it should be "farmed out."  After then, "farming out" child training is often regarded as the default, and sometimes becomes a church requirement.  Lord, have mercy!  I'm still praying that someday I will hear primary parental responsibility taught from the pulpit and see a program designed that proceeds from this fundamental principle.

(To be continued)