"Spreading the wealth" in the classroom

I can't seem to stay away from the topic of education these days!

World magazine recently interviewed Mike Adams, an outspoken Christian and conservative at a secular university (University of North Carolina - Wilmington). He received tenure as an atheist, but by 2000 he had become a Christian and vocal about his faith and political orientation. He is critical of the intolerance demonstrated by those who worship tolerance, and has been an outspoken critic of university "speech codes" and other tools of political correctness.

In the interview, he articulated a cogent response to those who advocate the radical redistribution of wealth, a response which is perfect for giving college freshman pause on their new-found journey towards Marxism.

Here is Professor Adams' "Spread the Wealth" grading policy:

I wrote a spoof email to my students saying that I was going to come up with a new grading system. I said, "A lot of students make A's, and they really have more points than they need. No one really needs that many points, and there are a lot of poor people out there failing who really need more points. So, after Exam 1 I'm going to take points away from people who have A's and give them to people who have F's so we can have more equality in the classroom. We're going to cut it down to 3 levels: B, C, and D. After the 2nd Exam, we're going to rethink that and look at the average, and I'm sure that some people will have B's and D's, and that's really not fair. So we're going to compress it and give everyone C's."

Adams remarks that the consequences of such a policy would be that if people know what their outcome will be in advance, they're not going to put forth much effort. To the socialist he asks: "What's the difference between that and an economic policy that guarantees everyone the same outcome?"

In the battle for our children's minds, Professor Adams is a warrior on the front lines. He closes the interview with this: "We lose when we don't fight. I remind students: You'll be scared for a while, you'll get beat up for a while, but there is greater glory waiting on the other side."

The global, active-learning, multi-versity

My recent posts on education here, here, here, and here drew a couple of responses that I wanted to briefly address...well....here!

Overall, the comments can be summarized as follows:

1) The lecture method is not the only way to teach.

2) Cooperative learning and active learning strategies are valid adult education strategies not secular fads.

3) Setting student learning objectives and assessing student learning is important.

4) It is ethnocentric not to think globally. We need to not limit our education to Western or American history, philosophy, culture, etc.

I'm not sure I would disagree with all of these things. By bringing up some of the shortfalls of current educational approaches, I didn't mean to imply that those approaches have no value. However, we must be careful about wholeheartedly adopting those methodologies and throwing out the old just because the new is bright and shiny. Also, the secularists like to take credit for centuries-old wisdom; for example, "active learning." As if Aristotle, Jesus, Acquinas, etc. only talked about knowledge and never did anything or encouraged their followers to apply what they learned: "Go out and make disciples of all nations..."

I agree that looking at other cultures and evaluating their values is important. I'm not denying that. But I believe an institution (college or university) has to rest on one of those cultures. We cannot embrace all of them equally because sometimes those values are in conflict. For example, many Asian cultures do not embrace the scientific method as in the West, particularly in medicine. Asian medicines are not subject to double-blind tests to evaluate efficacy before they are deemed effective like they are in the West. The type of proof the West demands is not part of these other cultures. "Critical thinking" in this respect is not universal. I guess what I'm saying is that every university has to decide which approach is better; we can't teach it all. There just isn't room in the curriculum; 120 credits runs out sooner than later.

That's why it seems to me that the quest for the "global" university is elusive. Perhaps, each culture should teach what it believes most strongly and let people decide for themselves which they want to pursue. If western universities leave you cold, maybe you should attend an Asian or African university. But if a university tries to be all things to all people it will only lead to mediocrity and vapid compromise. Remember the "uni" in university is "one": The original idea was for many subjects to converge on one meta-narrative. Otherwise, we would be calling them "multi-versities."

As far as assessment, I'm not saying we shouldn't assess things - we need to know how are students are doing. But my point was to show that even the assessment scholars cannot prove that institutional assessment practices actually improve student learning. Like I said, this country is spending millions and millions of dollars on institutional effectiveness programs and there is no proof that they actually help student learning. In that case, it seems to me that we should proceed slowly and in the meantime, rely on the integrity of faculty within the classrooms to evaluate students. If you can't trust your faculty to evaluate their students then why are they still teaching? If an intructor gives a student an "A" in a geometry class and the student still doesn't know that there are 180 degrees in a triangle, it seems to me that we shouldn't build a structure to measure college-wide student learning, we should just fire the instructor. If the school administration does their job in hiring the right faculty, and the faculty do their job in the classroom, the need for an institutional effectiveness watchdog program would be unnecessary.

Except for the fact that the government (both state and federal) needs to exert control over education...but that's another post.

Where are the honest and courageous men?

This post is late as it relates to political activity that occurred a couple of weeks ago. I wasn't going to post anything about it here, but I found this video of Representative Randy Forbes (4th Congressional District of Virginia) and I was compelled to write something.

The recent passage of additional hate crimes legislation in Congress awakened me to the sleazy ways that politicians do business. Sure, I knew that unrelated legislations were combined in bills, but this most recent act was so egregious, I had to write my senators. Here is the note I sent them:

Dear Senator (Webb/Warner)

I am completely ashamed of the conduct of the U.S. Congress. That the recent hate crimes bill - which seeks to expand federal hate-crime protection to homosexuals – was slipped into the defense authorization bill to ensure passage is deceitful and totally inappropriate. Hate crimes supporters in the House, realizing that the expanded hate crimes bill could not pass on its own merits, used deceitful tactics to get it passed. And the Senate seems willing to do the same. As it has abandoned its integrity, I am quickly losing confidence in the legislative branch of our federal government. I thought that the new administration and Democrat led legislature were supposed to preside over an exceptionally open and honest approach to government. Those promises have sadly faded.

I implore you as my representative not to succumb to this pressure. Let the debate over additional hate crimes be debated honestly in the light of day, not in the shadows of another bill which has nothing to do with this issue. Please give me some hope that there is some integrity left in the Senate.

If you do vote for this bill as is, I can assure you that you will never receive my vote for any public office candidacy again, and I will do whatever I can to convince my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances to do the same. I could not support a candidate who lacks the integrity to vote “No” on this bill.

Of course, both voted for the bill and while they did respond to my letter, neither addressed my main concern. I wrote them again in response:

Dear Senator,

Thank you for your reply.

Unfortunatley, I cannot agree with your position on this issue. First, you did not address my concern about hiding unrelated legislation within other bills. A hate-crime bill buried within a defense appropriation bill to avoid honest debate on hate-crime legislation is unconscionable. As I mentioned in my letter, this was my main point of disagreement. While I realize that this has been going on for years, I hoped that the promises made by the new Administration and Congress to bring "change" to Washington would be realized. Apparently, it is business as usual.

Second, hate-crime legislation provides unequal access to justice. Hate crime legislation says this to victims of violent crime: If you were beaten, raped, attacked or otherwise violated for motivations other than gender, racial, or sexual preference, the crime committed against you is less important to authorites (state and/or local), and, therefore, not as heinous as the same crimes motivated by "hate" categories.

That puts you and others like you in the unenviable position of having to say to someone who has lost a wife to a "non-hate crime" murder: "Sorry, but the state and federal authorities will be using fewer resources to find your wife's murderer than on the murder of your gay neighbor." One murder is more important than another. The crimes motivated by "love" apparently pale in comparison to those motivated by "hate."

The inequity and foolishness of this legislation are so obvious that I thought anyone could see it.

I'm just one person and it probably does not make any difference to you, but I can promise you this: I will never cast a vote for you again.

If it weren't for men like Randy Forbes, I would disengage from the political process altogether. Here is another sample of his integrity. Although the system is broken, I feel compelled to support Mr. Forbes and others like him.

The other day, Doug Wilson wrote on his blog:

Our system is busted. Broke. Bankrupt. The checks that our representatives have authorized and signed don't have any money behind them, but they have not yet bounced. We are in that floaty, in-between time, after the check was written and before the angry creditor finds out what was done to him.

The problems we face cannot be addressed except by honest and courageous men. Where are we going to get them?

In Virginia's 4th Congressional District, we have one in Randy Forbes.

The conditions of God's unconditional love

This is another short post which adds (I hope) to the previous post on Christ's power in our lives.

In an article in the Journal of Biblical Counseling (Spring 1994), David Powlison wrestles with the ubiquitous and often misused phrase, "unconditional love." This term is typically used to describe the disposition that God has towards his people; that is, God loves his people unconditionally. While offered with good intentions, Powlison (and I) believe that it inaccurately describes our relationship with Christ. Unconditional love "starts and stops with sympathy and empathy,with blanket acceptance." Unconditional love "accepts you as you are, with no expectations." But God does not "benignly gaze on you in affirmation." In a real sense, He "cares too much to be unconditional." Christ's love is better than unconditional, it's contra-conditional! More on this later.

In my experience, the notion of God's "unconditional love" has given many people license to stay as they are, to short-change sanctification, to remain as they were - only now they have a ticket to heaven (or so they think). One writer described it this way: "They've accepted Christ as their savior, but not their Lord." God is an active God. He is merciful, loving, and determined to change us to be more like his Son. When we come to Christ we are no longer ourselves: "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life" (Romans 6:22). And, "The love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore, all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised" (2 Corinthians 5:14ff). And there was a condition of your salvation: "While God's love does not depend upon what you do, it very much depends on what Jesus Christ did for you. In that sense, it is highly conditional. It cost Jesus His life."

While it is true that God receives you as you are (sinful, suffering, confused), it is equally true that He does not desire that you stay in that condition. God meets us where we are, but we don't stay there for long. As comedian Tim Hawkins quips: "I meet these people who say to me, 'I love my church, it is so nice, and people accept me just for who I am'...buddy, you're in a bar!" God does not accept me just the way I am; He loves me despite how I am. Powlison suggest that "perhaps we could call it 'contra-conditional' love; that is, contrary to the conditions for knowing God's blessing, He has blessed me because His Son fulfilled the conditions. Contrary to my due, He loves me. And now I can begin to change, not to earn love but because of love."

Powlison continues:

God's grace is something more than unconditional in another way. It is intended to change the people who receive it. There is something wrong with you. From God's point of view, you not only need someone else killed in your place in order to be forgiven; you need to be transformed in order to be fit to live with. The word unconditional may be an acceptable way to express the welcome of God. But it fails to communicate the point of that welcome: a comprehensive and lifelong rehab.

God is transforming us so that He can comfortably dwell within us.

Unconditional love suggests that we are ok, but we are not. Powlison suggests that if we receive blanket acceptance, then we need no repentance. It's too easy. Christ's yoke is light, but it is still a yoke that requires movement in the direction He determines. If five, ten, or twenty years into your Christian life, you are basically the same as when you started, you have to question whether you ever wore that yoke to begin with. To maintain old attitudes and crusty habits, we often retreat behind the refrain, "Well this is who I am." But that won't cut it. God is less concerned with I am than with who I will become. I was bought at a price and so were you; we are slaves to Christ now (1 Corinthians 7:23). We need to accept his "contra-conditional" love and brace and rejoice in the changes to come.

God is in the business of redemption and change.

For those who want to continue to be accepted for "who I am," I'm sure the bar down the street has an empty stool waiting.

Cleaning house

While the Westminster Confession of Faith succinctly explains the biblical concepts of justification and sanctification, it is not always clear - at least to me - how those processes work themselves out in my heart.

I recently read a passage from A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers by D. A. Carson on this subject. Carson provides an analogy from Ephesians 3:16 - 17a: "I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith..." Carson notes that this passage might strike the Christian reader as a bit strange:

"Do we not hold that Christ by his Spirit takes up residence in us when we become Christians (see John 14)? Why then does Paul say that the purpose of his prayer is that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith? Isn’t he already doing that?"

And from here Carson provides what I think is an excellent picture of justification (Christ establishing residence in our hearts) and sancification (Christ making that residence his home).

From Carson:

It helps to recognize that the verb here rendered “to dwell” is a strong one. Paul’s hope is that Christ will truly take up his residence in the hearts of believers, as they trust him (that’s what “through faith” means), so as to make their hearts his home.

The picture becomes clearer if we think of an analogy. Picture a couple carefully marshaling enough resources to put together a down payment. They buy their house, recognizing full well that it needs a fair bit of work. They can’t stand the black and silver wallpaper in the master bedroom. There are mounds of trash in the basement. The kitchen was designed for the convenience of the plumber, not the cook. The roof leaks in a couple of places, and the insulation barely meets minimum standards. The electrical box is too small, the lighting in the bathroom is poor, [and] the heat exchanger in the furnace is corroded. But still, it is this young couple’s first home, and they are grateful.

The months slip past, then the years. The black and silver wallpaper has been replaced with tasteful pastel patterns. The couple has remodeled their kitchen, doing much of the work themselves. The roof no longer leaks, and the furnace has been replaced with a more powerful unit that also includes a central air conditioner. Better yet, as the family grows, this couple completes a couple of extra rooms in the basement and adds a small wing to serve as a study and sewing room. The grounds are neatly trimmed and boast a dazzling rock garden. Twenty-five years after the purchase, the husband one day remarks to his wife, “You know, I really like it here. This place suits us. Everywhere we look we see the results of our own labor. This house has been shaped to our needs and taste, and I really feel comfortable.”

When Christ by His Spirit takes up residence within us, he finds the moral equivalent of mounds of trash, black and silver wallpaper, and a leaking roof. He sets about turning this residence into a place appropriate for him, a home in which he is comfortable. There will be a lot of cleaning to do, quite a few repairs, and some much-needed expansion. But his aim is clear: he wants to take up residence in our hearts, as we exercise faith in him...

Make no mistake: when Christ first moves into our lives, he finds us in very bad repair. It takes a great deal of power to change us; and that is why Paul prays for power. He asks that God may so strengthen us by his power in our inner being that Christ may genuinely take up his residence with us, transforming us into a house that pervasively reflect his own character.

I figure at this point, Christ has only gotten around to sprucing up my front porch.