All Good Things

It is often say that all good things must come to an end and so it is with this particular blog site.  I have kept this blog running more to link where I currently post with where I used to post.  But I found that I could move all the stuff I wrote and posted to this site from from 2005 through 2006 to my new blog.  So, after I get all the pieces edited for formatting problems, I will begin the process of shutting this blog down.

In the meantime, if you are looking for what I wrote, it should be over at "Thoughts From The Heart On The Left".

An Open Letter to Boards of Education

The following is a copy of a letter that I sent to the Kansas Board of Education as they were debating the inclusion of "intelligent design" into the state wide science curriculum.

In addition to being a Lay Preacher in the United Methodist Church, I also hold a Ph. D. in Science Education from the University of Iowa. While I don't know if I am truly qualified to speak on the subject this background should allow me to speak on this topic. And I speak on this because I do know that I would not be comfortable in any setting where one area of my life dictates how the other area of my life will be run.

I would also encourage you, the reader, to look at the writings of Alan Harvey (http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm). His essay on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is very useful in understanding how science has been distorted and twisted.

You may also want to look at my post for July 9th in which I published the sermon I gave on this topic.
--------------------------------------------------------

An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education:

First, as a way of introduction, I hold a Ph. D. in Science Education from the University of Iowa. I have taught chemistry courses at the high school and college level for over twenty-five years. I have also taught science education courses. So I believe I have the credentials in the area of science and curriculum for the debate presently taking place.

Additionally, for the past ten years I have been an active lay minister in the United Methodist Church. I consider myself evangelical in name, word, and deed (though not in the sense that it is used in today’s society). Thus, I believe that I have the appropriate credentials for this debate.

If we are to debate/discuss the theory of evolution, or any theory for that matter, we must first understand that a theory is not a fact or a collection of facts. It is the best explanation of a set of facts gathered in some empirical manner.

The problem today is that many teachers teach theories as if they were facts rather than explanations. In doing this, they corrupt the process of science and develop many misunderstandings. The genesis (and excuse me for using this word but it is highly appropriate to the debate) occurred some forty years ago. The science curriculums developed in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s launching of the first Sputnik were experimentally based. They were designed to show how theories were developed by having the students actually do experiments. But over time, with the cost for laboratory experiments rising, such experimentally based lessons were cut back and ultimately phased out. Thus, instead of being able to help students develop an understanding of theory development in all branches of science, teachers simply presented theories as facts and without experimental basis. Theories became facts.

This argument has been made before but if we are to present competing theories for evolution, as is the current debate, then we might as well include the theory of phlogiston in chemistry and the nature of the “ether” that light must travel in physics. Both of these theories were prevalent several centuries ago but have been replaced by the development of experimental evidence that provided a better theory.

The key point here is that older theories were replaced (after much discussion and debate) because the physical evidence provided suggested a better theory. You can have competing theories but they must be based on the same evidence and there cannot be claims of outside agencies or forces. Nor can there be any disagreement about how the evidence is gathered (some proponents for the intelligent design theory make improper claims about the accuracy of dating the age of fossils).

Nor can a theory be introduced simply because it fits within one’s belief system. To do so would be reminiscent of the Soviet Union in the 1930’s when genetics were taught on the basis of Marxist-Lenin philosophy rather than on the empirical evidence first suggested by Gregor Mendel. And we are reminded that the Catholic Church took over three hundred years to acknowledge that its punishment of Galileo may have been incorrect. But three hundred years ago, those who held to the heliocentric system were punished by the church. The discussion today has all the hallmarks of a similar persecution.

Instead of a debate over what theories to teach, school boards should focus and worry more about funding schools so that science can be taught as science and not as an advance reading course. Instead of worrying about what is taught, school boards should also worry about whether teachers hired have the ability to teach science and present the materials so that students understand what science is and what science is not.

School is about critical thinking and developing critical thinking. If we introduce a theory that limits one’s ability to think, and that is what the introduction of this proposed alternative theory would do, then we are defeating the purpose of school.

We are told in Genesis that we were created in God’s image, so we must be thinking creatures. In thinking, we seek new ideas. Now, before anyone gets a burr under their saddle and complains that I cannot use one passage of Genesis without using all the passages let me add this.

The story of creation is not unique to our culture or heritage; it is common to all cultures and heritages. This suggests to me that there is a God. Genesis acknowledges God’s presence in our lives and attempts to describe God’s work in terms that early mankind could understand.

Science is not about replacing God; science is about helping people develop an understanding of the world around them. It is likely that instead of taking people away from God (the fear of may proponents of intelligent design), the development of thinking through science teaching will lead people to God. For us to conclude that science will drive people away from God is to misjudge our Creator and ourselves.

It seems to me that those who oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution and would propose new theories fear the unknown. They fear change and do not want their children exposed to dangerous new thoughts. They fear that their children will go to school and come back questioning their beliefs; but if they, as parents, are teaching their children, their beliefs are sound and will withstand the questioning that exposure to other ideas brings.

School is a time for exploration. Students should leave asking questions about the world around them and they should know how to find the answers. Perhaps, as they do this, they will find the truth. But if we seek to stifle their thinking, then all we will do is insure their enslavement.

Our role in this process, as parents, educators, and citizens, is to set our children free, not limit them.

Who is to blame?

Who is to blame for the failure of society to come to the aid of the people of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina?  We all are.  Let us not blame anyone in the Federal Government, the Louisiana state government, or the New Orleans city government but take it on ourselves.
Yes, each political entity failed in its responsibilities to the city.  The present administration has consistently brought forth the view that such aid is the responsibility of individual citizens and the private sector.  But individuals have come to expect that in a time of a horrific crisis such as Katrina, the federal government would be there.  So we start the rescue effort for the disaster with each person expecting someone else to do the job.
And when are we going to learn that when a disaster transcends multiple boundaries, that individuals and state organizations are not capable of handling the aftermath.  The people of New Orleans listened to their local and state officials and were trapped.
Would the reaction, local, state, and federal have been the same if this had been a terrorist attack?  Katrina has demonstrated just how incapable our federal government is in responding to a national catastrophe.  What can we expect if we are attacked by terrorists?  We have spent last four years hearing that we are in a war with terrorists; all of our resources have been directed toward that goal.  The movement of FEMA into the Homeland Security bureaucracy was directed towards the eventuality.  Many people do not feel any safer because of the presence of the Homeland security; how secure are we to feel if we don’t think we will be helped in any further tragedy?  
While we recover from the tragedy of Katrina, we must also look to future and prepare for whatever may come.  We have had this opportunity before but what have we learned?
People are pointing out that the lessons gained from disasters such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the Northridge earthquake in 1994 have quickly been forgotten.  We have not learned to anticipate what will happen.  
But this disaster was just waiting to happen.  If it had not been August of 2005, it might have been September of 2005; it might have been sometime next year.  But the fact of the matter is that it was going to happen.  We have been building levees around New Orleans since 1727.  While levees keep waters out of other areas, they also change the natural flow of the river.  There is at least one current scientific report that shows that the wetlands and delta south of New Orleans have been dramatically altered because of the levees.
What many people in the United States don’t know is that the Army Corps of Engineers spends a large amount of money keeping the Mississippi in its present river bed.  Just north of Baton Rouge is the Old River Project; a massive engineering project to keep the Mississippi from changing course and joining the Atchafalaya River (see http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/recreation/Recreation_Sites_Old_River.asp) for  details.
The fact that there are scientific reports on the destruction of the wetlands surrounding New Orleans and there are reports outlining the dangers a storm as such Katrina could present underscores the desperate problems of American education.  We may have one of the highest graduation rates in the world but that does not mean that our students and the population in general are capable of critical thinking.  The recent effort to bring accountability into the educational system has only and will only continue to mean that our students know how to memorize short bits of information.  Most students and their parents can not see the implication of their actions beyond today!  Many individuals, when presented with a bond initiative to improve local schools and libraries, vote against the bond initiative claiming that it is too expensive.
This is not a time to argue about the way public monies are spent.  It is probably true and there are probably better ways to spend the money (in general terms, I personally feel that administrators are paid too much and classroom teachers are not paid enough).  But the continued failure to fund our educational processes is beginning to show.  We are loosing the lead in technology to China and India and we are beginning to see the effects of not understanding what is happening to our world.
And the failure to understand what is happening in the world also means that people do not understand that they are the ones who can make the difference.  Our political process is quickly becoming the arena for a dedicated few who concentrate on what they want, not what is best for the country.  
The cry to do what you can for your country (as John Kennedy so eloquently spoke in 1960) is quickly becoming what can the country do for me?  The enthusiasm of the 60’s is quickly changing to cynicism and apathy.  Yes, I know there are those who feel that they must do something; but there are only a few.  Yes, I know that people have opened their wallets and written checks to help in the current disaster.  But have they learned?
What will happen when the next disaster occurs?  There will be disasters beyond what Katrina wrought and we cannot spend time thinking about who to blame.  While we recover and rebuild, hopefully better and safer than before, will we also be preparing for the next time?  If we do not do so, there will be no one to blame but ourselves.

Who are you?

This was to be my “blog” for August 28th; it is based on the common lectionary for that Sunday, the 15^th Sunday after Pentecost.

If you like what I write or would like to use what I write in some of your writings, please contact me. I use other sources that are not always marked in my writing. My e-mail address is TonyMitchellPhD@verizon.net

Have a good week!
------------------------------------------------------
I am not a fan of the television show “CSI” or any of the other new crime genre shows. I think that they tend to oversimplify the analytical procedures used in forensic science and they glorify the process beyond what it is. This is not to say that the methods used in the shows are incorrect or not accurately portrayed; it is just that most of the analytical methods take longer than one hour. But, on television, the crime must generally be solved within sixty minutes for the show to stay on the air.

So I don’t watch “CSI” or any of its spin-offs. But, if the television is on, I know when the show is starting because of its theme music. The theme for the show is The Who’s “Who Are You?” Though I know the words and why the song was picked, I am not so sure that many of the people in the younger generation, for whom the show focuses, do. But my discussion today is more on the question the song asks rather than any crime that might need solving.

I was reminded of the song because of the Old Testament passage for this particular Sunday. Moses, tending the flocks of his father-in-law, encounters God via the burning bush. Moses’ reaction, as ours would be is, “Who are you?” God responses with the cryptic “I am who I am.” This phrase, in Hebrew, is the basis for Yahweh, the term often used to mean God.

As I said, Moses’ response is probably what we would expect and what I think we might say if we were in a similar situation. I also think that we would respond in much the same manner that Moses did when God asked him, Moses, to do something in His name.

Instead of “Who are you?” the query becomes “What gives you the authority to ask this of me?” And Moses also starts, as we would, to find reasons why he is not the person to whom God should entrust this task.

Nothing Moses does in this scene from the middle of an Arabian desert should seem strange or unusual. Granted, standing there watching a bush burn but not being consumed is rather strange and unusual but Moses’ responses are what we would expect because they are the responses we would give. When we encounter someone new, we are apt to ask who they are. And if this friend of ours should ask us to do something we often ask “by what right they have to ask or tell us to do that.”

When Hurricane Katrina first approached the Gulf Coast and authorities were telling people to leave, the response, for some, was this later response. Many choose to stay, feeling that they could ride out the storm as they had done many times before. Many also stayed because they had no other option.

But those, who had been given the opportunity to leave, found themselves faced with a storm stronger than anything they had ever imagined. Those who so quickly refused to head the warnings of authority quickly found out that there was no possible rescue because such an attempt would endanger too many lives.

What we have, with these two different groups (those that had the ability and opportunity to leave when they had the chance and those who had no ability to take advantage of the opportunity before them) is a clear reflection of the Gospel. Those without the ability to take advantage are those whom we need to be with, helping and assisting. Those who have the opportunity but refused on their own free will are like Peter in that moment following His declaration that Jesus is the Messiah.

Jesus had asked His disciples “Who do the people say that I am?” He followed this up with a direct question to the disciples, “Who do you say I am?” Peter was very emphatic in his declaration that Jesus was the Messiah, the fulfillment of God’s promise to His promise. But in the very next paragraph, the Gospel reading for today, Peter tries to stop Jesus from moving onwards to Jerusalem and the completion of the mission. Jesus asks Peter “by what authority he (Peter) has to stop the mission?”

This is the dilemma we are faced with when we are face to face with Christ. We know that without Christ in our lives, we are condemned to death. We know that with Christ, we are promised an everlasting life. But we must give up everything that we own and are in order to follow Christ; it is something that not many of us are willing to do. Every time Christ made this type of announcement, the number of those following Him grew smaller. People were not willing to follow in His footsteps if it meant giving up what they had on earth.

But, if we are to follow Christ, we must live a new life. No longer can we live in a world where violence is met with more violence. No longer can we live in a world where people take advantage of human misery and suffering for their own profit. In Paul’s letter to the Romans for this Sunday, he noted that we should feed and take care of our enemies. Rather than respond in kind to oppression, we should respond with love.

Clarence Jordan, the founder of Koinonia, tells the story about the time his daughter was being harassed by the school bully. Mr. Jordan stated that he was ready to forget all that he was saying and preaching about Christian love and use worldly methods to deal with this young man. But his daughter told him to let her solve the problem in her own way, to use Christian love. As she told her father, every time the boy came around, she gushed and proclaimed how glad she was to see him. Finally, the boy became so embarrassed that he quit coming around and harassing her and when he saw her coming, he turned away. By responding in love and kindness, the harassment stopped.

If, in a world of hatred, darkness, and despair, we bring some light and hope through our love, will the world not be a better place? If we respond to the Gospel message by bringing help to the oppressed, the sick, the needy, and lost souls of this world, will not the world be a better place? We have seen through this week what happens when people lose hope, when the promise of the future is bleak and dark. We are standing on the road and Jesus is asking “Who are you? Are you My disciple, willing to carry my cross and take the Gospel into the world?”

We are not happy!

We sent the following letter our Senators (Hilary Clinton and Charles Schumer) as well as our Representative (Sue Kelly). A copy was also sent to CNN. We will get a response from our representatives but it is more likely going to be a "canned" response. We are in a crisis and we have no leaders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past several days we have watched in horror as fellow Americans in New Orleans, Louisiana have been forced to live in conditions that we wouldn’t even let animals live in. The delay in giving the type of aid and assistance necessary to alleviate these horrendous conditions can be placed directly at the feet of the current Administration in Washington, DC.

The conditions which exist now in New Orleans are indicative of the attitudes of the Bush White House. Mr. Bush was quick to take us into war against Iraq but he’s a day late and a dollar in short when it comes to helping our own American citizens.

While we spend billions of dollars for a dubious war in Iraq, and have sent thousands of our young people to fight in this war, our own citizens go wanting. Now a national disaster, one that we have never seen in our history, has plunged this country into a nightmare, the proportions of which cannot be described.

President Bush’s response, as noted in today’s New York Times, was a day late. It was an unimpressive speech and one that showed that he has no connection with the real country.

It should also be noted that Congress has failed in its responsibilities to its constituents. As was noted on CNN, Congress rushed back to Washington to pass a law which interfered with one person’s family. But now, with Congress in session, where are the leaders of Congress. We applaud Senator Landrieu from Louisiana for being with the people of Louisiana but we have neither seen nor heard from either her colleague in the Senate or either of the two Senators from Mississippi. In a time when leadership is desperately needed, those whom we have elected are nowhere to be seen.

It is true that the National Guard’s first role is to support the Army and the Air Force. But the National Guard has always been the force that states could count on in times such as these. But our National Guard has been stretched to the limit; just as our Armed Forces have been stretched.

The looting and lawlessness that now seems to pervade New Orleans could have been avoided if the New Orleans city police and Louisiana state police did not have to take on tasks for which they were under-equipped and under-manned.

Second, why did this Administration not budget enough money to reinforce the levees surrounding New Orleans? From what I understand funds to accomplish reinforcement were requested for the past 8 years but New Orleans received only about 10% of the requested amount. This disaster has been seen and modeled in countless computer simulations. We knew what would happen; why did we not work to prevent it?

This disaster, far beyond anything ever imagined, will take more than simple compassion to resolve; it will take action not only by individuals and the private sector but by the government, elected by the people of this country to provide leadership.

Who Shall Lead Us?

This was to be my “blog” for August 21^st; it is based on the common lectionary for that Sunday, the 14^th Sunday after Pentecost.

Thomas Paine wrote “These are the times that try men’s souls.” He was, of course, referring to the events that would eventually lead to the American Revolution. But he could have easily been describing the problems of today’s churches.

These are times when we read and hear of numerous churches that are growing in leaps and bounds, prompting the term “mega-church.” According to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, there are approximately 800 Protestant churches in the United States with a sustained average weekly attendance of 2000 or more.[1] In addition to their size, these churches have charismatic pastors who offer a softer and gentler version of the Gospel. It is a Gospel that promises wealth and good health to those who believe but it appears that the only ones getting wealthy are the pastors who present the message.

The Gospel was, at least to me, never about getting rich or having good health. The riches that we receive are in heaven and not here on earth. The Gospel message, again at least to me, was about helping the sick, the needy, the homeless, and the oppressed. It was and is a message that centers on Christ’s sacrifice so that we may be free from sin and spiritual death. But these are points missing in the mega church; look at the stage (I will not call it an altar) and see if you can find the cross or any other reminder of Christ’s sacrifice and suffering for our sake.

Attend a worship service at one of these churches or at any more modern worship service and you are likely to feel that you are in a rock concert rather than a church service. The music of today’s modern worship service takes on the tone of a mantra rather than challenging the worshipper to open their hearts. We hear an almost Calvinistic message that poverty and homelessness are the products of the sinful nature of the person rather than inequities and inequalities in life. Listen to these “good-time” pastors and you have to wonder if there are any homeless, sick, needy or any oppressed people in the world. It is almost as if the world of these pastors and their congregations did not have any sick, needy, homeless, or imprisoned. Theirs is the reply of the people in Matthew 25: 31 – 39.

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

These churches, offering their “light” Gospel turn away those who seek solace and peace in a world of turmoil and darkness.

I listened to someone the other day who said they were religious but who had quit going to church. It seems that when this individual was faced with a major crisis in their lives, they had wanted to go to their church and pray. But the church was closed when they got there and the priest was not willing to open up the church so that they could go in. In a time of need, the church was not there for this person and because the church was not there, this person no longer goes to church. How many similar stories have we heard or do we know where the church is not there when a person seeks solace and comfort but cannot find it. Our churches are quickly becoming a church that turn people away rather than let them in. If they do not like a person’s lifestyle or economic status, they are likely to turn that person away.

These self-proclaimed religious leaders of our country proclaim that they have Biblical support for their message and decisions. But they forget that leaders in the Bible challenged the people, and did not simply offer simple or comfortable answers.

We cannot, in this day and age, have leaders who simply choose approaches that mirror the problems of today. We cannot respond to violence with violence; we cannot make the world free by oppressing others. In a world where people are sick, needy, or homeless, we cannot say that they are not welcome or that they are in such a state because of their own sinfulness. Callousness, shallowness, and indifference cannot cure the problems of the world; yet, that is the manner of the message many people hear in church today.

We claim to be Christian but we are not willing to walk the path that Christ walked. We cannot expect any government to offer solutions that require that we give of ourselves. Often times, the demands of the political state contradict the demands placed on us by the kingdom of heaven. We fail to realize that if Jesus had accepted Satan’s offer to command the kingdoms of the world, He would have had to renounce His Lordship.

We want the kingdoms of the world; we want the kingdom of heaven as well, but we want it know and here on earth. We want our leaders, political or spiritual, to lead us to the Promised Land. This was the promise of Satan, not Christ. When Peter proclaimed to Jesus and the other disciples that Jesus was the true Messiah, Jesus did not give him the keys to the kingdom on earth but rather the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Our own declaration that Jesus is the Messiah is something that we believe in our heart and our mind but it is not always provable in a world that demands physical proof. And, sometimes like Peter on Good Friday, we are not always prepared to meet the demands of society that demand such proof.[2]

We live in a world that responds to violence with violence, oppression with further repression and ignores the sick, the needy, and the homeless. In this world is a river that separates us from the kingdom of peace, justice, and perfect love.

We need to be people who seek to find ways to cross the river; we need to be people who dare to live in accordance with the ways of the other side, not this side of the river. And as we cross the river, we need to remain in touch with those who do not go with us, even if they choose not to go with us.[3]

Paul spoke to the Romans about the gifts we have all been given. One of those gifts is to help others come to the river’s edge and find the way to the other side, to the Promised Land.

We need to be reminded that “Moses” means “I drew him out of the water.” Moses’ life began on the river’s edge but it was from that river’s edge that he was able to lead his people to the Promised Land. Our Moses is Jesus and He is willing to lead us to the Promised Land if we are willing to follow.

The mission of the church is not to be a source of discord or hatred but to bring the Gospel message into the world. In the midst of all the trouble, in the midst of all the violence and hatred in this world, we must be willing to bring the message of freedom and love that is the Gospel message. It is not an easy path to walk and there are times when we need someone to lead us. Such a leader will not be found in our political system but rather in our heart.

It should not be a question of who shall lead us that we answer today but rather “shall we let Jesus lead us?” The answer to that question is in your hearts; it is an answer that you need to express this day.

Down By the Riverside

Gonna lay down my sword and shield
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Gonna lay down my sword and shield
Down by the riverside
Ain't gonna study war no more.

refrain

I ain't gonna study war no more,
I ain't gonna study war no more,
Study war no more.
I ain't gonna study war no more,
I ain't gonna study war no more,
Study war no more.

Gonna stick my sword in the golden sand;
Down By the riverside
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Gonna stick my sword in the golden sand
Down by the riverside
Gonna study war no more.

refrain

Gonna put on my long white robe;
Down By the riverside
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Gonna put on my long white robe; Down by the riverside
Gonna study war no more.

refrain

Gonna put on my starry crown; Down By the riverside
Down by the riverside
Down by the riverside
Gonna put on my starry crown;
Down by the riverside
Gonna study war no more.

refrain

Gonna put on my golden shoes;
(ETC)
Gonna talk with the Prince of Peace;
(ETC)
Gonna shake hands around the world;
(ETC)

I don’t mind if you use this but please let me know (TonyMitchellPhD@verizon.net). Also let me know what part you are using so that proper citations can be used.

---

[1] http://hirr.hartsem.edu/org/megachurchesdefinition.html

[2] Adapted from “West Coast Witness” by Peter S. Hawkins (Christian Century, 9 August 2005)

[3] Adapted from “Battle Lines” by Eberhard Arnold (http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/ea/BattleLines.htm)