published by Jonathan on Mon, 03/12/2007 - 20:53
In a recent post on his blog, Fred Peatross wrote the following before making a specific proposal for an alternative way to spend Sunday school time:
The original purpose of the Sunday School in America was evangelistic. (1800s) Take illiterate people give them a Bible and a formal education on the one day of the week when they didn't work-Sunday (hence the name Sunday school) and teach them. At that time, Sunday school was a brilliant idea to get people into the church while meeting a social need. But how effective is the two hundred year old Sunday school in the third millennium? Does the original purpose of the Sunday school remain relevant today? Can it still be considered an evangelistic tool? If not, what is the purpose of the Sunday School/Bible class today? Is it knowledge? (Frost & Hirsch believe learning is more effective when a faith community is involved in active mission) Is the ten o'clock Sunday school/a.k.a. bible class the most effective use of biblical space in the third millennium? Or would change better accommodate a biblical purpose? I have an idea why not dump the two hundred year old Sunday School for adults for missional training.
I think these are interesting questions that we should consider. Just because we've always done what we now do on Sunday mornings, it doesn't mean that we always have to do the same in the future. Are there different ways that we could spend that would be more beneficial or more effectively mesh with our mission?
published by Jonathan on Thu, 03/08/2007 - 22:01
From an editorial of the same title by William Falk in a recent issue of The Week magazine:
It seems absurd on its face: The U.S. and Britain are the worst places for children to grow up in the Western world. UNICEF came to this off-putting conclusion after surveying 21 developed nations on such measuring sticks as kids' relationships with peers, time spent with parents, drinking and drug use, and finally, the kids' own assessment of their happiness. The most secure and happiest nations for kids, the report card found, are the tightknit societies of the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland; the U.S. ranked next-to-last, and the U.K., last.
...UNICEF's main thesis is hardly controversial: that stable, supportive family and social relationships are far more important to kids' well-being than how much expensive junk they have piled up in their rooms.
Here's a link to a LA Times article about the same survey.
published by Jonathan on Wed, 03/07/2007 - 21:34
Today a high school student was shot 4 times in the parking lot of one of our two local high schools. From an article of the same title in the Midland Daily News:
A double shooting took place late this morning at H.H. Dow High School. One person, 17-year-old David Benjamin Turner of Coleman, shot himself in the head, police said. He was not a student at the school. Before killing himself, he fired four rounds at a 17-year-old girl who recently had transferred to the school. The girl - Jessica Forsyth, his ex-girlfriend - was not in class for the day. Turner went to the school but was kicked out by officials who recognized he did not belong there. He called Forsyth, whose mother drove her to the school. Forsyth began talking to Turner in the parking lot. During the conversation, he opened a backpack and pulled out a handgun. He shot her four times, once in the arm and two to three times in the chest. The mother drove her car onto the sidewalk to separate the pair. She did not see Turner shoot himself. The incident was witnessed by a school security guard and several students.
Jan Penney, director of emergency services at MidMichigan Medical Center-Midland, confirmed that Forsyth was brought to the hospital about 11 a.m. and was in serious condition.
published by Jonathan on Tue, 03/06/2007 - 22:31
I thought this was cute (via Andrew Sullivan). It might be a bit obtuse if you haven't heard Dawkins or read anything from him.
published by Jonathan on Tue, 03/06/2007 - 20:58
From an article of the same title by Jesse Jackson in the Chicago Sun-Times:
We glimpsed misery in America during Katrina, as the poor were stranded in the storm. But those shocking pictures were misleading. America has a growing poverty problem, but it doesn't look like New Orleans. Most poor people are not black or brown. Most poor people are white. They are disproportionately young, female and single. Most of them are not on welfare. They work every day that they can -- but they still cannot lift their families out of poverty. An analysis of 2005 census figures by Tony Pugh for McClatchy Newspapers revealed almost 16 million Americans living in "deep or severe poverty," with the percentage of the poor living in severe poverty reaching a 32-year high. Our rich are getting richer and our poor, poorer. Severe poverty is defined as half the federal poverty line, or an annual income of less than about $10,000 for a family of four, and about $5,000 for an individual. With food stamps, tax credits and food and clothing banks, the extremely poor can survive -- but not much more than that.
We spend a smaller percentage of our resources on federal anti-poverty programs than other industrial nations. Only Russia and Mexico do a worse job of reducing poverty through government intervention. Americans are a generous, not a mean, people. We support private charities, particularly in the wake of human catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina. But this conservative era has taught many to disdain government and to be suspicious of any program of support for the poor. Somehow the billion-dollar subsidies to big oil companies enjoying record profits do not generate the anger that is sparked by programs to lift poor mothers and children out of poverty. Racial divides no doubt play a part. In Sweden or Finland, the poor are not distinguished by color or race. It is easier, perhaps, for citizens of those countries to think that there, but for the grace of God, go I. In the United States, most poor people are white, but most images and reporting on the poor centers on black and brown people in our inner cities. It is easier to think these people are undeserving, alien and unworthy of support. So the numbers of the desperately poor grow, the level of support declines, and the gulf between rich and poor yawns ever wider. We are a better country than that. Or at least we'd like to think so.
Pages