Fleeing a Sinking Ship

As mentioned in previous posts, I have some knowledge of a small independent school in New Zealand. Situated in a low socioeconomic area of the country, you would naturally assume it would struggle to attract students. Not so. It has waiting lists at almost all levels. Despite local state schools having millions of dollars thrown at them in building upgrades, parents are desperate to move their children into this small independent school. Unfortunately, the school is at capacity in most year levels, and has to turn away many of those who apply.

So what’s going on in these other schools? There are of course multiple factors. One is discipline. Some schools seem reluctant or unable to deal with difficult students. In one of the local schools, teachers are instructed to leave the classroom with the rest of the class when a student ‘loses it’ and begins destroying things. Independent schools tend to have more ability to deal with discipline issues because a contract exists between parents and the school. Truculent students can be dealt with effectively by putting the onus back where it belongs – with the parents.

A second issue is of course the academic side of things. Unfortunately, the New Zealand curriculum is content-light and this is supposedly one of its benefits. Children will be able to learn skills in a way that caters to the interests and knowledge of their local community. This sounds very nice in theory, and in higher decile communities it has less of a negative impact than in lower decile communities. In lower socio-economic areas this ‘skills-based’ local knowledge approach tends to leave children from knowledge poor communities trapped. They are not provided with the knowledge that will help them succeed in society.

On a related note, there are low-expectations. Students applying to enter this independent school must sit placement tests, and the results of most children who apply from the local schools are depressing. Children can get through intermediate without knowing virtually anything about fractions or even basic numerical skills. In English, many students are unaware of basic conventions such as capitalization and punctuation. They write as they would text. Speaking of texting, these children often have atrocious handwriting because they have done most of their ‘learning’ on devices.

Unfortunately, for some children, they will never make up the lost ground. Those who spend their primary years in these state-run institutions may be doomed academically. High school teachers cannot be expected to teach cognitively challenging concepts in preparation for the rigours of university to children who are innumerate and illiterate. It is not fair or realistic.

So my advice to you if you are living in a low-socio economic area is to look very carefully at your options. If you want your children to succeed in the world, you might want to look at other options. If you are relatively well-educated yourself, you might consider home-schooling. If you are not, you might consider doing everything you can to get your child into a school that focusses on giving your child a knowledge-rich education. If you cannot afford to do that, the next best thing is to join your local library, and get your child reading widely. If your local school is focussing on things like environmental issues or cultural groups, realise that as nice as these things might be, if they are taking time away from attaining knowledge, your child is being cheated out of an education that could raise his sites, his future prospects, his future earning potential, and his future living standards.

Tactics in Evangelism

I read the following in an interesting series on Christian capitalism by Tom Addison. He has a lot of good things to say about how Christians can use wealth for the kingdom, and I really appreciated his antidote to the somewhat negative view of wealth common in evangelicalism.

For too long, Christian donors have been too focused on retail evangelism and not sufficiently focused on what I call intellectual logistics. In war, it is said that amateurs and wannabes study tactics, whereas masters study logistics. Logistics is the art of having the right resources in the right place at the right time so tactical opportunities can be maximally advantaged. Evangelism was simply a lot easier even a generation ago when our culture had a consensus on the reality of God, sin, and man’s need for forgiveness. When a lost person shares those concepts with the church, it only takes a moment of personal crisis, or personal conviction, to make the final leap to a personal saving faith.

This is part of the reason I split my giving. I know some pastors argue that all your giving should be to the church and that church leaders should decide how best to use that for the kingdom. However, it has been my experience that many Christian leaders lack the sufficient wisdom to play the long game. Why are our leaders not pushing Christian education as one? It doesn’t take a prophet to see that we are losing our children and our strength because we are giving our children to the enemy to educate. So why are we not investing in schools that will help us train our children up?

Instead, we aim for low hanging fruit with walk-up evangelism and learned gospel presentations. These are all well and good, but this approach works best when there is a certain cultural knowledge of the historic faith. That time is almost over, and therefore, our strategy needs to develop. Addison goes on to suggest how it needs to develop.

When none of the preliminary ideas are held in common due to years of Satanic propaganda in the media and school – there is no God, no morality, no sin, no life after death – evangelism becomes ten times more difficult. The personal crisis or personal conviction that before might have led to a conversion now simply adds to a general sense of despair and a desire to drown those feelings in entertainment, drugs, or materialism. Before we can reap the harvest, we must sow, water, weed, and cultivate with Christian education and Christian values.

That is why I now funnel a large percentage of my giving into Christian education. Yes of course I still support my pastor and church, but because Christian leaders in New Zealand often do not understand the times we are in, I know that I (and other Christians who do) must put as much money as we can into Christian education. And I know this is having fruit among groups that our churches do not tend to reach. A Sikh or Hindu child who hears the gospel every day for 10 years or more is much more likely to come to faith (humanly speaking) than a Sikh or Hindu university student who has grown up in a government school and is hearing the gospel for the first time. I think it’s time that we Christians who see these things put continuous pressure on our leaders until they get this long term thinking. Imagine the impact the gospel could have in New Zealand if we were providing a quality gospel education for children from all faith backgrounds. Yes it is intensive and takes a lot of resources, but it is long term thinking that will reap long term rewards.

Parenting Advice – Sleep

Recently I viewed some great clips of Matt Walsh giving parenting advice, and I thought I’d get in on the act. It looks like it could be quite fun, and given I have a number of children, and have an interest in parenting children and education, I may even try to make this a semi-regular feature. Today we will look at a post on Reddit.

I’ve seen a lot of posts about baby not sleeping without being held but these all seem to just apply to naps because these people still manage to get baby into the cot at night. We can’t. At all.

We’re 5 1/2 months in and we’ve tried a few times to get him in his cot with no joy. I get into the cot myself and nurse him the try seeking out but it’s like he knows he’s in the wrong bed. We can practically throw him in our bed and he doesn’t flinch but we place him carefully and feed him in the cot and it’s like he just knows! He used to go in for 20 mins here and there but now he won’t even co sleep without me holding his hand or nursing him.

It’s my fault. I do love cosleeping and know breaking this habit is going to mean possibly weeks of no sleep for me, my husband or my toddler so I’ve opted for the easy life but he needs to leave at some point…

FYI We have a toddler so any advice needs to take her into consideration. We don’t really want to consider any form of sleep training until he is past his 9 month sleep regression at least.

Ok, so let me start with the first paragraph. We have a mother who cannot get her 5-month-old into a cot at night. I actually don’t believe that for a minute. There is no way it is physically impossible for a mother to get her 5-month-old baby into a cot. What you are actually saying is you won’t put your baby into the cot. One of the biggest failings in modern parenting is that adults refuse to be adults. You are the parent. You run the show. If you can be beaten by a 5-month-old, perhaps you should consider what has gone wrong.

Then in our next paragraph we find out that she has managed to get him in his cot, but with no joy. In other words, he cries when you put him into the cot. This mother has even tried to get him to sleep in the cot by getting into the cot herself. Seriously?! Dear reader, do you have that mental picture emblazoned in your mind? This is where poor parenting philosophy will lead you…back into a cot. Clearly lack of sleep does terrible things to our cognitive functioning.

In paragraph three we get the truth. Our mother admits it is all her fault. Correct. She has created this habit because of her own love for cosleeping with her child. In putting her own desires ahead of her child’s actual needs, she has created a sleep problem for her child. She rightly points out that she has opted for the easy life. She has trained her child to need her to sleep, and it is no surprise that he now needs her to sleep.

Situations like this in parenting are all too frequent, and there are almost always a few common elements. The first is the life principle that those people who opt for the easy choice often end up walking the hard road. When it comes to making decisions, there is often a difficult choice and an easy choice. An example would be putting your child down to sleep. It’s difficult to do this at first, and new mothers find it hard to be parted from their little ones. It is easier to hold and rock the child, and it’s beautiful to see a baby fall asleep in your arms. It’s a lot harder to make the choice to put them down and hear a bit of crying. But the truth is, the difficult choice leads to an easier life, whereas the easy choice leads to a difficult life. This is a common theme in many parenting dilemmas.

The second common element is that so often parents know what they need to do, but they do not have the ability or will to carry it out. This mother knows she needs to let the child cry and learn to sleep, but she is putting artificial barriers in the way because she does not have the will or strength to do it. As you can see, this is related to the first point. If you go through life making all easy choices, you do not develop the strength of character to make difficult choices. Unfortunately, as a result of this, you will forever be suffering the harsh consequences of not being up to doing what you need to do.

The final element in all of this is that your inability to do the right thing does not just impact you, but it impacts your husband, your toddler, and also, your baby himself. Learning to sleep is extremely important in your baby’s cognitive development. More sleep is correlated with higher IQ and performance in school years. A good parent, should strive to ensure that their own emotional weakness does not get in the way of their child’s development. So grow a bit of character, make the hard decision and give your child sleep. It won’t take weeks. It will take a few nights of you developing the strength of character to allow your child to cry it out. Don’t make out like you love your child and people who love their children would never do this. Loving your child means doing what is best for them. What you actually love is your feelings. So get over that, and act for the good of your child and the rest of your family.

Why the Big Hooha About Conversion Therapy?

In a recent post we looked at media misquotes from Parliament’s Justice Select Committee report into conversion therapy. The mainstream media in typical fashion seems to be stirring the pot and trying to make this an issue to garner support for the change in law. Younger friends have informed me that Instagram was flooded with people posting their support for a law change. Typically our one-sided media does not seem to be giving a fair hearing to all viewpoints and is painting the law change as only positive.

Greens party spokesperson for Rainbow Communities Dr Elizabeth Kerekere is quoted as saying, “There is no place for conversion therapy in Aotearoa,” and “Aotearoa should be a place where no matter who you love or how you identify, you are accepted, and no one should be allowed to force people to change who they are through this harmful and traumatising practice.”

Now whether banning coercive practices is what the law is actually trying to achieve is questionable, and perhaps the subject of another post. But the question we should ask is, “How widespread are these traumatic conversation therapy practices in New Zealand?” Answer: Not very.

Family First made a request under the Official Information Act to find out how many complaints about this practice had been made to the Human Rights Commission in the last 10 years.

The Human Rights Commission in response to an Official Information Act request from Family First NZ has admitted that there were no formal complaints and only one informal one. Hardly a huge problem in New Zealand.

This issue is in fact a Trojan Horse. The media is playing up horrific practices which have been perpetrated by the state in the past to ban Christians and people who disagree with the LGBTQ+ agenda from speaking against it. According to Family First, this ban could lead to people being “prevented from getting help to live the lifestyle they choose – if that lifestyle is heterosexual or based on their biological sex. While gender and sexuality are supposedly ‘fluid’, activists want the law to stipulate that it can only go in the direction they approve.”

Strategic Evangelism

I recently read of a Gallup poll from the 1980s that looked at when people came to Christ. Apparently, 18 out of twenty people came to Christ before the age of 25. At age 35, one in fifty thousand became Christians, and at age 45, one in two hundred thousand. Now I don’t know the details behind these statistics, but they highlight what many studies of this nature have found, namely that people are more likely to come to Christ at a young age. I guess what would be of significance would be how many of those who came to Christ as children came from Christian families.

Regardless, I think this has huge implications for our evangelistic efforts. Targetting children and students in evangelism seems to be a sensible strategy, not only because of a much higher likelihood of success, but from a long term strategy perspective. People who come to faith early have a much longer time to grow in that faith and let it shape them and how they raise their own families. This should create a positive feedback mechanism.

If this data has merit, it makes me wonder why the church has not latched onto it in a more wholehearted fashion. Kids-ministry is definitely a priority for many churches, and Christian camps are often seen as strategically important, but why aren’t we seeing more churches in New Zealand thinking about starting Christian schools? If childhood is a strategically important time, why wouldn’t we want to make the most of that time? Wouldn’t having Christian Schools attached to our churches make sense? If these were integrated into the life of the church, they surely would provide powerful opportunities for mission and discipleship. Why not talk to your pastor and other key Christian leaders about these truths.

Tactics for Conservatives

In a recent post on Kiwiblog, David Farrar pointed out in passing the typical tactics of those aiming for liberalisation of laws. He writes, “You achieve sustainable change by smaller moves.” He attributes the success of gay marriage to the smaller steps taken towards this (for example civil unions), and the failure of the cannabis referendum which aimed for legalisation rather than first stepping through decriminalization.

I wonder how we of a more conservative mindset could take this onboard. What big goals do we have, and what are the small but winnable battles that can take us nearer to our goals? It seems to me that National governments are generally just breathers before our heads are pushed back under the stagnant waters of moral corruption under Labor governments. It would be good if we could start moving things in the opposite direction.

A key battle to win of course would be education. We must get the government out of education, or at the very least, limit the influence of the secular left. There must be little objectives along the way to this goal. One of them would be to reduce the influence of the teacher unions, and perhaps this could be done by conservative teachers banding together to form an alternative federation of teachers. Another focus could be altering the uniform approach to teacher registration. Why should all teachers have to be registered by the Teachers Council? Why can’t private schools hire unregistered teachers? Another key target would be to offer relatively inexpensive independent schools around the country that provide such a good education that nobody would want to send their children to the local public schools.

Police Ten 7 is a Racist Show?

As mentioned in previous posts, racism is the issue of our day. Despite this, I am not sure that we know what it means any more. Meng Foon, our Race Relations Commissioner has announced to the nation that our police are racist. He was upset that the show Police Ten 7 showed too many Maori and Pacific Island men and wanted the show to ‘proportionalise them’. He cited evidence that Maori are far more likely to be tasered than Pakeha men.

However, before we cry racism, we should switch on our brains. Perhaps there are other reasons that Maori men are more likely to be on Police Ten 7 and more likely to be tasered by police. Could it be that Maori men are more likely to commit serious crime than Pakeha men? Could it be that Maori men are more likely to be violent and resist arrest by police requiring the use of a taser to stop them? The very fact there is a disparity between races does not mean racism is the only possible cause. To assume this is the case is bad science. As a public figure, if you don’t understand this, you should do all you can to educate yourself, and in the meantime, you should refuse to comment on disparities.

I for one would like to see fewer men tasered and a more equal proportion of men represented in violent crime statistics as compared to women. However, I am not going to cry sexism and ask for Police Ten 7 (a show I never watch) to make sure 50% of the perpetrators are women. Men are more likely to be involved in violent crime than women. It’s not sexism, it’s reality. Meng Foon and others like him are unhelpfully stirring up a victimhood mentality with no legitimate reason. While I am sure there are instances of racism in New Zealand, I do not think this is a widespread institutional issue, and pointing to disparities between races does not show racism.

If you want to reduce Maori crime and violence, instead of complaining about Police Ten 7 or accusing the police of racism do something that might help. Look at the cultural factors in all of this. Start looking at family structures for children growing up, gang membership, education levels and drug and alcohol abuse. What if we turned these around? Would that make a difference?

Preaching Christ

Recently I posted on some of the difficulties I have with the modern evangelical church scene. Today I will focus on another difficulty I see, that of the modern evangelical sermon. What do I mean?

Typically, the sermon will be aimed at what a friend of mine calls “Level One”. The sermon is aimed at getting people to ‘Trust in Jesus.’ A big thing in the evangelical movement is being ‘missional’, and one of the things this seems to mean is ensuring the church service is relatable to the unbeliever in the midst. In practice, this seems to mean that each sermon is a 30-40 minute gospel presentation based on Scripture. This brings new meaning to preaching to the choir. Why are we doing this? Why are we preaching to people every week that they need to come to Christ when most of them have already done so? Many good Christians are sitting there thinking, “Ok, yes done that, check…so what’s next?”

Now after a certain time in the church and being fed this, one of two things are likely to happen. The believer either assumes this is the way things are meant to be and taking this as given, deals with it. The sermon is not for me, except perhaps to remind me to keep holding on to Christ, which is a good thing, but mainly I need to get my friends along to hear this so they too can join the church and then repeat the process. Alternatively, they will switch off, bored with the constant formulaic repetition and then feel guilty that they are somehow a second-rate Christian for having these feelings.

Some at this point will object. But evangelicals do apply the gospel to the believer! It’s just that they want there to be a word to the unbelievers in their midst too. Firstly, I do not believe our application of Scripture to the believer is anything to celebrate. Most applications are sufficiently vague to cause no real challenge to any particular believer, unless they are on the topic of money, and then things can get fairly specific! Nevertheless, for the most part, applications tend to be fairly broad: let Christ impact all of your life, trust Him with your difficult period, make sure you are not deluded about whether you are a true follower of Christ. We don’t tend to hear sermons that help us apply truth to life more specifically. Who has heard a sermon about women, work and the family? What about the mandate for parents to train up their children and what this means for secular education? What about “How should I participate as a Christian in the political process?”

Others will object saying, “Of course the sermon should essentially be a gospel presentation. That’s how people get saved!” That’s the core mission of the church! Is it? Christ’s commission to his apostles was to go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them to obey all that he taught them. Isn’t that a little bit more than getting ‘souls saved’? Doesn’t that require more than a ‘gospel sermon’ every week?

Where does this thinking come from? Why do we consider this normal practice? Perhaps it comes from our evangelical history. We take things like altar calls for granted, but we are perhaps unaware of the history of the great awakenings and the impact they have had on church life. Nancy Pearcey has some thoughtful commentary on this in her book Total Truth which I may outline in a future post.

Secondly, we may have become confused about what Paul himself means in I Corinthians where he says that when he came to them he, “decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Some may see in this an explicit reason to have every sermon aimed at bringing an unbeliever to conversion, but I am not sure this is the case. To begin with, Paul was speaking about his time setting up a new church. Of course he would have been talking about Christ and his atoning death and resurrection. Furthermore, the phrase itself does not just mean ‘talking to the church about Jesus death’. It seems likely to me that since Paul sees the crucifixion resurrection and ascension event as the key event in history, he is saying that he focused his message on the implications of this key event to his hearers. Clearly, the letter of I Corinthians lends credence to this idea, because he deals with quite a few issues, that while they wouldn’t be part of a simple gospel presentation, are certainly implications for Christian living if Christ is indeed the resurrected king. 

Again, don’t get me wrong. I love the enthusiasm that evangelical churches tend to have for seeing the lost come to faith in Christ. What I would love to see, is some of that enthusiasm channelled into creating disciples: men and women who are developing a Christian worldview and actively applying it to every aspect of their lives. Educated pastors who were able to do this would multiply the impact of the gospel in our culture significantly. This would be an example of long term thinking.