Unteach Racism – Module 3 – Low Expectations

In previous articles, we have investigated the brand new app that The Human Rights Commission and The Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand have put together. The first module was an introductory one and contained the usual fallacy of assuming disparities in ethnic outcomes are caused by racism. In module 2 we were presented with the issue of low self-belief which we were led to believe was caused by teachers and schools. Today we look at module 3 and low expectations.

From the outset, I had more hope for this module. It’s a well-known truth that teacher expectations are extremely significant in the learning process. There has been significant study into this and a psychological phenomenon known as the Pygmalion effect has been noticed. Essentially, the idea is that learners internalise the expectations their teachers have for them. If a teacher has high expectations for a particular child, the child will rise to meet those expectations, and conversely, if a teacher has low expectations for a child, they will sink to meet those expectations. One classic study gave teachers a class that was described as containing extremely gifted students. Teachers were told who these students were. At the conclusion of the study, these students had fared the best. What the teachers didn’t know, was that these ‘gifted students’ were selected at random, and were ordinary children. So, low expectations and high expectations from teachers and our educational system do matter. More on this later, but back to the module for now.

We are initially presented with a quote. Studies have shown that Māori students recognise when teachers have low expectations for them and so put in less effort than they do for teachers who have high expectations for them. We are then reminded of the possibility of implicit bias. It is, we are told, important that we ‘heighten our awareness of these biases.’ These implicit biases may be impacting our view of our students and therefore limiting them. To determine whether we have implicit biases we are then directed to an American Implicit Association Test. The test begins by getting you to identify dark and light faces that come up on your screen, pushing a key with your left hand for light skin and a key with your right hand for dark-skinned. Next, we are presented with good words and bad words and have to sort them out likewise. After this things are mixed up with faces and words appearing. Then various combinations are made so that the person taking the test is thoroughly confused.

What does this supposedly prove? An implicit preference for Light Skinned People relative to Dark Skinned People is assumed if the test subject is faster to sort words when ‘Light Skinned People’ and ‘Good’ share a button relative to when ‘Dark Skinned People’ and ‘Good’ share a button. In the interests of full disclosure, when I sat the test this on two different occasions this week, I came out as supposedly having a slight automatic preference for Dark Skinned People over Light Skinned People. I am not aware of any such bias in my teaching practice.

To begin with, what is really being measured here? Might it just measure familiarity? We tend to find people we are around all the time better looking and tend to associate them with ‘good’ just because they are familiar. But does this mean in a classroom situation we would unconsciously have lower expectations for those who are less familiar? I am not sure this follows at all. It might be equally likely that we expect more of them. It’s not at all clear to me what the test ultimately proves.

Realistically in 21st century New Zealand, there would not be many teachers who unconsciously expect less from a darker (or lighter) face. I think we are too multicultural for that to be a reality. Our actual experience as teachers would counter this supposed implicit bias. For example, my teaching experience has been in classes where children with lighter skin are a distinct minority. Do I expect more or less from them than I do from the many different darker-skinned ethnicities I have taught? I doubt it. I have taught high achievers from many different ethnicities. I do not bring expectations into classes I teach based on skin colour, and I suspect few teachers do despite the absurd and unsupported claims of people like Whetu Cormick who suggests many New Zealand universities are “pumping out teachers and many of them are biased, they discriminate and they are racist.”

Nonetheless, I do believe low expectations are having a negative impact on Maori and Pacific education. The irony is that it is not the conservative teachers, those who oppose the ‘Treaty Partnership’ nonsense being foisted upon the education sector, those critiquing the proposed new history curriculum, those critiquing the vacuous New Zealand curriculum and calling for more stringent standards, or those calling for an end to race-based entry into tertiary courses who have lower expectations for some learners. No, we are the ones who expect high standards from all our learners. We are not the racists.

The very people who have low expectations for Maori and Pacific learners are those putting together modules like Unteach Racism – the Teacher’s Council and many of the ‘elites’ controlling our education system. Let me give four brief examples of the low expectations I see in education. To begin with, let’s take our friend Whetu Cormick, former President of the NZ Principals’ Association. In 2019, in a response to a press release from The New Zealand Initiative critical of New Zealand’s education, Whetu Cormick suggested that what we need is a curriculum that is relevant to the community. He wasn’t worried that many New Zealanders didn’t know the names of the continents. If a kid in Bluff cares more about muttonbirds than continents, that’s what he should learn about says Cormick. So condemning a child to ignorance is OK as long as he studies what his culture is interested in. That’s low expectations.

We also see the tyranny of low expectations in the public schools that extirpate any books of the Western canon from their English literature courses and encourage children to choose books that they can ‘relate to’ as if brown children are incapable of relating to people of the past in the same way Pakeha children can. Surely Shakespeare is foreign to anyone living in 21st century New Zealand, but the riches we can glean from his study of human nature transcend culture and time.

Again we see low expectations in this ridiculous notion that to celebrate culture we must always have children dressing up in cultural garb and performing. If that is taking children out of academic learning time, which it so often is, we are short-selling those children academically. Schools should not be about teaching children their culture – that’s the job of the family. Schools are there to provide what family usually cannot – an academic pathway to success.

Finally, let’s not forget, the low expectations of thinking academic learning has to in some way relate to Tikanga Maori. You know, the typical nonsense that a teacher must relate all his lessons to the children’s cultural background. How does one relate differential calculus, or inorganic Chemistry to Maori culture – or any culture for that matter? Are we not humans, and isn’t investigating the world and seeking to understand its complexity and design a part of our human nature? Isn’t that larger than our own particular culture?

The truth of the matter is this: the path to wealth and success for many children in poorer families is not through focussing on their own community values and culture. In some cases, these values are precisely what is causing or exacerbating poverty. Rather, education should enable all our children to access the riches of the wider community. Education is not about keeping our children comfortably coddled in the culture and community they grew up in. Rather we need to be offering all our children the treasures of millennia of Western Civilization (and the many cultures and that have contributed to this). Let’s not sell our children’s birthright for a racist mess of pottage. Let’s give all our children their birthright as citizens of a Western democracy.

The Directory for Private (Family) Worship #3

Today we continue working our way through the directory for private worship. Last week, we considered the second direction for family worship. We saw that there were three regular aspects to family worship that the church leaders encouraged. First there was prayer both for the church, for the kingdom and for the needs of the family. Secondly, they were to read and teach the Scriptures in an understandable way. One of the ways that was encouraged was the catechising of the family. Finally, there was an encouragement to admonish and rebuke family members ‘for just reasons’. Sin must never be allowed to fester in the Christian family. Let us now look to the third direction.

As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard. As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution.

This is an interesting direction. It begins with something that I’m not sure is biblical. It seems to be arguing that the only person who should interpret the Scriptures is someone who is called to by God and the church, so presumably pastors. While I would agree that ideally our pastors should be the most qualified in reading and interpreting the Scriptures, it would seem to me that there is no biblical reason that other Christians should not be seeking to do so themselves.

Nevertheless, it seems that the framers of this directory argue that it is important for every family to read the Scriptures together and then ‘confer’ and ‘make good use of what hath been read and heard.’ I note that the word here is confer rather than interpret, but it seems to me, we are all ‘interpreting’ when we seek to make good use of the Scriptures we have read. Indeed, Ephesians 6:4 instructs fathers to bring their children up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Presumably being able to interpret Scripture is an important aspect of this. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the distinction being made here.

Despite this, I think the point being made here is helpful. When we sit down and read the Scriptures together as a household, it is good to consider together what Christ is saying to us through his word. It is a good opportunity for us to reprove or confess sin, to warn each other of the dangers and judgments that await those who reject God’s word, to comfort each other with the comfort of Christ or to encourage each other on toward love and good deeds. The final reminder is the importance of having a master in the family who is leading the discussion and the opportunity for all members of the household to ask questions or express doubts so that they can be worked through. This is wisdom. To the fathers, and those who aspire to lead families, this calls for regular study and reading of Scripture ourselves so that we can lead our families well in this area.

Reddit Parenting Advice #8 – Boys and Screens

The Reddit parenting subreddit has been useful in finding food for thought on this blog. We have investigate issues pertaining to sleep, weight, oppositional defiance disorder, and children vs career among other topics. Today we are looking at boys and screens.

 I need academic advice. We had to ground my son from electronics due to low grades and not paying attention in class. He has them back since he did improve (a little) he is still struggling with math and science and sometimes reading. He only has them on the weekends after he studies during the week and does his morning routine. We did equal work for equal play. So he doesn’t study he doesn’t play. But I know he also used to really depend on help from his grandma to do his homework. When we moved we had him doing it on his own and it was a struggle. He couldn’t. He asked us questions all the time and for breaks when he only had like 4 questions done. My mom didn’t help us. We got what we got the only thing she did was make sure we got our homework done. Even for project, she got us the supplies but we did 90% of the work. What could be the issue games or too much help? Do you parents help your kids with school or let them get what they earn? Do you parents have gamer kids who are doing good in their academics? Do you limit or not limit? Or should I just not worry and let him be let natural consequences take its course. Like he fails he will have to repeat the grade. He does enjoy getting good grades, so my fear is if he keeps struggling he might lose interest in his academics.

So in summary we have a 9 year old boy who has been grounded from electronics due to low grades and lack of focus in class. This parent has noticed that her son is relies heavily on grandma to get his homework done, and is wondering whether games are potential behind his lethargy regarding effort in school work.

This is a great question. As a teacher, I have seen all too often that boys and screens are an unfortunate combination. There is something about gaming that is attractive to boys. It tends to become an all-consuming passion for many, and can become the only topic of conversation, even in the playground. I once did an informal survey of a 9-11 year old class I taught. One of the boys spent 14 hours gaming in a matter of a few days. Needless to say, he was not in good academic shape. His writing was boring, because he had few real world experiences and read very little outside of school. His maths was also sub par. He was a nice boy, but he was headed for low skill employment, all because his parents refused to take responsibility for the indirect teaching that screen time represents.

When considering boys (or indeed children) and screens, a parent must do a cost benefit analysis. I have done one with my children, and found that the benefits of allowing them regular discretionary screen time are fairly minimal. The costs are considerable and are too often ignored. As a family we have decided that we value our children engaging in creative play, reading, and outdoor fun far more than we value gaming and TV watching. Accordingly, we have never allowed our children to play video games unattended, and they rarely play them at all. They might watch a movie once or twice a month. It’s not that these things are bad, it’s that we believe there are better things they can be doing.

How does this work out for us? Fairly well. We notice our children can amuse themselves for hours with imaginary games. They do not whine to watch TV or play on a tablet. It is just not a part of their normal expectations of life. Has this made a difference academically? One of our children is a boy in this 9-year-old sort of range. He is like many other boys of this age – not super at focussing, and not hugely interested in school work. However, he can be given tasks to complete. He loves making things, and will occupy himself with cardboard and scissors and string making odd contraptions. We try not to baby him when it comes to projects and expect him to take a lead in doing the work. Sure he has a long way to go, but he does not have the addictive poison of screen time which dampens a boy’s natural interest in God’s world running through his veins.

So my advice to parents would be this. Avoid video games for your boys. Boys easily become addicted to them, and they become consumed by them. If you do decide to go this route, make it a family activity. By this I mean it should be something done in the family community. For example, once a month could be PlayStation night and children and parents gather in the lounge together and play a game with each other, taking turns. In my opinion, avoid at all costs allowing your boy to have a computer or device that he is allowed to pick up and play games on when he feels like it. This is not conducive to a boy’s development of responsible masculinity. Restrict and control the use of screens so that it is a small part of your boys life. Find better things for your boy to do. Think about what activities will help him develop real-life skills that will aid him become a responsible man who can lead his family well.

Masculinity

…we must cease the destructive chatter about “gender roles,” as if they were thoroughly arbitrary and not built upon nature….A role is something we pick up as actors, and we can exchange one role for another. A man can act like a dog, but not very well, because in fact he is not a dog. A man can act like a woman, but not very well, because in fact he is not a woman. When a man is a man, he is not simply playing a role. He is fulfilling his being.

Anthony Esolen in “Out of the Ashes”

Ban the Phrase “Full-Time Christian Ministry”

Have you ever heard the phrase “full-time Christian ministry”? I think it’s time we stopped using phrases like it. They help entrench an unholy dualism in Christian minds and cause us to imagine there are two tiers of Christians. On the one hand, we have the elites; those who ‘do’ ministry. These are the truly ‘on fire for God’ Christians. They are the ones who are ministering with all of their lives. Then there are the rest of us ordinary Christians who get along to church, but spend much of our lives plodding along doing less significant things. Sometimes, this group are thought of, as Douglas Wilson puts it, as ‘breeders’ and ‘tithers’. Yes, we’re back to the topic of vocation.

What is generally meant by ‘full-time Christian ministry? People who use this phrase are thinking of pastors, church workers, missionaries and people whose work is in parachurch organisations. Now, these are wonderful God-given roles. We should in no way denigrate them. Yet most Christians are not and will never find themselves in these situations. Does that mean that most Christians are living lives that are somehow less pleasing to God? Should pastors encourage church members to cut back on their ‘secular’ or non-church obligations so they can assist more in institutional church ministries by conflating this as giving up something for the sake of the gospel? No! God has not called every Christian to work as pastors or church workers, and that means that the positions we are called to, cannot be inherently lacking in value or less significant.

Interestingly, in Ephesians 4:11-12 we read that Christ ‘gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.’ This flies in the face of the dualistic perception we often have. We tend to think that it is the pastors and teachers of the church who do the work of ministry, and the members of the church assist them in doing it by giving money to the church. Not so! Our pastors, by opening the Word of God to us, are designed to equip us to do works of ministry.

So, every Christian is in full-time Christian ministry. If they are not, they are sinning. Being a Christian impacts everything. After all, Jesus Christ rules this earth right now. So as a father, you are called to engage in that duty as a subject of the king, loving and serving your children. That’s Christian ministry. As a doctor, you are called to minister as Christ’s agent by loving and serving those you try to physically help. That’s Christian ministry. As a retail assistant, you are ministering Christ to your customers as you love them and assist them to find the best solution for their needs. That’s Christian ministry. We need to get away from the nonsense that unless you are engaging in a five-point gospel presentation with a work colleague (as important as this is) that your work is just marking time or simply aiding you to feed your family.

Let’s cast off the dualistic notion that there is a sacred or spiritual realm that is more important than a secular or earthly realm. After all, God created this earth and described it as very good. He doesn’t zap us into heaven when we come to Christ, but calls us to live out our trust in the King as we live in his realm. We are to seek to see his kingdom come and his will be done here on this earth. That means Christian living is not just about what happens when we are praying or singing worship songs or helping out with an institutional church ministry. It happens all day every day in whatever legitimate arena of life God calls us to.

The Directory for Private (Family) Worship #2

We are working our way through the directory for private worship. Last week, we considered the first direction for private worship. We saw that individuals in the household were to be reading the Scriptures and praying on their own, and that the head of the household was responsible for seeing this attended to. Today we move on to the second direction.

II. The ordinary duties comprehended under the exercise of piety which should be in families, when they are convened to that effect, are these: First, Prayer and praises performed with a special reference, as well to the publick condition of the kirk of God and this kingdom, as to the present case of the family, and every member thereof. Next, Reading of the scriptures, with catechising in a plain way, that the understandings of the simpler may be the better enabled to profit under the publick ordinances, and they made more capable to understand the scriptures when they are read; together with godly conferences tending to the edification of all the members in the most holy faith: as also, admonition and rebuke, upon just reasons, from those who have authority in the family.

In this direction, three ordinary duties that should be regularly undertaken in families are envisaged. First of all prayer and praise. The framers of this directory suggest three primary areas of prayer. Prayer in the family should focus on the condition of the kirk or church, and ‘this kingdom’, by which I think they are speaking of the realm of Scotland. Additionally, prayers should be made with respect to the family and the individuals within it.

Secondly, the Scriptures ought to be read and taught in a plain way. The concept of catechising implies the use of catechisms such as the Westminster Shorter Catechism which was designed to teach good doctrine to children. Today, many have a negative view of catechisms. Some of the criticisms are that catechisms do not change hearts, and that we should let each Scripture speak for itself rather than treat the Bible like an encyclopedia of doctrine. In defence of catechisms, it is important to note that all of us read Scripture through a theological lens, and it is preferable to read it through a lens that was constructed by men who were theologically sharp than lenses made out of a bit of plastic perspex which we have put together ourselves from some poorly written worship songs and some evangelical memes. The benefit of this kind of family worship to the church is significant. When families are conducting this kind of teaching at home, churches can lift their game in teaching, because those attending will be ‘more capable to understand the scriptures when they are read’.

The third duty recommended by this directory is admonition and rebuke. The framers of the directory add the phrase ‘upon just reasons’. Here fathers are required to rebuke the members of their households for sin. We should not look the other way to keep peace, as tempting as it sometimes is. Rather we are to be directly involved not just in teaching the Scriptures, but in applying the truths of Scripture into the life of the family.

Unteach Racism – Module 2 – Low Self Belief

In our previous post, we evaluated the first module of Unteach Racism, finding it to be worthy of an F- grade. Today we are moving on to module 2 entitled “Low Self Belief”. We come to this second module with lower expectations given the pure unadulterated manure we found in the first module.

The goals of the second module are to introduce the concept of intrapersonal racism and explore “learner voice and experience of low self-belief and internalised racism”. For those of you who don’t see everything through the lens of racism, otherwise known as normal and unwarped human beings, you may be unaware of some of the language here. You’re probably busy working hard earning an income to feed your loved ones rather than stealing taxpayer money to produce divisive drivel being commissioned by the government to investigate important issues facing us all. So, you ignorant rubes, intrapersonal racism (also called internalised racism) is racism taken on board about one’s own race.

So where are we supposed to see this intrapersonal racism? It apparently occurs when people “accept society’s negative beliefs about their own culture.” Apparently, it happens through constant exposure to a negative view of your own particular race. You know, when society constantly presents you with a negative racial stereotype.

Now, readers, I know what your wicked hearts are thinking already before you say it. You are thinking to yourself “Oh great! Someone has finally seen the danger of the elites and media constantly banging on about white people and their supposed privilege! That’s sure to lead to internalised racism,” I suggest you settle down you racist bigots. That’s not going to lead to intrapersonal racism. Honestly, what were you thinking?! You need to read more academics. It’s quite simple really. Those people are white. They can’t help but be racist, except they never experience intrapersonal racism. Just because. So shut up now and don’t ask any more questions or I’ll report you to the Teaching Council. Racism is bad, white people do it and never suffer it. Intrapersonal racism is bad, white people cause it but never suffer it.

So who experiences this terrible intrapersonal racism? Did you say Maori? Well done! Come to the head of the class you genius…unless of course, you are a white male. In which case just shut up. So according to our beneficent overlords at the Teaching Council of Aotearoa NZ, it is up to teachers to help lift the ‘limits society is causing our learners to place on themselves through internalised, intrapersonal racism.’

What limits are we talking about here? Is it the limit of assuming that Maori children need to be focussing on cultural activities like kapa haka as if this is what education is centred around? Because as any teacher who subjects themselves to the tripe put out by every trendy mainstream educational publication like the Education Gazette will tell you, just about every article on Maori education is accompanied with photos of Maori in kapa haka and cultural garb as if this is what culturally appropriate education for Maori looks like – limiting them to dancing and singing. Is that the kind of limit we are talking about? No of course not. That is helping Maori achieve excellence apparently. Let me quote from a particularly egregious example of this mindset from the Education Gazette. Here kapa haka teacher Brad is quoted as saying, “Our children are extraordinary, They’re doing genealogy, mathematics, social studies, performance arts – all on stage,” and later he denigrates the “solution of one teacher, one subject, one way of delivering.” He says, “Imagine if you could box this up – kapa haka – and place it into schools.” Yes, imagine what a lower GDP would look like for our country….but on the upside, at least we could all enjoy ourselves performing on stage. So is this thinking a limit that society is causing our learners to place on themselves? No of course not! That’s how we will improve education for Maori you racist morons. As we encourage more kapa haka our students’ understanding of complex calculus, biology and chemistry will increase exponentially leading to more Maori in engineering and science careers.

So what is it you ask? What limits is society causing learners to place on themselves? Are they the limits caused by accepting Maori truancy and our leaders blaming it on schools not making their programmes desirable? Or perhaps it is the limit of government policy that encourages fatherless homes by sanctioning all forms of ‘family‘? Maybe you are thinking about drug addiction and alcohol dependency? What about gangs? Perhaps these are things which cause learners to place limits on themselves. Well if you were considering those things, the new hate speech laws can’t come quickly enough. People like you should be locked up permanently.

It’s quite clear that the way society causes our Maori (or ethnic minority) learners to place limits on themselves is through our racist teachers. It is our racist teachers who place these limits on otherwise angelic students who come from loving family backgrounds with parents who encourage their children to study hard each night and attend school regularly with full bellies.

Evidence? All the evidence we need for this is in listening to student ‘voice’. Here’s how one ruined child describes his experience. “We feel like we are failing when we are constantly reminded that we are not doing well – Principal use to bring out all these graphs to show us how we are failing, and it would just piss us off.” I find it surprising that a principal would show graphs comparing achievement of different ethnicities. However, it seems odd to me that one would remain “pissed off” with not doing well. I remember a teacher I had who treated me very poorly and more or less insinuated I was no good at the subject. I was upset and angry. So I knuckled down and went on to kick some butt in that subject.

Here’s another example of student voice. “I don’t get a chance to go to school. I always get suspended first week of term. I’m not sure why.” This one is intriguing. Evidently, the racist teachers and principal and school boards conspire against this poor victim of racism. He innocently arrives at school on the first day of term, but no matter how well he behaves, the school has it in for him. He’ll be gone by Friday. Absolutely crystal clear case of racism. He might not have any idea of why he was suspended, but if we have our biases removed, we should all be able to surmise it’s due to racial bias.

Let’s look at one last example of student voice. “Im real good at maths but my teacher just thinks im stupid so never gave me any time cept to get me n trouble. But if you are a Pakeha its all good.” Well our friend here might be good at Maths, but it’s doubtful the same could be said of his versatility in English. Again this is a clear case of racism. The teacher spends no time with him, because the teacher is racist. It’s not that the teacher is spending time with students who are struggling with maths rather than those who are good at it. No, it’s clearly racism. We see this in the biased way the teacher deals with this student. He deliberately ‘gets the child in trouble.’ Again we have a case of an innocent young man quietly working on factorising his quadratic equations in class, and the teacher deliberately causes trouble for him. Without a doubt it’s racism.

So, dear racist readers. It is now totally clear that New Zealand teachers are responsible for placing limits on Maori and ethnic minority students. No way is this a case of teenage students not liking their teacher and thinking the world is against them. That’s definitely not a thing. These quotes prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that our whole system of education is racist to its very white bones. Teachers are causing students to place limits on themselves.

The module sums up the way our school system and teachers place limits on Maori and ethnic minorities. Teachers do this in five main ways. Firstly Maori culture is not valued. One Maori student complains that this is demonstrated in the way Maori children are always asked to perform kapa haka when visitors attend the school but their culture is ignored the rest of the time. Clearly, this is oppression. Because of course we teachers are always asking our white children to perform highland dancing when dignitaries arrive at the school, and the rest of the time we are focussing on ‘white’ culture in the classroom – you know – drinking cups of tea, saying ‘jolly good show’, listening to classical music all while encouraging the colonising of backward nations to civilise them. Secondly, our racist teaching force negatively stereotypes students and thinks the worst of them. Every teacher I know looks at their class and thinks, “Ok so I’ve got five Maori kids in this class. Gee I better keep an eye on them, they’ll probably be passing weed and stealing my stationery.” Thirdly we apparently deliberately make children feel stupid and dumb. This totally rings true, doesn’t it? Every teacher I know refuses to treat children as individuals, but thinks of them according to their group identity and then treats them like that. Fourthly we expect them to fail. That’s why every teacher gets into teaching. For the perverse enjoyment of seeing children fail. We are excited to promote ethnic inequality in the classroom. The truth is finally out! No way do we offer free after school tutorials to struggling students in order to assist them to grow and develop in their learning. And if we did, we’d only invite the Pakeha and Asian kids. Finally, teachers do their best to ensure Maori and ethnic minority students feel excluded. Teachers deliberately engineer their classes to exclude ethnic minorities. They want them to feel as uncomfortable as possible so they will just stop coming.

Makes you think that we’d be better off without teachers really. Or maybe the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand needs to be defunded so that good teachers can get on with their jobs without being insulted with this bilge.

Thoughts on Responsibility for Young Men Part II

In a previous post, we looked at how God designed men to exercise authority, to teach, to provide and to protect. In today’s post, we will investigate how the fall changed men. How has sin damaged the responsibility design? Let’s look at how Adam’s fall into sin affected these four areas in which he was called to exercise responsibility. It’s a sketch of failed masculinity.

First we see that Adam failed to lead authoritatively. The temptation of Eve shows this. All while Eve is being tempted by the serpent, Adam seems to have been standing silently with his wife. We do not realise that he is right next to her until we read the words, “She took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” Adam had authority over Eve and the whole created order, yet he stood passively by watching things unfold. He failed to take seriously his responsibility to exercise authoritty as the leader of mankind.

Next, there is in the text a suggestion of his failure to teach the knowledge of God. Remember, God had given Adam alone the instructions about the tree. He was told about this before Eve was made. So it was his job to pass on this knowledge to his wife Eve. It seems like he did not do this well, for when the serpent asks Eve about the tree, she adds to God’s command by saying they were not allowed to touch the tree, which was not part of God’s original command. Again, Adam passively watches and does not correct his wife’s error. He fails to take responsibility to teach truth.

Thirdly, we see his failure to protect. What should Adam have done when this strange creature started speaking with his wife and questioning God’s Word. At the very least, he should have rebuked it and commanded its silence and banished it from the garden. Perhaps he should have crushed its head for challenging the words of his king. He was after all given dominion over all the earth including the creatures therein. Yet he stood by passively.

Finally, there is also a hint of Adam’s failure to provide. This is certainly less clear, but I think is implicit. God created a world of plenty, and he put Adam in a garden to work it. This would produce good things. What was Adam doing standing next to Eve doing nothing? Why was Eve looking at the tree longingly? Was Adam providing as he should have been? Questions we cannot answer for sure, but worth pondering.

So God comes down to deal with rebellion. Notice that when God arrives on the scene, He speaks with Adam first. Adam has authority, and God begins with the one who is ultimately responsible here. It was Adam’s fall that brought humanity into sin. Unfortunately, when God questions Adam, Adam acts in a most unmasculine way. He evades responsibility. He blames Eve and ultimately God himself. And this is the natural state of fallen masculinity today. We like to blame others and situations for failure; we refuse to take our masculine responsibilities seriously.

Now let’s consider the consequences of Adam’s rebellion. God curses the area of Adam’s prime responsibility, that of provision. In the curse, God responds to Adam’s blame-shifting. God’s reason for the curse on his provision of food is because he listened to the voice of his wife and disobeyed by eating from the tree. It’s not Eve’s fault. If Adam had been doing his job, he would have lead his wife, not been led by her. A true man is not led by the voice of his wife to disobey God. The line of authority is God, then husband, then wife. And so, thorns and thistles will now hamper the masculine responsibility of providing food. Now by the sweat of his brow he will provide for himself, his wife and his children. Additionally, we see that Adam’s role of authority is now cursed. The earth will no longer easily yield to him. Nor will his wife, and the marriage relationship will regularly become a battle for power and authority.

Bring Back Beauty

Our young people are not only starved for nature. They are starved for beauty. Everywhere they turn, their eyes fall upon what is drab or garish: their schools, their music, new books for sale, the fast-food joint, a baseball stadium (where you can hardly talk to the fan sitting next to you, for the noise roaring out at you from the loudspeakers), and, of course, their churches. Saint Paul wanted to be all things to all men, to save some (1 Corinthians 9:22). We have applied his dictum to what surrounds us. We are drab with the drab, garish with the garish, inane with the inane, and we save nobody at all.

Anthony Esolen from “Out of the Ashes”

Thoughts on Responsibility for Young Men

Many of the early battles God will bring into a young man’s life have a particular theme; taking responsibility. One of the least masculine things you can see is a fully grown man blaming events and other people for the difficulties he finds himself in. Strong and godly men take responsibility. Boys and weak men blame. One of the reasons our world is in such chaos today is because men have failed to take responsibility for themselves and the people around them. God designed men to lead, but so often they prefer passivity.

Where do we see this in the Bible? The best place to look is in Genesis where we see what things were supposed to be like before the fall into sin. In Genesis 1:26-28, we see God created mankind in his image and likeness to have dominion over the created earth and its creatures. The task for mankind was to fill the earth and subdue it.

So what is a man’s role in all of this? As we look at Adam, we see that responsible masculinity is tied to a number of areas. The first area is authority. Adam was designed with authority. God gave him responsibility for all of creation. He was to have dominion or rule over creation, and that rule included rule over Eve who was created to help him in his role. Notice that Adam named the animals alone, and he also named Eve. He was designed to exercise authority in the dominion mandate.

The second area of responsibility for Adam, connected with his role of authority was teaching. God gave Adam the command about not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was Adam’s responsibility to pass on and teach Eve and ultimately his children this command. Responsible masculinity is about passing on the knowledge of God to our wives and children.

Next, Adam was responsible for working and through that work providing. Genesis 2:15 demonstrates this. Here God puts Adam in the garden to work and keep it. In working the garden, we see the masculine responsibility of providing food. God didn’t design the garden as some idyllic island vacation where Adam and Eve were to sun themselves sitting in hammocks while waiters brought them cold drinks and snacks. Yes, the garden provided plenty of food, but Adam was still designed to work in it, and ultimately through his offspring to continue to fill the earth and subdue it. The garden was in miniature what he and his children were to continue to do with the rest of the earth.

Finally, we see that Adam was designed to protect. Obviously, a man’s body indicates this. Men are larger and stronger than women. But the Genesis account specifically mentions the role of protection. Again in Genesis 2:15, we read that Adam was placed in the garden to keep it. Here is the suggestion of protecting and guarding. God knew that Satan was on the loose, and knew Adam would need to protect the garden and all who dwelt in it from him.

So in summary, Adam was designed to exercise authority, to teach, to provide and to protect. As the original man, we can infer from this that these things are masculine responsibilities. Therefore, a man is responsible to rule, teach, provide for and protect his family. And to the extent that a man succeeds in this arena, he should, as God allows, fulfil these duties in wider society.