I Kind of Think You Guys, Like Should Read This

Last week I watched dozens of videos of educators making presentations to their colleagues and superiors. While I cannot reveal anything about the assignment itself, I would like to pontificate on a topic I care about a great deal.

I know language must evolve. If it doesn’t, it will die just as Latin died. However, I contend that language must not change so quickly that significant portions of the population cannot adequately communicate. It has taken many years for the old rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition to fade away. While there are still language sticklers who will never let that rule go, we need only observe how the vast majority of English language speakers ignore the rule to conclude that it no longer applies in common communication. The important point here is that the change occurred over a significantly long period of time, resulting in no degradation of the quality of communication, which after all, is the point of language rules. Here is an example of what this rule refers to. Technically, I should have written, “Here is an example to which this rule refers.”  Sentences are not supposed to end with to, with, at, onto, under, above and many other words called prepositions. Winston Churchill is purported to have said something similar to, “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.”  If he had used the common language of our current generation, he might have said, “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something I will not put up with,” thus ending his sentence with a preposition. Which sounds more natural to us today?  Which aides in communication, and which hinders communication?  Remember, clear communication is our goal.

This past week I was amazed at how quickly our language has devolved. While I expect the rules of grammar to be severely altered by the common man speaking to friends in an informal setting (I ignore many formal rules myself in such situations), I expect educators and other professionals to hold the line on most basic rules of communication, and to demonstrate the correct use of language to communicate to colleagues who should share the same goal of retarding the speed of language evolution in order to enhance understanding among the largest possible audience. This is not what I found in the videos I watched. Here are just a few of the most glaring examples.

                “I kind of want my students to be able to read at the appropriate level before they leave my class.”  “Kind of”?  You don’t actually want your students to be able to achieve this goal?  I wish I had counted how many times I heard these two words used. When I hear something like that, I assume this person lacks the conviction to reach her goal of teaching students to read. She is not sure if that is what she desires or not. I heard this phrase used in technical contexts. “When you login, you have to kind of use the password you set up.”  This is just laziness. If we don’t put out the effort to gain control of our speech patterns, we shouldn’t be surprised when other people misunderstand us, or when a potential employer decides he would rather hire a person who is more understandable.

“I put the cursor here and, like, click on this button, and it, like, brings up this window.”  What are we becoming, a nation of valley girls?  If you don’t understand that reference, it is because you are too young to remember when this horrible habit of using “like” as a comma or in place of “umm” was born. And, if you don’t understand the reference, I shouldn’t have used it, because a good communicator needs to communicate with his entire audience. When a person, especially a professional educator, exhibits an irritating habit such as this one, I stop listening. Communication cannot occur if a person is talking while nobody is listening.

“I think this is the most important aspect of teaching.”  What would convince you?  What would move you from the position of “thinking” it is the most important one to believing it is the most important one?  This habit is akin to the “kind of” one. When I think something is true, I retain some doubt. You may be able to sway me before I take the final plunge. When I believe something is true, I have already plunged into the pool and am lazily floating in the coolness of the water, comfortable with my situation. You won’t convince me of your devotion to an idea or ideal by telling me you think it is true.

“I feel like this new curriculum will really help our students.”  Wonderful. Your gut tells you we should enthusiastically stop doing what we have been doing for almost ten years and embrace an entirely new way of doing things. That’s good enough for me!  No, it is not good enough for me. I want to know that you have thoroughly examined the new curriculum, considering the type of students we have enrolled, the capacity of our staff, the cost of the transition, and the means by which we will measure the success or failure of the new curriculum. I want to know what you think and what you believe. I am not at all interested in what you feel in this situation.

“I’m glad you guys could be here today.”  Arghhhh!  I am a guy when I’m hanging out in the garage drinking a beer with my buddies. I am not a guy when I am attending a professional development meeting at an educational institution. I don’t even like being called a guy when I’m sitting in a restaurant. I know its use is intended to set a tone that is comfortable for everyone, but it has an opposite effect in many situations. If I am about to try to convince my superiors that it would be worth their time, effort, and expense to adopt a new program for our school or district, I need to convey respect, not familiarity. If you are a 22-year-old server in a restaurant, you should be concerned about showing some respect for your elders, especially if you wish a generous tip at the end of the evening. I am a mature, older stranger who may or may not wish to be your buddy. You can be friendly without degrading me by calling me a guy. I don’t care if you don’t call me “Sir,” though it wouldn’t bother me either. “Folks” would be fine as well, when I am with someone.

Words matter. They are our primary means of communicating our thoughts, beliefs and feelings to others. If we do not choose the words that carry the appropriate meanings, there will always be the possibility the listener will hear (or read and interpret) something we never intended to say. That is why I often require my friends, acquaintances and strangers I interact with on Facebook to define the main words they are using. I no longer trust anyone to properly use the English language. I can avoid a long, useless discussion about a disagreement that doesn’t actually exist if I can be sure the other person is applying the same definition to a word as I am.

          Looking back on this post, I can see that I have broken quite a few English language rules. I have transitioned to the new one-space-after-a-period rule.  I have improperly placed prepositions, split infinitives, used incomplete sentences, used contractions, included an incredibly long sentence, and have chosen to use the Oxford comma. The question you should ask is, “Do I understand what Tom is trying to communicate?”  If the answer is affirmative, I have used language to achieve its intended purpose. That is all I ask of anybody. Think about the implications of what you are saying or writing. Who, if anyone, will or will not understand?  Who will be so offended that they will not listen?  Who will not feel obligated to exert the effort necessary to figure out what I am trying to say?  What is the best way to use words to make sure the intended message is conveyed?  And if you are in a professional setting, please, please, please demonstrate a higher standard. By doing so, you will be a partner in slowing the evolution of our language to a manageable pace.

The Bible, Vaccines and Me

True Christians (those who actually are devoted to obeying God in everything they do, not just those who claim the title by some standard of default) try to base important decisions on the Bible.  The Bible is quite plain on many matters, making the bulk of our decision-making fairly easy.  Should a Christian marry a non-Christian?  No. Should we get drunk?  No.  Should we love others?  Yes.  Should we treat our parents with respect?  Yes.  There is no equivocation on these types of issues.

However, it is often difficult to find direct answers to modern day problems.  Fashion is one such area of uncertainty.  Christians have accepted many different styles over the centuries because there are only biblical principles to interpret, not specific rules.  Alcohol assumption is another area of vagueness.  Not only has the passage of time changed the way Christians interpret scripture on this matter, so has geography.  Christians in some countries have always had a more relaxed view on alcohol than those in other parts of the world.

The problem I am trying to address is that of knowing what to do when the Bible is essentially silent on certain matters that affect our lives today because these issues didn’t exist in Bible times.  Though I wasn’t alive at the time, I would hope at least some believers asked the question, “Is it okay to listen to the radio?” when it was first invented.  They wouldn’t have found the answer in scripture, though.  We should always question new things, new ideas, new philosophies, new life styles, or any new way of thinking or doing anything.  What does God want me to do?  But we always have to be ready to put some effort into figuring it out when he has not specifically spelled it out in scripture.
One hot-button issue at this moment is vaccination, and the ensuing issue of whether the government should be able to force parents to vaccinate their children.  I’ve stayed above the fray until now because I didn’t believe I had enough information to have an opinion worth sharing.  I still don’t know where exactly I stand on the second part of this issue, but I am pretty confident about the first.

I am appalled, though not surprised, at the lack of research and the abundance of emotion displayed by so many on our preferred method of communication today, the Internet.  Many people have no idea what a vaccine is, what it is made of, how it is produced, or what it does when it is injected into a human being.  While this is disheartening, it is downright depressing to see the misuse, misunderstanding and misappropriation of Bible verses to support their unfounded beliefs. 

Here’s the real skinny on vaccinations.

There is no scientific evidence, let alone proof, that any vaccine causes autism.  Thimerosal, a preservative used in many vaccines since about 1930, has not been proven to cause autism.  Out of an abundance of caution, Thimerosal was eliminated from all but one childhood vaccine (a flu vaccine) in 2001.  The MMR vaccine has never contained Thimerosal.

There is one scientific study showing a strong link between autism and vaccines that skeptics like to reference.  This study was conducted Dr. Mark Geier and his son.  But the Institute of Medicine reviewed every study on the association of MMR vaccines with autism and found that the Geier study was “uninterpretable.”  That is not a term any true scientist wants attached to his work.  From what the IOM could understand, they found 15 important errors or items that were omitted.  If you know only the fundamentals of scientific inquiry, you know how damaging this was to the credibility of the Geiers’ report.  At this time, they have had ten years to correct and clarify.  They haven’t.  Dozens of other scientific studies show no significant difference in the rates of autism among children who received the MMR vaccine and those who did not.

I reviewed several websites explaining why the MMR vaccine is dangerous and should not be given to children.  Some of these were religious in nature.  I was astounded by the sheer number of Bible verses quoted out of context to support the no-vaccination point of view.  I don’t want to take the time to dissect all of these sites, but I do want to make one point about Bible interpretation.  You can prove just about anything you wish to justify by ripping single verses out of their greater contexts.  You can, but you shouldn’t.  God does not look favorably on that practice.  My challenge to those who do that: Show me one legitimate passage that addresses the issue of vaccinations.  Not the issue of parental authority in the decision to give a vaccination or not (that is a separate issue), not a passage about how sacred our bodies are, but a passage about vaccinations specifically.

There are ingredients in many vaccines that are lethal in certain amounts.  Many vaccines contain forms of aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, neomycin, and polyethylene glycol.  Most of these same ingredients find their way into our bodies naturally, simply by being alive on this earth.  What people fail or refuse to understand is that no ingredient is a poison.  It is only an ingredient’s dosage that makes it a poison.  Some years back a woman entered a contest in Sacramento, and died from drinking too much water!  Anything in the wrong amount can be lethal.  The levels of the ingredients in the MMR vaccines have been scientifically tested and found to be safe.

Some people seem to react to various vaccines, including the MMR.  True.  But we must resist the urge to judge the validity of the danger by anecdotal information.  We must ask, “What does the scientific research show?”  Many “reactions” are events that would likely have occurred even if the vaccine was not given.  But nobody with access to the information available should claim there is absolutely no child who has or would have some reaction to any vaccine.  But the incident rate is extremely low.  If one child in a million reacts to the MMR vaccine by showing some adverse sign or symptom like swollen glands or temporary intestinal problems, should the other 999,999 children not be immunized?  Every day in this country about 700 children are harmed in vehicle accidents.  About 2,000 of those children die from those injuries each year.  Yet, I don’t see any evidence that those in the anti-vaccination crowd are refusing to allow their children to ride in automobiles.  We weigh the risks in our lives every day, and make decisions based on the likelihood of success and safety, and hopefully, whether or not our intended actions will be pleasing to God.  The evidence strongly supports getting children vaccinated.

There are children who cannot be vaccinated due to other infirmities.  There are babies who are too young to receive the vaccinations.  It seems irresponsible for those parents who “feel like” vaccinations are dangerous to endanger the lives of these other children. 

This blog long ago passed its normal acceptable number of words, so I won’t go into the issue of parental rights versus social responsibility, except for that statement I just made.  Perhaps some other time.

Since the scriptures are essentially silent on the topic of vaccinations, we are left to use the reasoning abilities with which God has endowed us.  Let’s try using that ability as he intended, rather than allowing our emotions to dictate our actions or inactions.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/Index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

http://creation.com/are-vaccines-biblical-safe-or-effective

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/immunizations/tp/Anti-Vaccine-Myths-and-Misinformation.04.htm

http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/children-car-accidents-the-alarming-statistics-695796.html

http://www.nevermindthem.com/opinion/biblical-reasons-not-to-vaccinate.asp

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Health_Concerns/Vaccines/biblical_support-not_vaccinating.htm

http://childhoodshots.com/biblical-reasons-vaccinate/

http://www.openbible.info/topics/vaccinations

God Is Sovereign: I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Inigo Montoya, in one of many famous lines from The Princess Bride, tells Vizzini, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”  Lately, I’ve noticed quite a few references to God’s “sovereignty” that have left me scratching my head and silently repeating Montoya’s line. There seems to be a misunderstanding in at least part of the Christian community about what the sovereignty of God is. I’d like to offer a few thoughts in hopes of straightening out some of these errant beliefs.

                The general misunderstanding I have observed is the belief that if God is sovereign, and he is, then whatever happens must be his will. It only takes a few moments of rational thought to realize the logical consequence of this belief is that our righteous, just, loving God must cause evil. How can this be?  It can’t. I John 1:5 assures us there is no darkness (evil) at all in Christ, the Son of God. Peter reminds us that “…he who called you is holy…” (I Peter 1:16 NIV). The four creatures continuously praised God on his throne as “Holy, holy, hoy” (Revelation 4:8 NIV). Do I really need to go on about God’s purity, righteousness and aversion to evil?  It is perhaps the most basic truth about God, and I must believe even the most wayward believer accepts this truth.

                Then why the persistent belief that everything that happens must be his will?  It may have to do with too much proof-texting. Actually, any proof-texting is too much. I have noticed that people will pull certain verses out of context to explain some action, often one of their own actions, that many would called a bad or evil action or result of a bad decision. One verse that comes up often in this context is Romans 8:28. This is one of those taken-out-of-context verses that are used to justify stupid decisions. Did you foolishly spend your rent money on a new toy or wardrobe accessory?  No worry, God works everything out for good!  Did you choose your friends carelessly, listened to their advice, and end up the county jail for a year?  Not a problem; it’s all part of God’s purpose for your life!  Did you end up single and pregnant, or an unmarried father responsible for the care of a child because you sought to gratify desires you should have run from?  Rejoice, God meant it for your own good!  No matter what kind of mistakes we make, we Christians don’t have to regret any of it because God works everything out for our good. (Note the sarcasm dripping from that last sentence)  The faulty reasoning that goes along with this kind of misinterpretation is usually along these lines: I learned something from that experience, and I am now closer to God than I was before, so God must have planned that experience for me for my own good. You notice how the responsibility for disobeying God has been completely removed?  It reminds me of the old line by comedian Flip Wilson, “The devil made me do it!” 

                What about Joseph?  He was sold into slavery by his brothers and taken to Egypt where he eventually was put in a position that allowed him to save his people from starvation. Then he told his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20 NIV). Doesn’t that prove God was the one who prompted his brothers to do evil by selling him into slavery?  No, it does not. What they did was wrong, and they had to bear the responsibility for their sin. What is does prove is that God’s ultimate purpose is not thwarted by the evil actions of men or Satan. That is not the same as redefining evil as good because it wasn’t as successful as the evildoers had hoped it would be.

                Sovereignty means absolute power. It does not mean absolute control. I am not suggesting God is incapable of absolute control, only that in a discussion about sovereignty, control is not the issue. Authority is. Since God is in absolute authority, he can decide to exercise complete control, delegate some control, or give up all control. He’s the final authority. He can do as he pleases. If he decides to force select individuals to respond positively to his call to salvation, he can do that. If he decides to give each individual the opportunity to reject his offer of salvation, he can do that. Similarly, if he decides to give Satan a certain amount of control over things on earth, he can do so. He is the sovereign ruler. He sets the rules, the parameters, and the conditions.

                This means we are subject to whatever decisions he makes about how the world will be run, how our volition will play a role in our lives, how much influence Satan will have on us, and how severe the consequences of our actions will be. It does not mean we can look back at all the sinful, disobedient, foolish decisions we made and the actions we took as a result of those decisions, and claim God wanted us to do all those things. He is holy, and he demands we be holy. Nor does it mean we can carelessly live our lives with little or no discernment of right and wrong, or good and evil, assuming that since he is in control, anything I do will be his will. He does not and will not approve of sin, no matter how much we say we love him or how much we believe we learned from experiencing the consequences of that sin. He is a great healer, though, isn’t he?  He can fix things so we can continue to love and serve him, even while living with the, sometimes painful, consequences of our sin. Now that’s real power.

New Year, Old Goals

The title of this post is the motto of all of us I-mean-well-but-can-never-quite-get-it-together types. Fortunately for me, I have only made public one New Year’s resolution that I can remember. And I am pretty sure it is the only one because I generally eschew New Year’s resolutions all together. I don’t like setting myself up for failure. I have enough feelings of failure in my life already, I don’t need to willingly participate in my own demise.

I ran across this list of the Top-10 Most Popular New Year’s Resolutions of 2014 (which no one achieves!). You could guess all ten if you just took a few minutes to write them down. Go ahead. I’ll wait……. Okay, it is the usual mix of attempts to change character flaws, fix personality disorders, shed addictions, and achieve those impossible dreams. I’m thinking about trying to change these consistent failures into resolutions that might offer some hope of success.

1. Lose Weight. This is not a problem for me. I always need to lose weight, and I do so constantly. It’s the gaining it back part that is a problem for me. So, I may only keep track of the number of pounds lost in 2015, and declare myself successful when I have lost say, 25 pounds, regardless of how many pounds I gain. Or, maybe I’ll keep track of pounds lost and stones gained. In the British system, a stone is 14 pounds. So, I could trick myself into thinking I’m successful by losing 14 pounds and only gaining back 1 stone.

2. Getting Organized. I have always been one of those people who dearly loves to be organized, but never quite achieves it. “Organized chaos” is one of those expressions only people like me understand. It is the completely disorganized people’s way of relieving themselves of any guilt associated with being slobs. By simply declaring the mess to be organized, I have succeeded in my goal to get more organized.

3. Spend Less. Save More. Why would I want to do that? I thought the point of bringing dollars in was to be able to spend them. There is a way of making this goal work in favor of my success. I could think not in terms of money, but in terms of energy. I could resolve to spend less energy and save more energy. The perfect couch potato resolution!

4. Enjoy Life to the Fullest. Yeah, and Miss America is going to achieve world peace. Seriously, how can anybody hope to accomplish the first three while sincerely trying to achieve the fourth? My idea of enjoying life to the fullest involves a whole lot of pizza, money and not cleaning up after myself. I suppose I could resolve to enjoy life to the adequate, though.

5. Staying Fit and Healthy. In my case, this seems to be a conundrum. Every time I attempt to get fit, I injure myself. Oh, I admire people who can flip over giant truck tires, jump rope without doing face plants, and climb over eight-foot walls. But I can’t think of any situation that could possibly arise in my life that would require me to do any of those things. I work hard to avoid those situations. But, if you read carefully, this resolution assumes a state of fitness and health already exists. I believe I can successfully maintain my current state of fitness and health, as long as I don’t try very hard to live life to its fullest.

6. Learn Something Exciting. How many unexciting things do I have to learn before I happen across the exciting one? I mean, can I really know something is going to be exciting before I learn it? No. There, I’ve just learned something exciting.

7. Quit Smoking. I have never smoked cigarettes, cigars, or anything else. Maybe I could quit being so smoking hot. Not much hope of success, though.

8. Help Others in Their Dreams. I already do this. I help lots of mediocre actors achieve wealth and fame by watching a bunch of TV shows and movies. I also provide people who like to adopt these ridiculous resolutions feel successful by lowering the bar for them.

9. Fall in Love. Really? People still think that can make themselves fall in love? This can be a goal toward which a person can work? The expression itself indicates happenstance. You are “falling” people, not climbing the ladder of success. I could set a goal to simply be aware of when I happen to fall in love, but I’m not sure my wife would go along with even that. I’ll have to change this one to just falling. That I can do.

10. Spend More Time with Family. The fact that this has to be a goal in the first place is unsettling. Let’s be honest, we don’t have to make resolutions about things we enjoy doing. We make resolutions because we need to force ourselves to do things we don’t want to do, or stop doing things we know are detrimental to us. If I really enjoy being with family, other things, like “Hang Out in the Sports Bar More Often,” will end up on my New Year’s list. The fact that it is on the list of things nobody ever achieves is just plain sad. Maybe this one should read, Expend More Effort Making My Family a Group of People I and They Will Love Being With. Yeah, that ought to do it.





Reference: http://www.daimanuel.com/2014/12/12/top-10-most-popular-new-years-resolutions-which-no-one-achieves/