This week has brought an unusual amount of traffic to this site and some have asked why I chose this name for my Administrator's Blog.
Here is the inaugural post from July 29, 2011...
There is a great courtroom scene in the film classic, To Kill a Mockingbird, in which Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) opens his closing argument by saying, “To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place....”
Those three words, “to begin with,” carry weight. They declare a foundational premise. They imply that we must first understand the beginning or what follows will not make sense. Worse yet, if we ignore the premise we will embrace an alternate "sense" which will lead to nonsense, and nonsense has victims. (I Corinthians 1:18-20)
In the case of the above courtroom scene, Tom Robinson falls victim to the nonsense that comes from ignoring the words “to begin with.”
The Bible opens with three similar words: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”
Genesis 1:1 is primarily a chronological statement--as if to say, “Step One: God built a stage before adding scenery, lighting, characters and plot.”
Beyond chronology, however, the opening verse of Genesis implies a premise, a foundational truth supporting all other truth. It not only declares the when of creation, it also declares the who, as if to say: “To begin with, [or “understand this first,” "most importantly,” “make no mistake,”…] it was the Creator God who set all things in motion. He built the stage, placed the scenery, set the lights, cast the characters, and wrote the plot. He alone is the producer and director of everything that happens on the stage. Remember this premise, and the plot will make sense; ignore it, and fall victim to endless variations of nonsense before all is said and done.”
This blog is called “To Begin With” because the essays, anecdotes, poems, etc. posted here each month or so will reflect the foundational worldview of Christian education. I hope these gathering thoughts will illustrate that the partnership between homes, churches, and the Christian school is the ideal way for instruction to begin and that a foundational K-12 education sets the stage for God-honoring lives of service. In other words...
To begin with, Christian education provides a foundation to begin with...
Check here every month or so for a new post, and feel free to join in the dialogue if any in the comment section.
I've not written much lately about my trip to China in the 2014-2015 school year. The geopolitical shifts we have witnessed since that trip have tabled much of the openness and "red carpet" treatment we were shown three years ago. Don't get me wrong, I am very willing to be in a "wait and see" mode regarding these geopolitical shifts, but I think of China often, and we do keep in touch with some of our educational friends there.
I came across this short video commentary from a professor at Harvard Business School, and I couldn't help but think of the many similar conversations I had with Chinese educators and with many of our Chinese friends here in the states since that time.
It is often those who come from a culture where religion is very stifled (if not snuffed out) who are most able to see the reality of a different culture. What is frightening about this video clip (and the observation of a visiting Chinese scholar), is that the foundation he refers to is crumbling.
CCS is committed to fortifying that foundation one student at a time.The video clip below speaks of the general need for accountability to God in order for our system of government to work. We stress this in our booklet entitled "Roots around Rock; Teaching Toward Ideals in a Less Than Ideal World."
"The process of teaching ideals begins with an understanding of human nature and its resistance to external expectations. At the heart of all formative ideals is a clear sense of accountability. In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, the question of whether man is basically “good” or “bad” is vividly answered in the undeniable reality that human nature is only as good as man’s sense that an “authority” exists to which he will someday answer for his actions. In other words, the ability to exercise “good judgment” individually requires acceptance of the reality of judgment/accountability and the authorship/authority of behavioral ideals beyond one’s self. As Golding’s shocking tale reveals, if shared ideals erode over time, cycles of natural human behavior become apparent as shared, agreed-upon moral ideals give way to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes...."
Use of this video is not an endorsement of all views of speaker.
[Originally posted December, 2017] "Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?"
On December 9, 1965, I was nine years old. That Thursday night, my family sat in our little living
room in front of an old Admiral black-and-white TV (like the one in this photo). With a big bowl of popcorn to share, the six of us were all snuggled up to watch a Christmas special. (The show was in "color"--a fact we would not realize for another five years. I was 14 when my older brother Paul surprised our family with its first color TV, and the old black-and-white set went to the basement.)
The show we watched was an animated experiment that even the creator thought was too hastily put together. "Some of the drawing was awful," he admitted. The first hurdle was preserving the two-dimensional comic strip feel of the characters and scenes. The other challenge was assigning voices to characters that had been only imagined by millions of readers for fifteen years. But the most significant reason that airing the show was considered a huge risk for the network (CBS), was that Charles M. Schultz (the "Charlie" behind the Charlie Brown "Peanuts" comic strip) insisted on including the reading of Luke 2 as the key element of the storyline.
Schultz refused to take out "the true meaning of Christmas" because it was the only solution to the bewildered depression that Charlie Brown mentions in the opening scene. You remember it: the kids are all skating and having fun during the melancholy song "Christmas Time is Here." The song's words are happy but the melody is sad, which perfectly describes Charlie Brown's state of mind. (The song was written by the lead producer just days before the show aired.)
As the simple plot unfolds, things go from bad to worse for poor Charlie Brown until he finally begs aloud, "Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?"
What follows Charlie's earnest plea is a recitation of the original Christmas story by Lucy's erudite blanket-clinging brother, Linus. This is the scene that two of the producers wanted removed, but Schultz had final say. It was one of the reasons that many television experts pronounced the show "a flop" before it even aired.
The experts were wrong. The show was loved by my family and millions of others who had devoured "Peanuts" comic strips and the countless Charlie Brown paperbacks sold at Christian bookstores at the time.
This show and this scene has aired unchanged for 52 consecutive years, but it was not until this year that someone pointed out to me a very important detail that Schultz included in this moment:
We all know that Linus is forever attached to his iconic security blanket. He is simply terrified if he cannot hold his blanket. But... watch what Charles Schultz decided to have Linus does when he gets to part of the passage where the angel says "Fear not." He lets go of his blanket--lets it drop to the stage as if to illustrate the complete peace bestowed by the Angel of the Lord.
This is a classic...
I thought of this scene last night at the CCS Christmas concert when our kindergarten class recited the same passage by heart. More than 700 people shared a beautiful evening with us. The program included seasonal favorites like "White Christmas" and "Sleigh Ride," of course, but the main emphasis was on songs that clearly present the true meaning of Christ's birth, including "Silent Night," which is celebrating its 200th Christmas this year, and was sung by all 700+ in the auditorium.
The second verse we sang says:
"Silent night! Holy night!
Son of God, love’s pure light
Radiant beams from Thy
Holy Face
With the dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus, Lord, at Thy Birth!
Jesus, Lord, at Thy Birth!"
1st and 2nd grade
May your Christmas be filled with the security that comes from knowing the true meaning of Christmas.
We all remember the account in John 9, where a
man blind since birth hears Jesus declare Himself as the “light of the world,”
and then He makes a mud salve, applies it to the closed eyes, and says, “Go
wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means “sent”). The blind man follows these divine directions
and is able to see for the first time in his life.
I’ve been to the Pool of Siloam in old
Jerusalem. Millions of tourists have seen that sight, but just think… this site
is the very first thing that blind man ever saw. On that miraculous day, he gained a view of
the world, but more importantly, he gained a new worldview.
In the next part of the story, after decades in darkness, the man who can now see, ascends the stairs still
blinking in the bright light of day. Not yet able to keep his eyes steadily
open, his eyes flash briefly like the shutter of a camera every few steps
through the crowd, and aided by “snapshots” burned into the back of his eyelids, he
returns to the place where the small spot of spittled mud has now dried.
By then Jesus was nowhere to be seen, but the
news of His miracle was heard by the Pharisees. They were livid that a
so-called man of God would violate the Sabbath by healing a blind man in
public. “Obviously,” they said to the blind man, “the person you say healed
your blindness is actually a sinner.”
The healed man forced his eyes to stay open.
The bright sun went behind a cloud, and the glaring Pharisees gradually came
into focus as his eyes continued to adjust. For the first time in his life, he
saw the power of non-verbal communication. He could see the Pharisaical
furrowed brows, the sneering lips, and the pointing finger of the man who asked threateningly: “Do you
agree that the man who did this thing to you is a sinner and not the Christ?”
The reply was candid and classic: “I do not
know all the answers yet. All I know is
I was blind and now I see.” He did
not stop there, however, because along with his vision he was given a new
worldview. “Why do you keep asking these questions? Do you also want to become
His disciples? I have been blind all my life. I can see clearly now. If Jesus
were not of God, He could not have healed my eyes.”
The angry Pharisees, still blind to the Truth, cast
the man from their presence.
Jesus soon found the outcast and asked, in so many words, if “seeing is believing.” The
man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped Him.
In a matter of minutes, the eyesore of the
streets became a “sight for sore eyes” to fellow believers.
Such complete change did not happen with all of
Christ’s miracles. We know that some healed lepers never even said “thank
you.” But the blind man gained not only
his physical sight but spiritual sight
as well. In his case, along with his first view of the world came a new
worldview that lead him to Christ. Knowing the cost before
knowing all the details, he bravely proclaimed the Truth as he saw it.
At the end of John 9, Jesus explains to the Pharisees how the same
events can deepen man’s bias or strengthen his belief. It’s all a question of
how we choose to view the world. We see this happening more than ever in the world around us. The same evidence is embraced or rejected depending on whether you view God as the Creator or as a "cosmic caricature" of man/s invention--whether you think God is a God of order or that life is just a galactic box of BBs spilled. Take for instance the question: "Is Genesis History?" Your understanding of that question will affect your understanding of the rest of Scripture and its role in your worldview.
This spring, the Lord has provided $50,000 for CCS
to purchase the best-developed K-12
Christian school curriculum on the market.
Starting in the fall, these resources will further
empower our long-standing commitment to be fully accredited and academically
competitive while also providing a Biblical worldview in our textbooks, technology upgrades, teacher tools,
and every traveled path we share with the open eyes God gives to those who
believe.
Monday, May 2, 2016
CCS Equips Students to Understand and Face our Changing Times
Recently, CCS Assistant Principal Rick Maine and I
were invited as guests to a conference in Nashville, TN, hosted by a well-known
organization that promotes the integration of a clear Biblical worldview into
all spheres of life and education.
We joined more than 150 Christian school
administrators from 36 different states, to sit under the teaching of Del Tacket (The Truth Project), Dr. Jeff Meyers, CEO of Summit, and other experts in educational
trends, including theBarna Group. As you can imagine, it was an inspiring two-day
program packed with data, discussion, philosophy, challenges, and practical
strategies to better equip this generation to be informed, relevant, and
compelling ambassadors for Christ to their world.Read sample Summit essays here.
What do we mean by Biblical “worldview”? I have touched on this subject in my booklet
“Roots around Rock: Teaching toward Ideals in a Less-than Ideal World” (copies
available at no charge in the Calvary Christian Schools office at 5873 Kendra
Road).
In that booklet, I speak of a Biblical worldview as
an understanding of our world and patterns of human behavior based on the
narrative, truths, assumptions, and relationships outlined in
scripture. I refer to those standards as “ideals” and contrast them
to the ever-changing “norms” of the world around us.
Ideals, like the biblical truths that support them,
endure through time. It is the constant nature of biblical ideals that causes
them to fall in and out of favor within cultures that thrive
on change and resist the notion of accountability to God.
The world that
rejects a biblical worldview prefers to live by self-determined norms.
Norms are collective patterns of behavior and societal tolerances. They are
shaped by trends and the shifting winds of politics, pop-culture and public
opinion. Norms are not inherently good or bad, right or wrong, but they tend to
abstain from absolutes and dissolve differences—to blend the black and white to
gray. Norms seek an ever-broader way and embrace the exchange of “new for old”
on the assumption that change itself is naturally toward what is good. This is
not true from a biblical perspective, but society’s embrace of ever-changing
norms (and the new normal) fails to meet the burden of proof incumbent
upon change and fails to seethe unintended consequences of abandoned social mores.
In a culture that assumes change is for the
better, the rightness of a“new normal”is proven by its acceptance into normality. In
this sense "rightness" does not
mean righteous but alright. Something frowned upon a generation
ago suddenly becomes alright, which is counterfeit to the
word’s root meaning. Behaviors once considered “taboo” steadily slither
into common practice under the mantra of “No one is saying ‘no’ so it
must be alright,” and with no more rationale than
that, norms change, and behavior that was considered disgraceful or
illegal for centuries is suddenly on parade. Take a moment to watch this video,
and you will better understand this generation's inability to say anything at
all is "wrong."
If "anything goes" what stays? If
truth is entirely subject to the collective courage it takes to refuse to get
on the latest absurd bandwagon of society, it is no wonder that norms are
changing faster than ever.
In this sense norms are like thermometers, accepting and reflecting
external changes as the new reality. Ideals
are quite the opposite; they function as a thermostat, pressing toward a
mark in hopes of influencing reality toward what ought to be. Cultures shaped by norms rather than ideals tend to accommodate
regrettable behavior rather than abstain from it. Man-centric
worldviews produce man-centric norms as more and more tolerance is required to let “…everyone do what is right in their own eyes.” Ironically, the more tolerant
society becomes to changing norms the
less tolerant it is toward those who hold to changeless ideals. This rejection
is rooted in the false premise that an “open mind” is superior to a firm
belief.
Imagine a school setting where the opposite is true.
A setting that purposefully integrates learning with life, science with
conscience, facts with faith, theory with wonder, and wonder with belief.
Imagine an education in which the
pressures of conformity to ever-changing norms are neutralized by the
truth that we are in but not of this world.Imagine a place where the norm, if you
will,is a fully accredited academic setting fully aware of other
worldviews but rooted in the truth of scripture and the shared ideals of home,
church and school. Such a place becomes more than a school; it becomes a
community that partners with the home in teaching young people not only how
to make a living but also how to live for the glory of God.
The January 2016, CCS Newsletter
cover article provided a brief introduction to a term used by Abraham Kuyper more than a hundred years ago: “Principled Pluralism.” This post is provided
for those who do not read our CCS Newsletter or for those who wish to read
further on the topic by way of the links within and related posts here at
"To Begin With." As
we enter into an election year with escalating rhetoric on all sides, it may be
wise for Christians (called to impact their culture) to consider the merits of
this approach to civil discourse.
Abraham Kuyper was a renowned 19thcentury theologian who later served as Prime Minister of the Netherlands (1901 to 1905). He was a relentless advocate of K-12 Christian education who made an enduring case for publicly funded faith-based schools. One hundred years later, his efforts still serve as a model for school of choice and the value of parochial schools. Though a devout Christian himself
with no desire to water down the singular call of the Gospel of Christ, he
fully understood that his biblical worldview could not be politically imposed
upon the world, but he also believed that the absolute separation of church and
state is neither healthy nor necessary in a pluralistic constitutional republic. Kuiper knew it was not the role of government to impose or inhibit
religion as part of a nation’s identity.
With that in mind, Kuiper used the two words “principled pluralism”together like a blacksmith’s tongs to forge acommon sense approach to governancein a setting where religious and secular worldviews were often at odds. His approach was not ecumenical (i.e."all roads lead to God so lets just get along"), but even as he served as Prime Minister, he understood that he could extend no more protection to his own deeply held religious beliefs than to those he considered erroneous.
It is important to remember that respecting another person’s right to hold an opinion does not require agreeing with it. Likewise, respecting that there are huge differences in world religions does not require believers to be blind or mute for the "common good." It is alright to agree to disagree agreeably, True pluralism does not require an "I'm okay; you're okay" pretense; nor does it mandate the silence of opposing views in the public square.
The current one-sided activism playing out on many college campuses, however, seems to stem from a sense of entitlement and victimhood amid demands for “safe space” from “microaggressions” while chanting about which group matters more than the other. This drama of distinction unfolds in a culture otherwise eager to neutralize all differences by redefining terms (e.g. gender, conception, life, citizenship, marriage, etc.).
Ironically, in the name of “tolerance,” dissenting voices are quashed by supposedly open minds. Dare to disagree with the latest change in public opinion and you may be called a fascist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe,.. fill-in-the-blank-ophobe. [As if disagreeing with something equates fearing it. By that test, non-Christians could be called Christophobes.] The list of epithets hurled in the name of tolerance is surprisingly long.
Public policy driven by outcry rather
than principle can lead to “might makes right” and the misguided notion of “majority rules,” both of which our founding
fathers protected against as they drafted the U.S. Constitution. From
experience, the founders knew that laws based upon pendulum swings of power rather
than on an enduring set of principles ultimately lead to various forms of tyranny. As we have seen this past year, pluralism without principle leads to selective tolerance from a growing secular majorityat the cost of fair treatment for
those who hold opposing convictions or beliefs.
"Perhaps Kuyper's greatest significance for our own
religiously and culturally fractured world is the way he proposed for religious
believers to bring the full weight of their convictions into public life while
fully respecting the rights of others in a pluralistic society under a
constitutional government."[Jim Bratt,
Kuyper biographer and professor at Calvin College]
Parity not privilege is a general paraphrase of the Golden Rule. Rather than imposing change on others against
their will (e.g. through executive orders, Sharia Law, SCOTUS, or
caliphates), the Golden Rule would suggest to “Govern when you are in
control as you wish to be governed when you are not.” As we begin an election
year, this seems like a reasonable expectation to have for elected or appointed
officials.
This is the heart ofKuyperian Principled Pluralismas I understand it, and It it will
help us set a useful tone for CCS students “to bring the full weight of their
convictions into public life.” Because of the limited space of the
January Newsletter, I have provided some related links on this subject
below.
Tom Kapanka
Click
herefor an article on
Kuyperian pluralism from the Cardus publicationComment.
Click
herefor the context of the
following quotation by David Koyzis:
"In [Kuyper's] own life, he
exemplified the effort to live out the lordship of Christ in every area of
endeavor, including politics.
Of course, politics in the
real world is a matter of trying peacefully to conciliate diversity, as the
late British political scientist, Sir Bernard Crick, aptly expressed it.
It requires the tolerance of “different truths,” or, more accurately, different
claims to the truth. How then can Christians, whose scriptures so frequently
ring with the phrase, “thus says the Lord,”
be expected to live with unbelievers who deny God’s sovereignty to begin with?
How can we live out an all-encompassing commitment to God’s kingdom in such a
diverse society and polity? Would not Kuyper and his followers be compelled to
work for the establishment of some sort of theocracy? ...
But this was not Kuyper’s
approach. During his political career, Kuyper worked, not to turn the
Netherlands into a godly commonwealth, but more modestly to secure a place in
the public square for his Reformed Christian (Gereformeerd)
supporters in the face of the secularizing ideologies spawned by the French
Revolution....
In North America,
... Kuyper’s legacy amongst evangelical Christians... comes not a
moment too soon. In many respects our North American polities are increasingly
taking on the divided character of European countries in the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, albeit without (yet) a comparable level of political
instability....." Click here to read of the legal case involving InterVarsity Christian Fellowship groups on public college campuses being accused or "religious discrimination" for requiring organizational officers to be Christians.
The following discussion aired after the first drafts of this article were written. It does not mention Kuiper or principled pluralism, but it does touch upon our discussion:
Click here (or read post below) to see an ironic lack of parity in an email exchange about a state-approved workshop instructing Michigan K-12 teacher to include lessons on "Islam The Straight Path" in their classrooms.
It did strike me as ironic that such a seminar was being offered by a school that likely employs a cadre of professors who make sport of mocking Christian students and/or some of their traditional views on social issues. (All three of my daughters have survived this worldview guantlet in state college classes. A few years ago, on the first day in a large lecture hall, a philosophy professor asked for a show of hands of "the Christians in the room." My daughter's hand rose without hesitation. He pointed her out (seeing no other hands) as a warning and said something like, "Keep your faith to yourself. This is "philosophy" not a religion class." That was day one. Can you imagine him issuing the same warning to a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist student? I cannot. Obviously, not all professors or public school teachers have a disdain for Christianity. My sister, for instance, taught for over twenty-five years in Michigan public schools, but during that career she was told that she could not have a Bible on her desk (even for private personal reading), and one Christmas, early in her career, she was asked to remove a small Precious Moments nativity set from the back corner of the room. No such request came when other religious symbols (e.g. a menorah) were displayed for cultural/educational purposes. My reason for sharing these anecdotes will become self-evident as you read this post.
I have chosen not to use the actual names of people or institutions, but the dialogue below is real (cut and pasted). My purpose was not to debate the merits of either Islam or Christianity. I was not even offended that this topic was available to interested teachers. My issue was the lack of parity between this red carpet seminar for Islam compared to the "open season" on Christianity and its December holiday. This lack of parity is the antithesis of "principled pluralism."
The emails to me are in blue text; my replies to the university are in red text. First Email with original subject line: Subject: Teaching about Islam: a workshop for K-12 teachers Dear Principal or superintendent.
This notice is to let you know about an exciting FREE 5 day workshop the Asian Studies Center at "State" U is putting on for teachers. The workshop is "Teaching about Islam" and will cover both the present situation (terrorism, women's issues, the Sharia, etc) and the history of Islam with an eye towards helping teachers understand and teach this material in their courses. The workshop will run for 5 days, from June 25 to June 29, each day from 9:00am to 4;00pm .... The seminar will be held in the international Center at "State" U and free parking passes will be issued to participants. In addition to the seminar, teachers will receive a copy of the book Islam the Straight Pathby John Esposito as well as other teaching materials. The workshop will taught by Mohammad Hassain Khabil who is completing his doctorate in Islamic Studies at University of Wolverine in May. the workshop flyer and application form are on this website. [Link to workshop website showed the daily agenda which included: Introduction to Islam; Muhammad: the Prophet of Islam;The Qur’an; Islam after Muhammad;Islamic intellectual history from law to Islamic mysticism;The pillars of Islam, rituals and holidays; Islamic civilization, etc. the Muslim world after the Crusades. Islam and violence; Gender in Islam, and Muslim feminism] Please let your teachers know about this exciting opportunity State board CEUs are being arranged for the workshop)
Thank you so much for your assistance sincerely, [person's name] Assistant Director ...[department name]
My reply: Dear [person's name], Thank you for the invitation to "State" U's seminar on religious sensitivity toward Islam in the classroom....Participants will be glad to know State Board CEU's will be awarded.... Having read the PDF brochure, I see that the lectures will promote respect for Islam, the Koran, and students whose faith affects how they live. To be on the safe side, however, I'd like to ask some questions before promoting this opportunity to my teachers: Will this seminar help prevent teachers from belittling the personal religious beliefs of Islamic students? I trust it would discourage teachers from mocking Islamic students for bringing "their parents' religion" with them to college. Will teachers leave this seminar feeling it's their duty to open the minds of Islamic students? Will the required text "Islam the Straight Path" tempt teachers to say that a "narrow way" is only for "narrow minds"? One would hope not, but I've heard such comments made to Christian college students so I thought I should ask. If the seminar sessions are subtly designed to help teachers poke holes in Islam, or twist the quotations of its prophet, or question the Islamic student's need for "God," daily prayer, etc, I won’t promote it. If anything about this seminar will result in teachers teasing Islamic students or putting them "on the spot" to repeatedly defend their minority beliefs simply because they are not shared by the majority of their peers, that's a poor model for classroom dialogue. If any seminar material could later be used to convey to Islamic students that their "morality" is from an out-dated book and has no place in a tolerant society, How intolerant would that be? On the other hand, if Dr. Mohammad Hassain Khabil's 5-day lecture series will help teachers see how wrong it is to treat people of faith as if they are less than intelligent, I can support that. The brochure says, "Each teacher will be asked to create a teaching module or lesson plan on Islam…" and that the week "is designed to give classroom teachers a good foundation in Islam and to help them integrate understanding about this often misrepresented religion into their classes." Sounds reasonable. For far too long, America's irreverent elite have declared open season on “believers.” Thank you, "State" U, for hosting a seminar that denounces misrepresenting people of conviction simply because they believe some things are right and some things are wrong. I'm confident that Dr. Khabil will help foster a respect for the Koran in academia that is often not extended to the Bible. Speaking of which, please also send me any information you have on seminars that may help college professors develop this same sensitivity to all students of faith. Does "State U" (or Dr Khabil's U of Wolverine) offer seminars that address showing respect for articulate Christian students who when appropriate speak or write about assigned topics from a Christian perspective? When are the dates for that seminar? If possible, I'd like to promote both the Islamic and the Christian sensitivity seminars. If there is no such seminar, that may explain the apparent disconnect between the worthy goals of this seminar for K-12 teachers and the belittling treatment of articulate Christian students in college lecture halls across the land. Thank you for making this information available to us. I will pass it along to my teachers. The seminar falls on the week of my daughter's wedding, and I cannot attend. I genuinely wish every educator in the state could attend a seminar that promotes the civil treatment of people of faith. We can only hope that the thousands of Michigan teachers who don't attend will not follow the example of those college professors who have zero tolerance for the faith-based worldviews expressed in their classrooms. Your personal response is welcome. My purpose in responding at length is only to better understand Academia’s treatment of people whose faith is an active part of their formative thinking. Sincerely, [My name and position here.]
The next day's reply to my questions... Dear Tom: Thank you for your letter. The seminar is designed to promote respect and understanding for all persons and to give teachers the tools to understand Islam and to counter the negative views found in our media.Mohammad Khabil is not only an expert in Islamic studies but is a practicing Muslim himself and I have talked to him at length and he is concerned about how Islam is represented in our schools. Rest assured that we mutual promote respect and understanding between all religions. The book we are giving to the teachers is one of the two best introductions to Islam by a noted scholar in the field and it non-biased and non-judgmental and tries to explain Islam from the point of view of those who practise it. We would welcome any of your teachers into the workshop. Sincerely, [Name] Assistant Director ...[department name] My response to clarify the real issue behind my questions: Dear [person's name], Thank you for your prompt reply. I hope you're having a nice day in spite of this rain. I admire your eagerness “to give teachers the tools to understand Islam and to counter the negative views found in our media.” ... We fervently pray that the freedoms enjoyed by Americans—those same freedoms that allow Islamic sensitivity seminars in our schools—will soon be modeled with “Appreciating America’s Religious Foundation” seminars in Islamic schools in the Middle East. Wouldn’t that be great! Wouldn’t it be great if Mohammad Hassain Khabil's could fly in a non-American-educated female professor from Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan to teach the section on “Muslim feminism”? That would be powerful. Maybe next summer. I do appreciate the clarification of your seminar's goals, and trust you’ll allow me to clarify my deeper concern. You and I are expressing two different but very worthy topics for discussion among educators. Your topic is “Teaching Islam in our schools.” My topic is "... the realities of unequal opportunity for free religious expression." Let me explain: As a practicing Muslim, Dr. Mohammad Hassain Khabil, will be allowed to add personal insights from his faith in each lesson he teaches at your university. On the afternoon tour of the mosque near the campus, he will be free to speak from his personal experience. The K-12 teachers he will be teaching, however, are NOT allowed to do that. As you know they are forbidden to speak of their own faith in the classroom. They could never take their class on a field trip to their church. After attending your seminar, they will be applauded for sharing their Muslim professor’s faith next fall but still scolded if they talk about their own. There's the rub. I was glad to hear you say that the book “Islam the Straight Path” is “non-biased…and tries to explain Islam from the point of view of those who practice it.” I only wish that one of countless expert Christian educators could come to "State U" and teach a five-day seminar with a non-biased text like “A Case for Christianity,” by C.S. Lewis or “A Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel, each of which “tries to explain [Christianity] from the point of view of those who practice it” (as you put it). After sharing the textbook, this Christian lecturer could have a session that focuses on the endless negative Christian stereotypes found in the media. (Think about how often you see a “Christian” portrayed as a corrupt preacher or obnoxious Bible-thumper or nut in a film, sit-com, or “reality TV.” The Christians I know are neither Ned Flanders or Jules Winnfield from Pulp Fiction who recites a paraphrase of Ezekiel 25:17, each time he kills someone.) The Christians I know are obviously nothing like that. They are intelligent, caring individuals who strive to follow the teachings of arguably the most influential “teacher” who ever lived. But Hollywood would rather depict modern Christians as the misguided leaders of Salem, Massachusetts, than the brilliant minds behind our Constitution and our judicial system (the very foundations that allow a Mosque to be built near your campus and for Dr. Mohammad Hassain Khabil to teach our teachers how to teach Islam in our public classrooms). Conversely, Christian students on college campuses like yours are “put down” mercilessly until they reach the point of sitting mute in class while their professor tears apart their deeply held beliefs. Do you see the Irony? That is the source of frustration among many administrators. Thank you for not taking this personally, but if the leaders you serve in academia do not see the cause of this valid frustration, it will take far more than five-day seminars to bridge the “religious divide” as we proceed toward these shared goals. Thank you for your time. I realize I may be addressing the wrong person, but I welcome additional discussion. Perhaps I should direct my thoughts to another department or person. If so, rest assured that your polite response to this and the previous email was appreciated. Thank you for considering these thoughts, [signed] . Third email from "sender" Dear Tom: Actually we do have a number of gradute stduents at ["State U"] who are women and practicisng Muslims who we hope to bring into the class ...to share their views as to, for example, why they chose to wear Islamic dress, why their husbands are supporting them in their graduate work towards PH.Ds, what they want for their female children, etc. So we do intend to integrate them (they are from Malaysia and Indonesia) into the class. [Note to current readers: I had mentioned bringing in guest female "feminist" speakers from Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Knowing that would not happen, she mentions speakers from more moderate Muslim countries in Asia. Understanding the difference between moderate and more radical forms of Islam (those who prefer Sharia law, over the U.S. Constitution, for instance, is important to the current "assimilation/immigration discussion. Now back to her note:] ....There is a great difference between teaching ABOUT religion and giving Religious Education with the view of trying to convert someone. The first belongs in our schools, the second does not. And to teach about religion, one should be able to take one's students to visit ALL places of religion in a community.
Best wishes, [signed by name, Center for Asian Studies]
My final reply with sincere thanks... Dear [first name], Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I know you are busy and did not intend to have this discussion with an administrator, but it has been helpful to me. I’m glad there are Muslim female grad students residing in Michigan who can speak on those topics at the seminar. I believe your participants will receive them graciously. The hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our state support our schools, our freedoms, and the fact that America is a “Melting Pot”—we love that about our country—but there are enemies who wish to spill that melting pot. Please encourage Dr. Khabil to reiterate that the vast majority of Muslim populations not residing here also respect America’s freedoms and that THEY TOO denounce those who wish to do us harm. Thank you for clarifying that "There is a great difference between teaching ABOUT religion and ...trying to convert someone. ...Perhaps you will better understand the frustration not yet addressed if you remember that K-12 teachers are NOT free to teach ABOUT their religion. For instance, on “Ash Wednesday,” a Catholic teacher in a public school can be told to wash off the ashen cross on her forehead even though it’s only there one day a year [case law illustrates this action]. She is not trying to "convert" her class, but she would NOT be free to talk ABOUT the mark she was asked to wash off her forehead. And yet, I think most districts would allow a female Hindu teacher in our K-12 schools to display and talk ABOUT the "bindi" on her forehead. Please don't misunderstand my point. Like you, I think both teachers should be encouraged to bring this dimension to their classroom. Think of it this way: Your seminar is for K-12 teachers (not comparative religion teachers, just regular K-12 teachers of any grade or subject). Your brochure says you will provide a CD with 30 lesson plans for teaching ABOUT Islam in the classroom. It also mentions “other materials” will be provided. Will any of those lessons make use of the Koran? That would make sense to me, but will the State Board granting the CEUs also grant that teachers be allowed to have a Koran on their podium as they teach "about" it? [That would be interesting because they are not allowed to have a Bible there.] Perhaps a new day is dawning that will restore the freedom to talk ABOUT these things. Seminars like this one you have graciously invited us to attend may hasten its arrival. If so, you are indeed promoting a newsworthy event. I have enjoyed this discussion with you. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, [signed] No further emails followed. Note: The brochure made it clear that no public funds were being used to provide this five-day workshop (and all its materials). Typically a workshop of this length and scope and eligible for state mandated Continuing Education Credits ("CEUs") would cost hundreds of dollars. Any guesses as to the religious orientation of the individual, organization (or country) that paid the tens of thousands of dollars to teach teachers how to teach Islam the Straight Path?
