"He Borrowed Money From Us"

I have been very interested in the discussions and articles online that have inspired and been inspired by the movie Poverty, inc. They have really transformed the way I see charity and missionary work. Today I came across this article by a man named Nik Ripken. It is very eye opening and worth a discussion in itself, however, as I was reading, I began to think of something other than foreign missions. 

This long quote made me think of your typical parish catechesis: 

"Though our motives are not always suspect, we generally come and tell other people to “sit down and listen” while we stand and speak. We are aggressive, and we expect local people to remain passive. We bring the gospel, Bibles, and hymnbooks. We provide baptisms, discipleship, and places to meet. We choose the leaders. We care for orphans, build orphanages, rescue the broken, and care for the crippled. 

And those are all wonderful things. 

But here’s the challenge: What’s left for local people to do? What’s left for the Holy Spirit to provide? Where do we model how to trust God and his provision through the local body of believers? Where do local believers find their worth, their sanctified sense of signficance? What gifts and sacrifice can they bring to this enterprise of taking the gospel to the ends of the earth? 

Rarely did the apostle Paul create dependency upon himself. Often in his letters, Paul expressed how desperately he needed his brothers and sisters in Christ. He called those friends by name years later. He never forgot them. When possible, he returned to be with them. When he could not go, he sent them someone else. And he faithfully wrote to them, expressing his love, encouragement, and correction. In a word, he needed them."

In case you are not getting the connection yet, let me paraphrase Mr. Ripken's article a little: 

Though our motives are sincere, we generally tell parents "it is your job, but you aren't doing it, so hand over your kids". We expect that they will fail, so we plan for it. Here is a class for every age, a great textbook, a volunteer catechist ("Would you like to be one too?") and a couple of important meetings for you to attend. Here is a sacrament, and a certificate. 

Look how many kids we catechize each year!  

What is left for parents to do? Where do we model families passing on the faith? Where do parents find their vocation, the sacramental graces designed for passing on the Faith, their own relationship with God?  

And the clincher: 

Rarely did the Apostle Paul create dependency. 

And yet that is what we do! We have been creating dependent parents for at least three generations. Our wonderful parish programs are sometimes such an embarrassment of riches that the local economy (catechesis in the home) is rendered unnecessary and collapses. Or, at the very least, the local population (families) feel ineffectual and unable to meet their own needs. 

What is the solution? Certainly not replacing great programs with boring ones, or even stopping all parish catechesis of children. What then? 

Well I looked at Ripkin's article for what he found as a working solution for the world of foreign missions. The folks he spoke to in these persecuted communities all said that they didn't know what a good missionary should do, but they knew "who they loved", and all of them (in the particular area where he began this quest) named one man. When questioned further about why this particular missionary was so great, they reluctantly said "He borrows money from us."

In other words, he needs them as much as they need him. They felt he was a partner with them, not a giver, giving to the takers. 

So, the questions we should be asking about how to better catechize children in a parish setting are not the ones centered on books, crafts, activities, or even teacher training, but how do we allow parents to be TRUE partners in this venture. How do we, as catechists, become dependent on the parents in such a way that they feel empowered? 

I can't say that I know exactly how to do this, but I know at the core of it is relationship. If priests and catechists in a parish setting can be in relationship with each and every family that has children and needs help with catechizing their children, then we might have a chance if impacting that little family economy in a positive way. 

Crazy? Completely unrealistic? Try changing the world with a pack of 12 sinful, faulty, not extraordinary men. 

Narnia, Nylons and What's Wrong with the World

We are almost done reading the Chronicles of Narnia, and there are so many great parts that we have talked about...or I have talked to the kids about. But yesterday there was a part that I could only begin to rant discuss with the kids before their eyes glazed over. So, I saved my lecture thoughts for you (and for them when they read this in ten years).  

SPOILER ALERT: You may learn stuff about the series that you don't want to if you haven't already read it. You can always skip the quotes and go right to my rant..umm opinions. 

Towards the end of "The Last Battle" we meet up with all the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve that have ever been to Narnia, except one. 

Susan is missing. She is "no longer a friend of Narnia."

Why? Jill begins to explain: 

"She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up."

But Lady Polly clarifies a bit: 

"Grown-up indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole ideas is to race on to the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop there as long as she can."

Wow! So this infatuation with the teen years, the time that is meant to be a transition from childhood to adulthood, is nothing new. Even in C.S. Lewis time, racing to the young adult stage, and then never wanting to leave, was a problem. We just need to replace nylons with racey underwear, lipstick with tattoos, and invitations with tweets and it could be our world. 

Today we have, first of all, a name for this new (since sometime in the late 50's) stage: "Teenager." Next everything must be focused on that time in your life. Children younger than 13 were first called "pre-teens"...now they are "tweens". 

Once they have arrived at "Teenager" they have whole industries vying for their attention and telling them what they should do, wear, think, eat, say, want, etc.

We spend tons of money on their high school experience: sports, clubs, dances, the Prom, social experiences of all sorts. Forget the disappointment they will feel when they can't afford a limo and a wildly expensive dress for every special occasion in their life.

Then, they go off to college where they are still called kids (until they are 26 and FINALLY kicked off the parent's health insurance) and they get to have "the college experience" which is apparently about four years of financed play, with some learning tacked on---or at least some classes endured in the hopes that learning will happen. 

Now, apparently college graduation doesn't end this focus on the World of the Teenager. For the rest of their lives they will mourn their passing youth, recapture those good old days, shop at Forever 21, and strive for their teen-age figure. Eventually, they will learn to live vicariously through their own teenagers. 

I know...not everyone does this. But you can't deny that TV, film, radio, and fashion all conspire to convince us that TEENAGER is where it's at. 

This is why I am all in favor of abolishing the high school. I say, give them internships and then let them spend their spare time studying what they need to know to get into a university (though I could make an argument against the university too---at least most of them). 

And I am only being slightly humorous here. Let's face it, when it comes to my opinions on education I am counter-culture even to those who are already considered counter cultural. 

For more insight into my radical opinions, read Anthony Esolen, wherever he may be found.

They Let You Do That?

Anyone who homeschools can probably chronicle the crazy questions they get about their "strange lifestyle". We have gotten many questions both here and in the UK, and lots of funny looks. 

But by far the scariest, and most revealing, was the question from the grocery store check out guy in California. He asked about the kids being out of school (which I think is so odd in itself--why do they think they deserve a justification for why my kids are with me?) and when I told him that we homeschooled he looked at me in shock and said...

 "They let you do that?"

THEY let you do that?

They LET you do that? 

They let YOU do that? 

Anyway you look at it, it's frightening. 

THEY: Who are they? I presume he meant "the government". The all-powerful THEY; un-named, impersonal. In an avowed totalitarian regime (as opposed to one pretending to be something else--ahem.) he may have looked over his shoulder first, and then whispered his question. 

But instead, he looked at me shocked. 

It wasn't a question he thought about--it just came out. 

They.

LET: Whoever "they" are, they have the power to LET you do things, or not LET you do things. They apparently have the power to LET (or not LET) me make choices about my own children's best interest. THEY decide what I may do with my own children's education.

YOU: "You mean they let YOU take care of your OWN children?" Enough said. 

"But," the reasonable person says, "but what if someone wants to neglect their children, or teach them evil, subversive things!" 

We don't want that, do we? 

So we are willing to ASSUME that most parents are likely to neglect their children, or to teach them evil things. Therefore, THEY have to take control. 

• Set up schools that will raise kids the RIGHT way. [common schools/public schools]
• Demand require compel parents to bring their children to the government schools. [compulsory education]
• Allow the parents to bring their children to other schools only if they are approved by the government. [accredited private schools]

Does this sound crazy to anyone else? 

Am I the only one who shivers in fear when someone asks a question like that? 

This reminds me of a story.

When I was an undergrad at CSULB in southern California I had a night class. I was a commuter and drove from my parents home about 40 minutes away. The campus was pretty big and the walk from class to your car could be quite a ways…in the dark. It didn't always feel very safe. At the time they had a program where you could call security from a campus phone and ask for an escort--a male volunteer who would walk you safely to your car. When I was told this, my first response was "How do I know I can trust the escort?"

EXACTLY.

Apparently, most parents will fail to provide a good education for their children so we must require them, by law, to turn their children over to the government appointed educators, who, by their very nature will care more for the future of the children than their own parents. 

Hmmm.....

And how have these people earned the right to be of such great influence in the lives of children? 

THEY (the government) say that the teachers are good, and the school is good, so therefore, it must be true. 

The assumption is that parents will tend to be a bad influence on their kids and the government will tend to be a good influence. 

I never thought like this before. I used to be one of those teachers---I was a good one, approved by all the right people. And I sincerely worked to help my students learn what I was told they needed to learn. I loved them---it was a love inferior to their parent's love for them, but it was love. 

But from the moment my first child was born I began to see "the authorities" 

(the first one being the medical community--soon to be a real branch of the government) 

as a threat to my child, and to my relationship with my child. I was immediately struck (and frightened) by the fact that THEY had to LET me take my baby home from the hospital. MY BABY!!

This is not my first baby. By the time this little redhead came along I was a bit more savvy. 

We couldn't wait to get her home. And since that day we have made decisions about our family that are entirely our own. 

We treat THEM (the government), and all their related THEY's with great suspicion. We read forms that we sign at the doctors office more and more carefully. We watch laws and lawmakers and how they couch all of their rhetoric about "the best interest of the children". 

I am so happy to live in a country in which I am free to choose my religion as I see fit, free to school my children as I see fit, free to eat what I want, free to move from place to place according to my own understanding of what is best for me and my loved ones, free to work hard and make all the money I want, free to give some of that money to the charity I want, free to spend the rest on whatever I want. 

But I fear that we may lose all of this freedom. The grocery man's question frightened me because, in his ignorance, he ASSUMED that I wasn't in charge of my children's education. 

In how many other areas of life does he (and other like him) assume the government should take care of things? What other freedoms is he (and others like him) willing to give up? 

Let's wake up folks! Let's not be the proverbial frogs in the pot of boiling water. 

Okay?

Okay.
Nuff said. 

  

The Texas Way

I wish I had a picture. 

But you will have to just imagine our first night in Texas. 

Think great hospitality, a drawl, and a tall cowboy 

(with hat and boots). 

We entered Texas this afternoon and are spending the night in Amarillo.

On our way to the hotel we spotted a Red Robin restaurant from the freeway. 

Red Robin is a Kennedy family favorite. During our last relocation (back to California from Aberdeen, Scotland) we stayed across the street from one and ate there so often we had our own table. So it seemed fitting to continue the tradition here in Texas. 

So, hours after crossing the border from New Mexico into Texas we set out for the Red Robin in Amarillo. 

The GPS didn't seem to know where it was, but we just kept driving in the general direction we thought we had seen it. 

When we pulled up, the parking lot was full and we were worried about the wait.

We were greeted by a young lady with a clip board. 

She asked if we had a confirmation number? 

Nope. 

A reservation? 

Nope. 

Then she attempted to politely explain that they were doing something (I didn't get what it was) that required reservations only for the weekend. She suggested we make a reservation for the next night. We said we were only in town tonight. We were disappointed but ready to go find something else. As we gathered the kids from the pinball machines a manager came up and said they would seat us. She said "We have tables, we won't turn you away." So we sat, and ordered. 

Jim ordered a Guinness 

(one of his favorite things about Red Robin is that he can order a tall Guinness). 

A minute later a tall man in cowboy boots and a cowboy hat with a thick Texas accent approached our table and asked Jim if his Guinness had a lot of foam on top. 

It seemed a strange question, but it turned out he was the owner, Bobby Reynolds, and wanted to make sure he hadn't shorted Jim two ounces of precious Guinness. 

As we talked with him we found out that he was the new owner of that particular restaurant, that he owned about a dozen Red Robins throughout Texas and that it was their "Mock Service" night---basically practice time for all the new employees (and the food was practically free). We all marveled at the irony that got us there that night, on their first night open, when we normally would not have been given a seat, 

an hour after they branded the restaurant 

(yes, he has a huge branding iron with his company name and they "brand" the side of the building on their opening night.) 

It turns out most of Cowboy Red's (the name of his company) Red Robins are in the Houston area 

(double irony)

and so he gave us his card with a note on the back signed by him. 

You can bet Red Robin will continue to be a Kennedy family favorite in this new chapter of our life. 

The Kids Are Alright?

As we sat down on Saturday morning to watch the Opening Ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics in London, we were anxious to see the festivities in our temporary homeland. The landscape in the center of the arena was just what we hoped to see: a celebration of all that we loved about England. Kenneth Branaugh was in full costume ready to recite (which he did--from the Tempest). It was beautiful. There were children’s choirs from each of the “Isles” as well as costumed folks enjoying themselves across the countryside. 

Then, things began to change. Men and women rose from the green hills to transform the countryside into a dark industrial landscape. It was eerily Tolkienesque, but instead of monster-like creatures tearing up nature, you saw people working and sweating, dirty faces and clothes. The image painted was Industry with it’s boot on the neck of the people. 

The message portrayed was that factories controlled the means of production. But, in reality individuals controlled the means of production. In fact, the rise of industry marked the transformation of the economy, fueled by free market capitalism and providing  a rich soil for the growth of entrepreneurship. By the end of the Industrial Revolution, quality of life made a huge jump for most people. 

The rewriting of history didn’t stop there, though.   

First, the show skipped over World War II completely. Never mind Winston Churchill's words:  'This was their finest hour.’ Nope. Sorry Mr. Churchill. Apparently it wasn’t your finest hour. That was yet to come.

The scene then turns to a celebration of what 21st Century Britain apparently sees as their true crowning achievement: the National Healthcare System (NHS). A perfect example of government owning the means of production.

We saw nurses and doctors wheeling in old fashioned hospital beds (which, by the way, looked just like the ones we encountered when we lived there 6 years ago---minus the lights and the trampolines). On each bed was a child in pajamas. As the lights dimmed each child had a “nurse” to read to him, with JKRowling reading a few lines from JM Barrie’s Peter Pan (whose main character is an unintentional foreshadowing of things to come for Great Britain--the boy (the country) who didn’t want to grow up.) The story ends and the children reluctantly go to sleep, the nurses watching over. 

The image: the children of the nation left to the care of the government nurses.

Then comes the nightmare, or more exactly the beginning of the nightmare. Storybook villains seem to rise out of the beds, accompanied by some really freaky creatures that look like beefed up versions of the Flying Monkees from the Wizard of Oz. Just as the nightmare becomes overwhelming, the most famous Nanny of all time floats in on her umbrella. Mary Poppins to the rescue. 

Ahhh...Mary Poppins! Wise, sweet, fun, Mary Poppins. Remember that movie? We recently watched it with the kids and I was struck by something that I found quite sad. The parents. They were mostly absent from the day to day lives of the their children. True, Mary Poppins brings them back in and they end up flying kites with their kids....but  who do we remember? Who do the children in this celebration of Great Britain look to in the midst of their nightmare? The Nanny.  Is it Mary Poppins? Or is it really the government, symbolized by the all encompassing NHS, that takes over the parenting of a nation of children?

In fact, this scene ends with a giant baby in a giant bed surrounded by the NHS nurses and doctors. A symbol of a nation cared for by Nanny Government.

But, keep watching. Because, as I said, the nightmare is not over. The next scene shows us the age of mobile phones, texting, the internet and a generation of young people with a life driven by finding the next party. The commentators repeatedly mention the partying, and the unhappy parents who find the kids flash mobbing their homes. Youth are pitted against an adult world that tries in vain to get them to take life seriously. The nightmare. 

But, in Great Britain at least, it is a reality. 

Youth unemployment is up to 21% since 2007. What are those young people doing? How do they live? For many of them, they have been under the care of THE NANNY from age three. If they go on to university they still have no financial obligation until they are making at least 21,000 pounds a year, and then the price per month is 7.50. 

So, for you folks in Rio Linda, if you are one of the 21% that are unemployed or are in the half of the population that makes less than 30,000 a year (median gross income in the UK in 2011 was under 30K) then you have no school debt, no responsibility for those years. University was free for you...as long as you aren’t too successful. 

What then? Life is a party. Gone is the hardworking world of young adults who built the London of the modern era. 

When we lived in London, and later in Scotland, we were struck by the party culture that seemed commonplace among the 40 and under set. You sit in an NHS waiting room surrounded by posters exhorting you to “stop drinking too much,” “check your ‘partner’ for STD’s,” and  “beware if you dare to cheat on your benefits--we will catch you.” If the warnings are any evidence of the perceived problems of the adult population, there are far too many people with nothing better to do than binge drink, sleep around and cheat on their Income Support benefits. 

THE NANNY is still in charge, but the kids aren’t behaving. 

The Opening Ceremonies went on to get darker and more confusing, we ended up fast-forwarding through most of it (the kids were watching, after all), but the lasting image was of a country who has completely embraced their dependence on a nanny government. 

The NOW that the UK celebrated that night is our FUTURE if we don’t stop the drift towards THE NANNY: Obamacare, rising unemployment, unprecedented numbers on welfare....need I say more?

Thanksgiving: An American Holiday

 Republished from last year....

For the past few years I have come to appreciate this American holiday more deeply. This is in no small part due to Rush Limbaugh's annual recitation of The Real Thanksgiving Story. 

Now I see Thanksgiving as not just a day for me to be thankful for the blessings in my life, but for us as Americans to appreciate the unique blessings bestowed on our country since before it's founding. 

The story below is my retelling of the Thanksgiving story as I want my children to hear it each year. I share it with you today in the hope that this holiday brings you together with family and friends to reflect upon America's exceptional situation on the world's stage. 

This exceptionalism has nothing to do with our genetic make-up (after all we are a nation of immigrants), or any supposed superior intelligence, but is directly due to the specific vision of freedom and the destiny of man that underpins our founding, and God willing, continues to form us as a nation. 

Thanksgiving and Freedom

By Carol Kennedy

In 1620, a band of Englishmen and their families set sail from England to America on a ship called the Mayflower. There were 102 travelers aboard that ship. They left England to escape an oppressive state religion, the Church of England, and seek the chance to practice their faith freely. They came to be known as Pilgrims (not to be confused with the Puritans who came several years later). 

The trip across the Atlantic ocean took 66 days. When the Pilgrims arrived it was December. The weather was cold and there was snow on the ground. There were no other people living in this spot, no buildings, no stores, nothing to welcome them. 

That first winter was very difficult. The Pilgrims were unprepared and supplies were very low. Many people died. By springtime there were barely fifty Pilgrims left. 

As the weather warmed, the Pilgrims began to work hard to plant, to hunt, and to fish. When they left England, they had agreed to share all the fruits of their labor equally. So each person worked for the whole group. Every field planted, tended, and harvested was split among the fifty pilgrims equally. They also depended on trade and supply ships to survive.

In March of 1621 they met some neighbors. An Indian named Massasoit introduced them to his tribe. The Indians and the Pilgrims agreed to live peacefully. They would work together to fight off unfriendly Indians. 

In the fall of that year there was enough food for everyone. The harsh winter was behind them and they were grateful to God. When it came time for harvest they celebrated God’s blessings on them. The celebration included feasting, sports and games, and their new friends. They gave thanks to God for surviving their first year. 

But, things were still not easy. For the next two years, harvests were barely adequate. They still depended on the supply ships. However, sea travel was so difficult in those days that they were never sure when to expect the next ship. Finally, the Governor and some of the leading citizens got together to make a new plan. They decided that the original system of 

sharing all goods equally was the problem. People resented working for those members of the community who did not work hard. Wives resented doing tasks for men other than their husband. And they were reluctant to encourage their children to work as well. 

The new plan was a system of private property. Each family would receive a plot of land that they could work. And the fruits of that work would be theirs. Each man worked for the sake of himself, and his wife and children. The wives now went willingly into the fields, with their little ones in tow. This change made the community more productive and they finally began to live without the danger of famine so close to their doorstep. 

One hundred and fifty years later, in 1789, our first president, George Washington, declared a national day of Thanksgiving on the last Thursday of the month of November. His declaration stated that we should, as a nation, be thankful to God for His providence, especially in the founding of the new country called the United States of America. 

President Washington named specific blessings that he thought this country should remember when giving thanks to God: 

• for His kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation  
• for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable intervention of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed
• for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness
• for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; 
• for the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; 

The Pilgrims were not the first Europeans to come to America, nor were they the first colonists to discover the value of private property in bringing about prosperity. However, each Thanksgiving school children color pictures of pilgrims, dress up as pilgrims and write reports about pilgrims. The Pilgrims have become a symbol of the early beginnings of our country. Each Thanksgiving we recall the lessons learned by these early settlers because they have formed the foundation of a country whose commitment to freedom and liberty is unique in the history of the world. 

Economics Storytime

The Story of the Broken Window and The Invisible Tailor

Once upon a time there was a Baker who lived in a town filled with happy philosophers. One day a vandal came through the town and threw a rock through the window of the baker's shop. The Baker came out to survey the damage and a crowd of Happy Philosophers gathered. They began to philosophize about the damage done to the Baker. Then one cheerful fellow pointed out that this broken window would really help the community. "Because, you see, the Baker must now hire the Glazier to put a new window into his shop." And this, of course, is good for the Glazier, who will then take this money earned and spend it in another business. This chain of events will stimulate the economy of the happy town, and make everyone happier.

But the Happy Philosophers could not see the one who would be hurt by the broken window. You see, the Baker had planned on using his money to buy a new suit. He was going to employ the Invisible Tailor to make it for him, who in turn would take this money earned and spend it in another business. This chain of events would have stimulated the economy of the happy town. But no one could see the Tailor or the suit he made...since it never was produced due to the Baker's lack of funds.

MORAL of the STORY: If the Government claims that they can stimulate the economy by spending 780 billion dollars to build bridges, don't forget all of the Invisible Shopkeepers, who won't be employed by all of the Taxpayers, who must be taxed to pay the Builders to build the bridge.

Bloggers Note: This story is not mine, just the retelling of it. I heard it first from Walter E Williams on the Rush Limbaugh show, but you can find it on the internet. Just google "The Broken Window Fallacy".