I'm trying a couple new things with the Math 093 class since I've got the chance. The first is that I'm going to use pre-typed notes for presentation. There's a larger scheme that's going on here, which is that we need to find a way to create uniformity of presentation between the various professors. It would be good to have a clear path for them to follow. To do this, I'm playing around with the LaTeX "beamer" package. It creates something that is basically like a PowerPoint presentation, but it runs through Adobe Acrobat (which makes it easier to use and distribute). The good news is that learning the new package has gone smoothly, since I've already got a lot of LaTeX experience.
The other thing is trying to incorporate a computer component. I've got 2.25 hours of class time three days a week, and I know that there's no good way of retaining student attention over that period of time with math. So I'm hoping to spread out their attention a little bit, going from quiz to lecture to worksheets to break to computer exercises and homework. I've spent a lot of time over the last couple years working on what I've called "Arithmetic Boot Camp." It essentially just a timed arithmetic practice program. All of the programming is complete, but the problem I have now is that I don't know how fast students are, nor how fast they should be. After all of the testing that I've done, my arithmetic speed is much, much faster than the average student. So I can't use my times as a benchmark. I've guessed at times, but I really won't know until I have some students go through it.
Tomorrow, there's a long brainstorming meeting that I've got with a consultant regarding our math remediation. The basic idea is that math is one of the "student killing" classes (students who drop out have a common theme of failing remedial math). One way of looking at it is that the students who fail out of remedial math are probably not college material in the first place. To some extent, there's truth to that observation. However, from the system's point of view, we need to remove as many barriers as possible (without lowering standards), and so if we could create a program for remediation that had better retention, we would have at least done something affirmative to address the problem. (You can't just shrug it off and say it's the students' fault every time... even though it might be the students' fault.)
The idea we're going to try to flesh out is to rewrite the math curriculum so that it fits into 5 week segments instead of 15 week segments. Most of the time, we already know who isn't going to make it after 5 weeks. So instead of creating a 10 week dead period for these students, we're going to try to funnel them back into another math class to try to keep them moving forward. There are all sorts of issues that stand in the way, but I think the idea is to present a clear enough plan to entice other people to jump through hoops for us so that we can make the changes we want to make.
The crawfish came in on Saturday and we feasted on Sunday (and had leftovers turned into other tasty foods on Tuesday). It starts with a 40 pound box of crawfish.
The water bottle (which was frozen and put over the top of the box to keep the bugs cold) can be used to visualize the size of the box. The box didn't fit in the fridge, nor did it fit in a cooler, so after loading it up with ice-bottles, it all went to sit in the coldest room in the house... my walk-in bedroom closet. I understand that it sounds weird to have a few hundred such critters in ones' closet over night, but when the goal is to keep them alive until you kill them, you will do what you need to do. Besides, crawfish are not terrestrial animals, so it's not as if they were going to be able to escape the box and run amok in the middle of the night.
Next is the pre-cooking purge.
Apparently, this is a step that some folks argue about. The purge is supposed to make the crawfish spew out whatever is in their intestinal tract, so that they aren't as gritty or whatever, but some people don't think that this step actually does anything at all. I can't say, but I do know that it didn't affect anything negatively, so for the cost of a few extra minutes and a couple canisters of salt, I think it was worth it. The water is also very murky because the bugs came uncleaned. As we were picking them out of the box, there would be the occasional grass or other stuff. The next time I do this (and there will be a next time) I'm going be a little more vigilant about the cleaning. At the end, some of the crawfish were still a little gritty on the outside (especially the underside between the legs). So maybe next time, I'm going to agitate the water a little bit more to loosen up those bits and pieces, and perhaps give them multiple rinses.
Then comes the cooking...
It's not the exciting to look at in the picture, but that's an outdoor propane burner
with a 42-quart pot on top of it. It took four batches to cook all the food. The crawfish went for about 10 minutes per batch.
The next picture is the pre-eating picture. There's probably only about 20-25 pounds of crawfish on the table.
Once the eating began, the pictures stopped. I don't know how much crawfish I actually ate, but I do know that I ate for quite a while.
---
I've been reading "Knowledge of the Holy" by A.W. Tozer (which is available for free as a PDF if you search for it, and I think it's public domain so I'm not encouraging illicit behavior). I'm not sure if I've read it before, but I've read other works of Tozer so there could be other reasons that it strikes a familiar tone.
As I've been reading, I've been contemplating the question of the role of theology in church. We've been listening to some Greg Koukl material that has also revolved around developing sound theology, which has only served to encourage this type of thinking. Being that the entire business of church is God-related, it seems to me that theology should drive what the church says and does. I admit that my theology is not perfect, nor would I expect any person or organization to express a perfect theology of anything. But it does seem to me that some errors can be avoided, and that Christians should take care to avoid those errors.
(Before I begin, there is not a single "new" thought that is about to follow. The theological criticisms below are things that have been fleshed out by many other people besides myself.)
Consider the following worship song:
http://www.lyricszoo.com/jonathan-butler/gonna-lift-you-up/
You said if you be lifted, You’d draw all men to you
You said if you be lifted, You’d draw all men to you
So draw me, draw me closer
So draw me
Draw me closer to you
I’m gonna lift you higher, higher
Gonna lift you up
Oh Lord, I’m gonna lift you up And I’m never gonna stop
Oh with everything I’ve got…
I’m gonna lift you up
It is true that Jesus said that.
John 12:32 - "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
It sounds good, but then if you read the context (ie, the next verse),
John 12:33 - He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
So it seems that Jesus was talking about being "lifted up" on the cross (see also John 3:14 and Numbers 21:9). Now compare this to the use of "lifting up" in the worship song. They're clearly not the same sense of the words. If you interpret the song in this understanding, we're apparently putting Jesus on and higher and higher cross. This is bad theology.
What is the appropriate response to bad theology like this? After all, it's not a harmful bad theology, is it? It's not like trying to sell someone the prosperity Gospel (in which God uses material wealth to demonstrate his favor, so if you don't have material wealth God doesn't favor you). Perhaps to shade the question a little bit more towards how I view it: How much harm can come from completely misunderstanding and misapplying Jesus' words?
This seems to be my ongoing struggle with church these days. It makes me both nervous and uncomfortable (and frustrated) to hear about happy-clappy-smiley Jesus who keeps a picture of us on his refrigerator door. How far wrong can a church with a bad theology of God go?
From Chapter 1 of "Knowledge of the Holy":
Before the Christian Church goes into eclipse anywhere there must first be a corrupting of her simple basic theology. She simply gets a wrong answer to the question, “What is God like?” and goes on from there. Though she may continue to cling to a sound nominal creed, her practical working creed has become false. The masses of her adherents come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; and that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly kind.
Now I grant that Tozer is speaking to mid-1900s churches, and his primary concern for writing the book is to address the "loss of the concept of majesty" and "ignoble thoughts" about God. And it seems he's talking about "church" in a more broad setting than a particular local church in this paragraph. But I think that these words should still be taken in with consideration for the particular conditions of particular local churches, and that the warning stands just as severely.
We've got an upcoming sermon series based on a misappropriation of God's promise to Israel.
2 Chronicles 7:14 - [i]f my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Going backwards one verse and reading it in context,
2 Chronicles 7:13-14 - When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
I don't think our church is having a drought, locust, or plague problem (let alone one of these problems that has been given to us by God!). The picture in my head looks like ground crumbling beneath one's feet. This isn't safe theological ground to be standing on. This why I'm nervous and uncomfortable, and I'm frustrated because we don't seem to be moving towards solid ground.
[To be clear: I'm not saying that we shouldn't pray as a church for healing and institutional forgiveness and all that stuff. But can we avoid mishandling the Bible in the process?]
The more I think about it, the more concerned I become about the direction that the church is heading. Can God use people with a bad theology to do good works? Yes. Can God take a people with a bad theology and correct them? Yes. Is it a forgone conclusion that God *WILL* do such things for a people with a bad theology, even if they pray diligently? No. (Dare I mention any of a number of prophets who have called out Israel for faulty religion?)
Yet I'm still at Warm Springs. My deep gut reaction is simply to stay. I don't feel as if I've been "released" from whatever commitment I have to the church (as if I'm being "held" by something?). I feel as though I should watch this thing play out, for better or worse.
But I don't think I can watch in silence. Nor can I go in the church and turn tables over because of "bad theology." So I'm not sure what to do. Hopefully, when whatever opportunity I get presents itself (if some such opportunity arises at all), I'll be able to recognize it. I need to remain vigilant in looking for it. And in the meantime, pray.
(Wow... this ended up being about three times as long as I was expecting it to be.)
