Ken Van Dellen

There is so much packed into this short report on "Al", yet so many unanswered questions. Dr. Watts begins her story of Al by mentioning he lived in a single-parent home. While there are numerous examples of mothers or grandmothers who raised children who became outstanding adults, many children, especially boys, are severely negatively impacted by the absence of a father or other positive male role model in the home. That was strike one for Al. The trend away from the nuclear family has been disastrous for children.

Regarding the educational aspects of this case, Dr. Watts' report may have suffered from space limitations, just as this comment does, providing ample opportunity for misunderstanding. My wife and I are retired educators. I started teaching grades 7-12, but most of my career was in college, she was a special ed teacher in Michigan for decades and has shared many of her experiences with me.

In this account, we read that Al's mom wanted him to be in special ed but he was ineligible in third grade. Admission is appropriately based on testing. By grade seven he qualified, but somehow what had been asked for when he was in third grade, was now bad, because we read, "Al is one of hundreds of students who have been placed in special education based on biases" and "...acting-out behavior has led to placement in special education for many students." 

What is the evidence for students being placed in special ed because of bias or for punishment for bad behavior? My wife had a boy who came in and said, "Well, you know I can't read," and soon got him reading. She also had a graduating senior, now headed for college on a scholarship, visit her to thank her for special ed help received in elementary school. Special ed is help, not punishment.

Here is another teacher story, not related to special ed but relevant. This one involves racial considerations. A White teacher my wife knows to be a kind and helpful person was trying to help a young Black male student with some schoolwork. The boy said, "You're just picking on me because I'm Black." Picking on him? She replied, "No, I'm 'picking on you' because you don't do your work." How sad that genuine helpfulness is interpreted as racism.

We live in metropolitan Detroit, and one of the charities we contribute to is PAL (Police Athletic League). It has athletic fields on the grounds of the old Tigers Stadium, and members of law enforcement interact with school kids (mostly Black) and serve as role models for them, but this is no substitute for dads. Check the stats on poverty, educational success, and negative reactions with law enforcement for kids from single-parent homes.

Nice thoughts, nice prayer, messy topic.

Some childless women feel a loss on Mother's Day and some men also feel a loss on Father's Day (and maybe on Mother's Day, too). I do. I also took abuse from other guys who became aware that we had infertility problems, including one who asked, when I excitedly said we were adopting, whose "fault" it was.

I will be forever grateful to the two young women who gave us our adopted daughters, I hope that they will not feel pain on Mother's Day, and I wish they had been able to know what became of their birth daughters. My wife is also grateful to them for their gifts to us, but also partly because they made it possible for her to be a mother "the easy way", as she says.

I hope it's OK to share the story of our family, all of whom, after mom and me, sons-in-law included, were either adopted or the result of adoption. Read it here: https://rtl.org/realstories/vandellen.html

First, when my friend and "American son", Kabba Jalloh from Sierra Leone, attended Dordt  20 or so years ago, he was very well received. I'm sure they were less multi-cultural then than now, but there seemed to be no issues. Kabba received a standing O, against commencement rules, when he accepted his diploma, the only graduate to do so, and I don't think any of the other graduates felt discriminated against.

Re: Internet. I enjoy using humor to lodge protests. Recently, I sent the following message to Chevrolet. When I posted it on Facebook I got several "Likes", some from unexpected sources. I think it's just as wrong to take offense when none is intended as it is to give offense, and I grow weary of the "offense industry", but this was a serious question couched in a semi-humorous way, about something that definitely concerns me. I wondered how many of the kids that mouthed this near-profanity even know God.

Ken Van Dellen

To Chevrolet ad department: Re: The "Oh, my God!" ad with kids. "Did it ever occur to you that this could offend atheists, Christians who believe we should not use God's name lightly,  and possibly some Jews?"

I usually wore a suit when teaching at the college where I was on the faculty, too, unless it was a day when I needed a T-shirt to make a point in geology class (such as one with two hands pushing North America and the continents of Europe and Africa together with the label "Reunite Gondwanaland!"). How could I not then wear one to church?

After retirement I became more casual, but sometimes thought I should dress as well for church as I did for weddings and funerals. However, after a heart attack and stent emplacement I needed to carry a supplemental card wallet. There wasn't room in the wallet in my back pocket for the stent cards (for EMS) and other medical care cards, soon joined by my Red Cross blood donor card, library cards, frequent diner cards, etc. That got me back to wearing a suit or sport coat because I needed pockets. I was wearing cargo pants or shorts the rest of the week and using most of the pockets.

Joining the local senior men's club with bimonthly luncheons with "jackets suggested" reinforced the decision to wear a jacket to church.  Should I dress less for the Lord than I do for my senior friends?

I was now one of only a few in church with jacket and tie. The deacons sometimes wore jeans, or even shorts on hot days, to take the offering, and the pastor had taken to an open collar. I guess this was to make new members and visitors feel more comfortable if they were more casually attired. I found myself explaining, perhaps not quite truthfully, that I wore a jacket only for the pockets.

Perhaps I will ditch the jacket or suit and get one of those vests with pockets for everything. I really can't expect my wife to carry my stuff in her purse. Besides, I would worry that a cell phone might get against a card with a magnetic strip and cancel it.
Sometimes it's difficult to know right from wrong, and what is the right thing to do! Maybe we will soon have another denominational office to give us guidance on this.

I'm getting a little weary of all of the 2nd Amendment talk but I think the book of Esther is terrific, so I decided to take a chance and see what Dan had to say. I had to smile at his initial description of the book and the more I read the bigger my smile became. I wasn't sure where he was headed, but this was the sweetest, kindest gotcha (for some) I've ever seen anyone give out.

The issue of self-defense is a touchy one, and this blog reminds me of an experience I had with a young CRC pastor back in the early 1960s. He was an absolute pacifist and insisted he would not lift a finger against another person. Someone in the group asked him what he would do if he and his wife were walking down the sidewalk and a man attacked his wife. I don't recall what he said but he seemed to think he should do whatever he could without hurting the attacker. How much restraint should we show in such a situation?

It has been pointed out that many of the gun-control folks have armed security people and Saturday's marchers had police officers with guns. Clearly a collision of the theoretical and the practical. It may be easy for us to be theoretical Christians in church and at home, but we get hit by practicality on the street.

Thanks for a very interesting piece, Dan.

"At the same time that countries around the world are building fences and implementing laws to keep 'the other' out, we are creating new programs to meet the needs of the increasing numbers of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers."

The above quotation apparently was added by those who posted the article and not by the author of the article, and this comment is in reference to the quotation.

Is the message here that border control is bad and open borders are good? It is possible to both welcome immigrants (migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers) and to have a secure border. These are not mutually exclusive.

Border control attempts to regulate the number of immigrants, which can affect the economy of a country, and keep out dangerous individuals, which can affect the safety of the country's residents. We all would agree, I'm sure, that our immigration policies should be "Christian".

We might disagree on the number of immigrants that should be admitted per year and how they should be evaluated as candidates for admission. In recent years we have seen an immigration experiment taking place in several European countries where large numbers of immigrants have flooded in from a particular region of the world, bringing with them a particular religion that includes distinctive views of women, justice, etc. This seems not to be working out well, and I think that a more diverse group of immigrants, and a smaller number, would have worked out better.

This is not just a U.S. concern. My wife and I live near the Canadian border, and for several decades we enjoyed driving over to Windsor, Ontario, for a meal. We used to be able to do this without showing any documents. We have not done so since 9/11 because of the increased border security, although we have driven across Ontario to New England several times and once spent a week at an Ontario resort.

[Note: I have taught ESL to Arab immigrants with a Christian organization and am on the board of that organization, and am close to some of these immigrants.]

I apologize for my error. I thought it was proper to address my comment to the author of the quotation I cited, and when I hadn't found the quotation in the original source on another website (although I have now found it there) I concluded that someone in your office had written it for your newsletter.

This article begins, "I was shocked when I read reports about Trump’s alleged question posed at a recent meeting in the Oval Office..." Now I'm shocked that Network would publish an article with a title like "Do Trump’s "BLEEP" Remarks Represent American Values?", with that title, even, and wonder if we should ask if the article represents Christian values.

I think it's deplorable to begin with a sentence that cites an "alleged question" and then go on with an article based on what was alleged as if the alleged quotation had been documented. Many of our political leaders use language that most CRC members, or other Christians, would not use, at least not in public, and it's possible that President Trump used this language in a private meeting, but we have no video or audio recording of the purported incident (unlike when another president remarked that his detractors "cling to their guns and Bibles", and it was caught on an audio recording).

Anyone who follows politics at all must have noticed that many politicians, but not all, are less than honest in reporting the position of their opponents on issues. Distortions, half-truths, and misrepresentations regarding opponents are common in politics. Do we look at what someone actually said or what a political opponent reports that the person said? There seems to be plenty of room for false witness issues here.

Then we get into labeling and name-calling based on our interpretation of what someone said or allegedly said. Individuals are smeared as racist, sexist, or something else negative because of a particular statement or act, but when we examine the person's record we find that label simply doesn't fit. I'm talking here just about President Trump. I'm talking about myself and others I know. I tend to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

I've remarked that it would be great if politicians would reevaluate their standards. My guy should not just expect the other guy to operate with the standards of my guy, but my guy should hold himself or herself to the standards to which he or she holds the other guy. That would be a higher bar. This would work for non-politicians, too.

So many questions. Did the President say this or something like it? If so, what did he mean by it? Does that mean he deserves a derogatory label of some kind? How should a Christian judge him? Should we cast the first stone?