It's 11:30 at night. I'm watching the College Softball World Series mostly because its the only thing on. Certainly not expecting life lessons. Bottom of the fourth inning in an elimination game in the double-elimination tournament, bases loaded, two outs, Alabama is down two runs to Arizona. Coming up to bat for the Crimson Tide was Brittany Rogers, a four-time All-American lead-off hitter. What an ending to her career it could be to drive in a few runs, give your team the lead, and hang on to make it to the semi-finals of the NCAA tournament.
But then the coach called her back to the dugout. No, it wasn't for a last minute scouting report. Or even a last "good luck" or "go get 'em." It was to send in a pinch hitter. Not just any pinch hitter, a FRESHMAN. This is something that happens in "Angels in the Outfield," not the College World Series.
But unlike Angels in the Outfield, or Terrell Owens, or any other All-Star, Rogers didn't pout. She didn't yell at her coach. She didn't leave the dugout and demand a trade. She went right to the end of the dugout closest to home plate and started cheering - and cheering loudly. When the freshman went down 1-2 in the count, she kept cheering. And when the ball left the bat on its way to the left field, she sprinted out of the dugout to home plate to wait for her replacement to finish her home run trot (complete with chest bumps for the first and third base coaches) so she could congratulate her.
I know assists are not an official batting stat in softball, but chalk one up for Brittany Rogers. Congrats to the freshman for her grand slam, but helmets off to Rogers for her support and sportsmanship. If only the "professionals" would take a hint.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Like, Spiritually We’re All the Same…
The more TV I watch, the more I become intrigued when a commercial, either wittingly or unwittingly, reveals some greater truth relevant to life beyond the tube or whatever product is being sold. In a new Volkswagen commercial, a woman has a conversation with an old Volkswagen van about the differences between Volkswagens and other cars. She starts off saying they’re all the same, until the Volkswagen lists off several features the Volkswagen has and the woman has no response. “So you mean like spiritually, we’re all the same. I can dig it, man,” concludes the old Volkswagen van sarcastically.
I knew there was a reason Volkswagen vans were worth three points when we played beetle bugs growing up! In all seriousness though, how is it possible for van to utter such profound truth when politicians bumble and stumble around the idea that not all religions are the same. It should be a sign of intelligence, not intolerance, that people recognize the inherent, and often irreconcilable, differences between religions. One need not look any further to Hitler to know that history has shown examples of individuals who have used differences in religion for personal gain. However, there have also been a large number of religiously motivated individuals who have worked tireless to improve the human condition for people regardless of their religion like Mother Teresa, so to claim that acknowledging religions are indeed different automatically leads to abuses is playing the politics of fear.
For anyone unconvinced of the differences of religions, one need look no further than monotheistic versus polytheistic religions. Hinduism, Wicca, and Mahayana Buddhism are polytheistic; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic, and Theravada Buddhism and atheism believe in no God. Obviously, of any group is correct, the others can’t be. If atheists are correct that God doesn’t exist, no matter how sympathetic you are, Christians are wrong. As are Hindus, wiccans, Jews, and Muslims. Christians and Muslims believe after people die once, people go to either heaven and hell (with different requirements for getting into paradise) so if they are correct, the religions that believe in reincarnation are wrong.
Some will argue that its only the “big three” – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – are spiritually compatible because they are all monotheistic and claim their roots in Abraham. While they may have similar roots, their beliefs are undeniably different, especially when it comes to salvation and the afterlife. The bible, Christianity’s main text, clearly states it’s exclusive path to salvation – believe in Jesus as the savior. The Koran does the same except instead of Jesus being the only path, it’s a belief in Allah and good works. To Muslims, Jesus is merely a prophet, not a part of the Godhead, and certainly not a requirement for salvation in the way Jesus is to Christians. To Jews, the afterlife is downplayed and Jesus certainly wasn’t God and plays no part in salvation. Again, given these three diverting views, only one (if any at all) can be correct. If Jesus is only a prophet, he can’t be the savior; if Jesus was neither a prophet nor God, he really isn’t important.
It’s easier for us to focus only on the uniting factors while dismissing differences. And there is certainly a time to put differences aside temporarily to unite behind any number of the values different religions share. However, to ignore them indefinitely, or relegate them to insignificance does no one any good. Every human being has value, regardless of what faith they chose to follow, but to argue that all faiths are the same is foolish.
I knew there was a reason Volkswagen vans were worth three points when we played beetle bugs growing up! In all seriousness though, how is it possible for van to utter such profound truth when politicians bumble and stumble around the idea that not all religions are the same. It should be a sign of intelligence, not intolerance, that people recognize the inherent, and often irreconcilable, differences between religions. One need not look any further to Hitler to know that history has shown examples of individuals who have used differences in religion for personal gain. However, there have also been a large number of religiously motivated individuals who have worked tireless to improve the human condition for people regardless of their religion like Mother Teresa, so to claim that acknowledging religions are indeed different automatically leads to abuses is playing the politics of fear.
For anyone unconvinced of the differences of religions, one need look no further than monotheistic versus polytheistic religions. Hinduism, Wicca, and Mahayana Buddhism are polytheistic; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic, and Theravada Buddhism and atheism believe in no God. Obviously, of any group is correct, the others can’t be. If atheists are correct that God doesn’t exist, no matter how sympathetic you are, Christians are wrong. As are Hindus, wiccans, Jews, and Muslims. Christians and Muslims believe after people die once, people go to either heaven and hell (with different requirements for getting into paradise) so if they are correct, the religions that believe in reincarnation are wrong.
Some will argue that its only the “big three” – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – are spiritually compatible because they are all monotheistic and claim their roots in Abraham. While they may have similar roots, their beliefs are undeniably different, especially when it comes to salvation and the afterlife. The bible, Christianity’s main text, clearly states it’s exclusive path to salvation – believe in Jesus as the savior. The Koran does the same except instead of Jesus being the only path, it’s a belief in Allah and good works. To Muslims, Jesus is merely a prophet, not a part of the Godhead, and certainly not a requirement for salvation in the way Jesus is to Christians. To Jews, the afterlife is downplayed and Jesus certainly wasn’t God and plays no part in salvation. Again, given these three diverting views, only one (if any at all) can be correct. If Jesus is only a prophet, he can’t be the savior; if Jesus was neither a prophet nor God, he really isn’t important.
It’s easier for us to focus only on the uniting factors while dismissing differences. And there is certainly a time to put differences aside temporarily to unite behind any number of the values different religions share. However, to ignore them indefinitely, or relegate them to insignificance does no one any good. Every human being has value, regardless of what faith they chose to follow, but to argue that all faiths are the same is foolish.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Killer Kalculators
“Noooo….please I need that! I can’t do this without it!”
“Please…come on…I just need it a little longer.”
“You don’t understand! I have to have it. I get to use it other places…”
These may sound like statements you would expect to hear from drug addicts starting to suffer from withdrawal symptoms, but they are actually cries for help from students I tutor in math. No, my students are not drug users, far from it in fact. But they’ve been afflicted with a different type of addiction – an addiction to the all-powerful calculator. They rely on it for their every move, and even when they understand the concepts being taught, they are but one dead battery (or in the case of a solar-powered calculator a rainy day) away from failing.
The lack of basic math skills has deprived students of opportunities to excel in math. They become addicted to calculators like a drug user to meth. And yes, these addictions come complete with withdrawal symptoms. Many times have I had to pry the calculator out of a student’s hand, only to hear screams and pleadings, begging for the calculator to be returned.
For anyone reading this old enough to have grown up with log tables, slide rules, and having to calculate square roots by hand, this is not intended to send us back to the stone age of mathematics. Those are not computations that are overly useful in day-to-day living. However, when students can’t combine a single digit negative number and a single digit positive number, we’ve got a problem.
The assumption that by middle and high school students have learned addition, subtraction, multiplication and division blurs the reasons for their poor performance. When working with slope (rise over run) and a getting the reciprocal answer (i.e. 1/6 instead of 6), the student appears to not have mastered the concept because the most obvious mistake is doing using run over rise. However, a high school student who isn’t familiar with simplifying fractions could (and did) make the mistake that way. When it comes to finding the slope of a perpendicular line, a student would need to take the opposite reciprocal so when they come up with -1/2 instead of 2, the easiest explanation is that the student doesn’t know the formula. However, the students I’ve tutored often, with a little explanation, pick up the formula just fine. What they struggle with is the basic math.
The saddest part is that these students don’t realize their potential because of their lack of prerequisite skills. Last week, with a little help with the basic math parts, a girl I tutored was mastering concepts very well so I said to her, “Has anyone ever told you you’re actually pretty good at [math]?” and she looked at me and said “No.” And it’s not even completely the teacher’s fault – when you’re responsible for over one hundred and fifty students, its incredibly time consuming to check all of the work for all of the problems of all of the students to find the root causes. Seriously, who would have thought it was addition and subtraction that caused the kids to fail algebra and geometry? Anyone who saw my grade book when I was teaching knows I don’t support doling out unearned praise, but if kids are never encouraged when they do exceed expectations, its no surprise they think they can’t learn it.
Without the foundational skills, students are doomed to an academic life of frustration and failure in the classroom and a life of being scammed and hustled by pawn shops and payday loan companies once they “graduate.” Nobody wants students to be held back, but sometimes it is truly the best option.
Net time us discus civilization-ending chance of sell check. Yes, according to Microsoft Word, that sentence is error-free.
“Please…come on…I just need it a little longer.”
“You don’t understand! I have to have it. I get to use it other places…”
These may sound like statements you would expect to hear from drug addicts starting to suffer from withdrawal symptoms, but they are actually cries for help from students I tutor in math. No, my students are not drug users, far from it in fact. But they’ve been afflicted with a different type of addiction – an addiction to the all-powerful calculator. They rely on it for their every move, and even when they understand the concepts being taught, they are but one dead battery (or in the case of a solar-powered calculator a rainy day) away from failing.
The lack of basic math skills has deprived students of opportunities to excel in math. They become addicted to calculators like a drug user to meth. And yes, these addictions come complete with withdrawal symptoms. Many times have I had to pry the calculator out of a student’s hand, only to hear screams and pleadings, begging for the calculator to be returned.
For anyone reading this old enough to have grown up with log tables, slide rules, and having to calculate square roots by hand, this is not intended to send us back to the stone age of mathematics. Those are not computations that are overly useful in day-to-day living. However, when students can’t combine a single digit negative number and a single digit positive number, we’ve got a problem.
The assumption that by middle and high school students have learned addition, subtraction, multiplication and division blurs the reasons for their poor performance. When working with slope (rise over run) and a getting the reciprocal answer (i.e. 1/6 instead of 6), the student appears to not have mastered the concept because the most obvious mistake is doing using run over rise. However, a high school student who isn’t familiar with simplifying fractions could (and did) make the mistake that way. When it comes to finding the slope of a perpendicular line, a student would need to take the opposite reciprocal so when they come up with -1/2 instead of 2, the easiest explanation is that the student doesn’t know the formula. However, the students I’ve tutored often, with a little explanation, pick up the formula just fine. What they struggle with is the basic math.
The saddest part is that these students don’t realize their potential because of their lack of prerequisite skills. Last week, with a little help with the basic math parts, a girl I tutored was mastering concepts very well so I said to her, “Has anyone ever told you you’re actually pretty good at [math]?” and she looked at me and said “No.” And it’s not even completely the teacher’s fault – when you’re responsible for over one hundred and fifty students, its incredibly time consuming to check all of the work for all of the problems of all of the students to find the root causes. Seriously, who would have thought it was addition and subtraction that caused the kids to fail algebra and geometry? Anyone who saw my grade book when I was teaching knows I don’t support doling out unearned praise, but if kids are never encouraged when they do exceed expectations, its no surprise they think they can’t learn it.
Without the foundational skills, students are doomed to an academic life of frustration and failure in the classroom and a life of being scammed and hustled by pawn shops and payday loan companies once they “graduate.” Nobody wants students to be held back, but sometimes it is truly the best option.
Net time us discus civilization-ending chance of sell check. Yes, according to Microsoft Word, that sentence is error-free.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Monopoly Money
As the recession continues, more and more people are finding themselves stretched for cash, some to the breaking point. An old board game favorite, Monopoly, wittingly or unwittingly, provides amazing lessons in fiscal responsibility.
Just a few great points:
1) The best investments aren’t always the flashiest. Growing up, it was the dark blue properties (Boardwalk and Park Place) that were the crown jewel possessions. Nobody thought much of the orange monopoly even though statistically it’s a significantly better investment. In monopoly, the right investments pay off over time. Yes, chance could land you on Park Place AND Boardwalk every time around costing you thousands while your opponents magically avoids your properties. But chance could also win you the lottery. Over time, the best investments will win out.
2) It pays to know how much money you’ve got, and you can’t (shouldn’t) spend what you can’t afford. According to the official rules of monopoly, when you land on income tax, you need to make your decision to pay whether to pay two hundred dollars or ten percent of your net worth before you count your money. If you don’t about your financial health, you could turn down an incredible opportunity or lock yourself into a deal that you simply can’t afford. Also, monopoly punishes people when they spend beyond their means. When you buy houses, you can only sell them back for half price. When you mortgage property, you have to pay an extra ten percent to get it back. In real life, opportunities abound and some have very specific time limits. You can’t borrow from the bank for free, you can’t rack up charges on your credit card, and when you declare bankruptcy, the game is done. Over. Finished.
3) Slow and steady wins the race. You can’t win monopoly in one turn. You can’t even win it in one trip around the board. Some will complain that this makes it a more boring game, but it mimics real life. We want instant gratification and our newer games reflect that. Instead of wanting to play sports games like NCAA football that mimic the actual grind-it-out nature of the sport, we settle for NFL Blitz that not only creates basketballesque scores with football, but also offers instant, violent gratification by allowing players to body slam opponents with late hits.
Look at the house rules people have implemented over time. Free parking, according to the rules, is just an empty space, but it’s turned into a lottery where a lucky (not skillful) player lands on it and wins a certain amount. Landing on go now doubles your salary. These advances are based purely on luck – not skill – and provide instant gratification, unlike the other investments offered by buying property around the board. This is the same thinking that has turned us into a credit card culture and fueled the credit bubble that has recently imploded.
Board games aren’t every thing, but when our culture is immersed in rewarding chance and providing immediate gratification, watching shows like “Deal or No Deal” that use absolutely no skill certainly doesn’t promote financial responsibility. Some may object to using innocent games to indoctrinate people with life lesson, but – for better or worse – everything teaches a lesson. Why not make it one that will help them avoid the pitfalls that have led to this recession?
Just a few great points:
1) The best investments aren’t always the flashiest. Growing up, it was the dark blue properties (Boardwalk and Park Place) that were the crown jewel possessions. Nobody thought much of the orange monopoly even though statistically it’s a significantly better investment. In monopoly, the right investments pay off over time. Yes, chance could land you on Park Place AND Boardwalk every time around costing you thousands while your opponents magically avoids your properties. But chance could also win you the lottery. Over time, the best investments will win out.
2) It pays to know how much money you’ve got, and you can’t (shouldn’t) spend what you can’t afford. According to the official rules of monopoly, when you land on income tax, you need to make your decision to pay whether to pay two hundred dollars or ten percent of your net worth before you count your money. If you don’t about your financial health, you could turn down an incredible opportunity or lock yourself into a deal that you simply can’t afford. Also, monopoly punishes people when they spend beyond their means. When you buy houses, you can only sell them back for half price. When you mortgage property, you have to pay an extra ten percent to get it back. In real life, opportunities abound and some have very specific time limits. You can’t borrow from the bank for free, you can’t rack up charges on your credit card, and when you declare bankruptcy, the game is done. Over. Finished.
3) Slow and steady wins the race. You can’t win monopoly in one turn. You can’t even win it in one trip around the board. Some will complain that this makes it a more boring game, but it mimics real life. We want instant gratification and our newer games reflect that. Instead of wanting to play sports games like NCAA football that mimic the actual grind-it-out nature of the sport, we settle for NFL Blitz that not only creates basketballesque scores with football, but also offers instant, violent gratification by allowing players to body slam opponents with late hits.
Look at the house rules people have implemented over time. Free parking, according to the rules, is just an empty space, but it’s turned into a lottery where a lucky (not skillful) player lands on it and wins a certain amount. Landing on go now doubles your salary. These advances are based purely on luck – not skill – and provide instant gratification, unlike the other investments offered by buying property around the board. This is the same thinking that has turned us into a credit card culture and fueled the credit bubble that has recently imploded.
Board games aren’t every thing, but when our culture is immersed in rewarding chance and providing immediate gratification, watching shows like “Deal or No Deal” that use absolutely no skill certainly doesn’t promote financial responsibility. Some may object to using innocent games to indoctrinate people with life lesson, but – for better or worse – everything teaches a lesson. Why not make it one that will help them avoid the pitfalls that have led to this recession?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Cutting Classes
For the first time ever, the 2009 Fortune list of the one hundred best employers to work for includes an educational institution. Coming in at ninety-eighth is Vanderbilt University, an elite, private institution of higher education. Not surprisingly, a public school system has never been on the list. Just recently, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District announced that in order to help close the budget gap, teachers will have their pay cut for the rest of this year by a half percent.
Being benevolent, the pay cut also gives teachers ten flex hours. However, they can only use them between June and December – meaning teachers will suffer the pay cut starting now, but not get the small token gesture until next year. Did I mention CMS is cutting a significant number of teachers before next year? Estimates have been tossed around and range from three hundred fifty to one thousand teachers who will be given pink slips at the end of the year. Sorry y’all, no flex time for you.
According to a Charlotte Observer article, Superintendent Peter Gorman, has sacrificially showed his concern for teachers and students by forgoing any performances bonuses that he or his top staff members earn this year, but with his base salary of $267,150, don’t expect to see him in line at Wal-Mart any time soon. Not only that, bonuses for teachers and principals are also potential cost-saving cuts. Some defend Gorman’s salary, saying if he were working in the private sector, he would be making a lot more with a lot more perks. However, Mary McCray, president of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Association of Educators, poses an equally challenging point that many corporate executives have taken large pay cuts to save jobs, so why can’t that happen here, too?
I know that teachers are naturally underpaid and I’ve heard the excuse of the intangible rewards of teaching. Yes, on good days it can be incredibly rewarding when the kid struggling with a concept finally gets it. However, intangible rewards only go so far. Imagine if a customer came into your store and when the grocery bill rung up, he wanted to get a fifty percent discount because of the intangible rewards that you would reap from knowing that you helped someone feed his family.
What better illustration of out country’s priorities than where money goes when times are tough: when big banks fail, the government bails them out and allows them to use bailout money for bonuses. In a TIME article, Joan Zimmerman, a Wall Street career coach justified the bonuses because even though the firms have had “an extremely difficult year…they can’t afford to lose talent either.” While the government is off bailing out banks, it’s cutting education budgets. It’s bad enough to see that whether students learn is dependent on the economy, but it’s even worse that the government wouldn’t even honor the one year contracts that it signed before slashing pay.
I guess retaining talent isn’t a high priority for public school systems.
Being benevolent, the pay cut also gives teachers ten flex hours. However, they can only use them between June and December – meaning teachers will suffer the pay cut starting now, but not get the small token gesture until next year. Did I mention CMS is cutting a significant number of teachers before next year? Estimates have been tossed around and range from three hundred fifty to one thousand teachers who will be given pink slips at the end of the year. Sorry y’all, no flex time for you.
According to a Charlotte Observer article, Superintendent Peter Gorman, has sacrificially showed his concern for teachers and students by forgoing any performances bonuses that he or his top staff members earn this year, but with his base salary of $267,150, don’t expect to see him in line at Wal-Mart any time soon. Not only that, bonuses for teachers and principals are also potential cost-saving cuts. Some defend Gorman’s salary, saying if he were working in the private sector, he would be making a lot more with a lot more perks. However, Mary McCray, president of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Association of Educators, poses an equally challenging point that many corporate executives have taken large pay cuts to save jobs, so why can’t that happen here, too?
I know that teachers are naturally underpaid and I’ve heard the excuse of the intangible rewards of teaching. Yes, on good days it can be incredibly rewarding when the kid struggling with a concept finally gets it. However, intangible rewards only go so far. Imagine if a customer came into your store and when the grocery bill rung up, he wanted to get a fifty percent discount because of the intangible rewards that you would reap from knowing that you helped someone feed his family.
What better illustration of out country’s priorities than where money goes when times are tough: when big banks fail, the government bails them out and allows them to use bailout money for bonuses. In a TIME article, Joan Zimmerman, a Wall Street career coach justified the bonuses because even though the firms have had “an extremely difficult year…they can’t afford to lose talent either.” While the government is off bailing out banks, it’s cutting education budgets. It’s bad enough to see that whether students learn is dependent on the economy, but it’s even worse that the government wouldn’t even honor the one year contracts that it signed before slashing pay.
I guess retaining talent isn’t a high priority for public school systems.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Charitable Chance
Larry Winget has gone from poor roots to wealth to bankruptcy and back to millionaire status again. He’s got his own TV show called “Big Spender” where he helps people live within their means. I just finished reading one of his books, You’re Broke Because You Want to Be, and I’ve definitely found a similar thinker in his very blunt, to the point manner of speaking. However, one section of the book left me startled.
Winget cites a time when he was deep in debt and “felt like [he] needed to give away $100.” Sure enough, that night his attorney comes by and tells him he’s been forgiven a debt of $100. Some would call this random chance, but Winget took this as a lesson “to never stop giving, no matter what your circumstances” and later quotes a preacher and gives this advice: “I just know that the best way to begin any money venture, whether it is an investment or getting out of debt, is to give some money away. I personally believe in giving away 10 percent of your money…” At this point, I’m thinking some version of tithing is coming up. However, Winget says he doesn’t believe God “needs or even wants your money” and that God doesn’t “give a hoot about your silly 10 percent.” He continues to say that people should give because they have confidence that more money will be coming in. He even goes so far as to say that people have an obligation to give money.
While I agree with many of the things Winget talks about in his book – like making a budget, cutting down on excesses, and living within your means – and his reasoning behind them, this section left me befuddled. Not because I don’t believe in giving, but because his logic is just so flawed. He first seems to argue that if you give, somehow it will come back to you, basically karma. However, then he argues that God doesn’t care if you give. If that is true, God won’t reward you for giving, and you’re left with two random occurrences. If there is no greater being to influence the course of human events, then it was pure chance that Winget was forgiven his debt and therefore there’s no correlation between him giving away money and reaping any benefit from it.
If this is true, Larry would be an idiot for thinking a lucky roll of the dice means he should continue gambling. Larry automatically has some credibility because he’s wealthy, but would you listen to lottery winner who was wealthy from getting lucky on a lottery ticket even though all reason and mathematical probability says buying a lottery ticket is one of the worst investments you can make? To take this a step further, if you take God out of the equation, we are here just by chance and morality doesn’t actually exist – it’s just a creation of man’s mind. But that’s an argument for another essay and I’ll just stick with karma for now.
Part of tithing (the religious term for giving ten percent of your income to the church) is most definitely about trust. But unlike Winget’s version of trusting in yourself, the purpose of the tithe shows your trust in God. I am a huge fan of the personal responsibility Winget preaches through out the book, but when that personal responsibility comes at the exclusion God’s provision, then it’s taken a step too far.
Winget also argues that having money inherently carries an obligation to give to those in need. Again, I agree, but says who? Winget’s already said that God doesn’t care if you give, so who made this obligation? As much as I agree with many things he says, “because I said so” isn’t a very compelling reason. As intimidating as he looks on the cover of the book, “because Larry says so” doesn’t cut it either. Without a higher being instructing me, I would be more likely to accept a doctor telling me that giving will make me feel better, reduce my stress, and therefore increase my life expectancy.
After reading this, you may be thinking I’m some horrible old miser who wants everyone to hoard their wealth. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The point I make is only that karma doesn’t exist on its own. Just as laws cannot be enforced without a government in power over individuals, what goes around cannot come around consistently without a God over His creation. By all means, give money, but also give God some credit, too.
Winget cites a time when he was deep in debt and “felt like [he] needed to give away $100.” Sure enough, that night his attorney comes by and tells him he’s been forgiven a debt of $100. Some would call this random chance, but Winget took this as a lesson “to never stop giving, no matter what your circumstances” and later quotes a preacher and gives this advice: “I just know that the best way to begin any money venture, whether it is an investment or getting out of debt, is to give some money away. I personally believe in giving away 10 percent of your money…” At this point, I’m thinking some version of tithing is coming up. However, Winget says he doesn’t believe God “needs or even wants your money” and that God doesn’t “give a hoot about your silly 10 percent.” He continues to say that people should give because they have confidence that more money will be coming in. He even goes so far as to say that people have an obligation to give money.
While I agree with many of the things Winget talks about in his book – like making a budget, cutting down on excesses, and living within your means – and his reasoning behind them, this section left me befuddled. Not because I don’t believe in giving, but because his logic is just so flawed. He first seems to argue that if you give, somehow it will come back to you, basically karma. However, then he argues that God doesn’t care if you give. If that is true, God won’t reward you for giving, and you’re left with two random occurrences. If there is no greater being to influence the course of human events, then it was pure chance that Winget was forgiven his debt and therefore there’s no correlation between him giving away money and reaping any benefit from it.
If this is true, Larry would be an idiot for thinking a lucky roll of the dice means he should continue gambling. Larry automatically has some credibility because he’s wealthy, but would you listen to lottery winner who was wealthy from getting lucky on a lottery ticket even though all reason and mathematical probability says buying a lottery ticket is one of the worst investments you can make? To take this a step further, if you take God out of the equation, we are here just by chance and morality doesn’t actually exist – it’s just a creation of man’s mind. But that’s an argument for another essay and I’ll just stick with karma for now.
Part of tithing (the religious term for giving ten percent of your income to the church) is most definitely about trust. But unlike Winget’s version of trusting in yourself, the purpose of the tithe shows your trust in God. I am a huge fan of the personal responsibility Winget preaches through out the book, but when that personal responsibility comes at the exclusion God’s provision, then it’s taken a step too far.
Winget also argues that having money inherently carries an obligation to give to those in need. Again, I agree, but says who? Winget’s already said that God doesn’t care if you give, so who made this obligation? As much as I agree with many things he says, “because I said so” isn’t a very compelling reason. As intimidating as he looks on the cover of the book, “because Larry says so” doesn’t cut it either. Without a higher being instructing me, I would be more likely to accept a doctor telling me that giving will make me feel better, reduce my stress, and therefore increase my life expectancy.
After reading this, you may be thinking I’m some horrible old miser who wants everyone to hoard their wealth. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The point I make is only that karma doesn’t exist on its own. Just as laws cannot be enforced without a government in power over individuals, what goes around cannot come around consistently without a God over His creation. By all means, give money, but also give God some credit, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)