I ran across this intriguing article today on ContactMusic.com.  It's pretty impressive when a celebrity like Will Smith has decided to be a homeschooling parent.  Hmmm - do you suppose they'll ask him about socialization?  ;)

        Hollywood couple WILL and JADA PINKETT SMITH 
        have decided to homeschool their children, because 
        they're unimpressed with America's educational system.

        The ALI co-stars have six-year-old son JADEN, 
        daughter WILLOW, four, TREY, 12, Will's son from his 
        first marriage and Will's nephew KYLE, 15, in their care. 
        And all children but Trey are currently homeschooled.

        Jada tells ESSENCE magazine, "(They are homeschooled) 
        for flexibility, so they can stay with us when we travel, 
        and also because the school system in this country - public 
        and private is designed for the industrial age.

        "We're in a technological age. We don't want our kids to 
        memorise. We want them to learn." 

It's interesting that this article posts nothing critical about the Smiths' decision to homeschool, though they homeschool for the same reasons most homeschoolers choose:  flexibility, out-of-date and ineffective school system, and a desire for their kids to learn.  As public figures, though, they've taken a significant risk making an out-of-the-mainstream decision like this.  Good for them!  (Hat tip:  Mama's Midlife Mire, The Grace Academy)

 This evening I ran across this post by Mark and Cyndy Weiss at Trust the Children, and after my previous post on socialization I felt their story provided excellent support for my thoughts there.  In that post, I made this point:

            (N)ot everyone has the advantages homeschooling offers of 
            being carefully trained to be a good friend, to be kind and 
            thoughtful and to hold your tongue when you feel like saying 
            something mean. 

As if to emphasize the point, the Weiss' post tells this great story about their homeschooled nephews.

            From the cold north of the park, the big bully showed up. He 
            spied his prey, walked to the sandbox and ... you guessed it, 
            destroyed their city in the sand. Grandmother observed and 
            later shared, that if the bully thought to get a rise from these 
            two young boys, he was disappointed. They ignored him, and 
            began rebuilding their project post haste as he walked away 
            and kept looking back for a "payment" ie response. What 
            happens next is just classic. The bully turns around to wreck 
            destruction again. As he walks up to the sand box, so the story 
            goes, Jason, the older of the two, stood up and confronted him. 
            Jason said, "Why do you want to ruin our roads and stuff?" Jason 
            continued, "If you don't ruin them, you can be our friend and play 
            with us. We aren't going to let you ruin our project again, but we 
            would like you to be our friend." For a second, the bully was 
            confused, then, to Grandmothers astonishment, he smiled, joined 
            the two boys and you guessed it, they play happily ever after that day. 

            As grandmother related the story I was told that she said, "I don't 
            have any more worries about Jason and Jared being socially 
            capable after what I saw."

The Weiss' conclude with this statement:

            At first convinced that home schooling provided little social benefit. 
            Grandparents, (others) are fearing for future of their grandchildren. 
            Yet in the end, they observe the reality, that self confident kids, who 
            have a moral compass successfully imbedded in them, do just fine.

And what better way is there for kids to end up with "a moral compass" than to be homeschooled?  Where better to learn how to socialize in a really adult way than by associating primarily with those who love them, who train them, and who provide adult examples of how to respond? 

 Powerline this morning has a revealing post commenting on Mark Steyn's excellent article in the Chicago Sun-Times today.  Mark's article discusses four women who, he believes, embody the situation facing the world today - most significantly, the Palestinian grandmother who recently became the oldest known suicide bomber, and the current leader of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schiori.  Relevant paragraphs:

            The first is Fatma An-Najar, a 64-year-old grandmother 
            who had a livelier Thanksgiving than most grandmas. 
            She marked the occasion by self-detonating in the town 
            of Jebaliya . . .  And, naturally, her family's pleased as punch.

            "We are really happy," her son Zuheir told Agence France-
            Presse. "She told us last night that she would do a suicide 
            operation. She prepared her clothes for that operation, and 
            we are proud. 'I don't want anything, only to die a martyr.' 
            That's what she said."

            An-Najar gave birth to her first child at the age of 12. She had 
            eight others. She had 41 grandchildren. Keep that family tree 
            in mind. By contrast, in Spain, a 64-year old woman will have 
            maybe one grandchild. That's four grandparents, one grand
            child: a family tree with no branches.

Bishop Kate, on the other hand, had this to say when asked how many members there were in the Episcopal Church, over which she presides:

            "About 2.2 million," replied the presiding bishop. "It used 
            to be larger percentage-wise, but Episcopalians tend to be 
            better educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than 
            other denominations."

She was then asked, "Episcopalians aren't interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?"

            "No," agreed Bishop Kate. "It's probably the opposite. We 
            encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of 
            the earth and not use more than their portion."

Mark Steyn then adds this comment,

            Here's the question for Bishop Kate: If Fatma An-Najar 
            has 41 grandchildren and a responsible "better educated" 
            Episcopalian has one or two, into whose hands are we 
            delivering "the stewardship of the earth"? If your crowd 
            isn't around in any numbers, how much influence can they 
            have in shaping the future?

In the Powerline article, Mark goes further, answering the argument that Europe is eventually going to resort to fascism to solve the problem, and elaborating on the ways in which the change could come about.  

            As I’ve said innumerable times, the native European 
            population is split three ways: some will leave, as the 
            Dutch (and certain French) are already doing; some will 
            shrug and go along with the Islamization of the continent, 
            as the ever-accelerating number of conversions suggests; 
            and so the ones left to embrace Fascism will be a minority 
            of an aging population. It will be bloody and messy, as I 
            write in America Alone, but it will not alter the final outcome. 
            If you don’t breed, you can’t influence the future. And 
            furthermore a disinclination to breed is a good sign you 
            don’t care much about the future. That’s why the Spaniards, 
            who fought a brutal bloody civil war for their country in 
            the 1930s, folded instantly after those Madrid bombings. 
            When you’ve demographically checked out of the future, 
            why fight for it?

While adding to our own family would be difficult if not impossible for my husband and me, it seems perhaps those conservatives who have embraced the idea of large families might not be far off.  Interesting, isn't it, that when you accept biblical principles, it leads you toward a philosophy and lifestyle that would tend to increase the odds of a permanent, healthy, civilized society; and when you reject those principles, it leads you toward a society that will eventually destroy itself?

Some of you may be aware that Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman died a couple of weeks ago.  Several people have written posts recently about a statement he once made relating to education.  Here's the quote (hat tip: The Amateur Economist and Curmudgeon Blog):

            Friedman: Economic freedom is key - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
            Q: I'm sure you're familiar with the home-school movement, which 
            has arisen over the last 10 years as form of competition to schools.

            A: It is. And the fact that it is a form of competition shows how 
            bad our schools are. Can you think of any other sophisticated 
            product in which the home-made product is superior to the 
            factory-made product?

Spunky at SpunkyHomeschool had one answer.  But it seems to me there is far more to a whole answer than simply the home-made cards and gifts our kids make for us.  Here is my answer to Dr. Friedman's question.

Sure, I can think of lots of products that are better home-made than factory-made.  How about homemade bread, homemade afghans, homemade pizza, homemade jam? How about a computer whose components were assembled at home in order to accomplish just what the assembler wanted? How about handmade china, handmade furniture, and handmade Swiss watches? How about homegrown fruits and vegetables? And does anybody really think that most of today's barely-make-it-out-of-warranty products are better than the handmade products of a century ago?

Sorry - I just don't think an assembly-line approach usually produces a superior product. A cheaper one, yes - maybe a more easily accessible one - but not a better one.

The biggest problem with Dr. Friedman's quote is that he makes the mistake of assuming it's possible to to create an assembly-line educational process that will actually be better than homeschooling.  We aren't talking here about a "sophisticated product" in the sense of computers or electronics or cars. Children are much more like fine china than like sophisticated electronic equipment; they need the human touch, and they do extremely poorly in assembly-line education.

It seems to me the things that are best homemade are those whose creation is not only a science but an art. Surely education qualifies! Assembly lines are great for creating cheap, easily available products; they are notoriously poor at creating excellent, high quality products, especially the kind that require individual attention to detail. I don't want my kids' education to be a cheap, easily available product; I want it to be excellent and high quality, with individual attention to detail - in short, I want their education to be homemade, not assembly-line!

 This ruling today by the California Supreme Court is going to provide an interesting precedent regarding a website's liability for libel originally written and/or posted by someone else.  It is good news for bloggers, at least in California and likely around the nation:  A blogger or website owner cannot be held liable for someone else's false or misleading information which that blogger or owner reproduces on their website.   Not only that, but I believe it provides some protection for those people whose website hosts a forum, who until now have been potentially liable for information someone posts on their forum.  I know of at least one instance in which a forum owner was threatened with a lawsuit because there were people on their forum (otherwise unrelated to the owner) who were posting incorrect information about another company's competing product.  It would seem this ruling indicates that, under the Communications Decency Act, the owner is NOT liable for information an unrelated person posts on his or her forum.

        In reversing an appellate court's decision, the state 
        Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act 
        of 1996 provides broad immunity from defamation lawsuits 
        for people who publish information on the Internet that 
        was gathered from another source.

        "The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally 
        redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has 
        disturbing implications," Associate Justice Carol Corrigan wrote 
        in the majority opinion. "Nevertheless ... statutory immunity 
        serves to protect online freedom of expression and to 
        encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended."

        Unless the U.S. Congress revises the existing law, people who 
        claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek 
        damages from the original source of the statement, the court 
        ruled.

This is a tremendous victory for free speech and for freedom of the press (including the Internet press).  It would be nice if a similar case were to be heard by the Supreme Court and a similar ruling made at the federal level. 

UPDATE:  This post by blogger and lawyer Eugene Volokh goes into considerably more detail than I have here as to the technicalities of this ruling.  Apparently this is not the first ruling making it clear that website owners are not liable for material posted to their site by another user; however, it would seem to be the first ruling stating that even those who actively repost material to their site are not liable for libelous statements within their reposting, unless they were involved in the creation of the original libelous posting.  That's encouraging for bloggers like me, who might repost something written by someone else which we believe to be true, only to find out later it is incorrect.

 In this article in Friday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the author reviews a new book, due to be released November 24.  The book is called Who Really Cares:  The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, and it's written by Arthur C. Brooks, a one-time Democrat, now independent, who is uncomfortable with his findings but found himself compelled to publish them nevertheless.  And what did he find in his research?

        The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice 
        religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion 
        that the government should engage in income redistribution are 
        the most generous Americans, by any measure.

        Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government 
        entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's 
        tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write 
        checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide 
        them with enough money.

        Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits 
        but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal 
        health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic 
        growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

        "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach 
        when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 
        years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably 
        would have hated what I have to say in this book."

        Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than 
        conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and 
        donated blood.

This is tremendous news for conservatives everywhere; it supports the truth that in fact, we really DO care about others, despite what our liberal friends would like people to think.  It is likely that such a scholarly treatment of this subject will give some liberals pause; those who really their money where their mouth is - and their time and energy as well - are more likely to be religious, church-going conservatives.  Liberals may TALK about giving; conservatives actually DO it.  I look forward to reading this book when it comes out.

If you have been following my blog, you may have already guessed that this week has been a very hectic one for me.  Between being exceptionally busy and having significant encouragement from my hubby to curtail my online activities, I haven't posted much.

But I couldn't ignore the news from the Persian Gulf today.  Hugh Hewitt tells in this article that Al-Jazeera (the Arabic, terrorist-friendly news organization) is reporting that the United States Navy now has two aircraft carriers and two amphibious assault ships in the Persian Gulf conducting naval exercises with Bahrain and other nations.  It sounds as if these war games are intended to intimidate Iran and make the United States presence in the Middle East very obvious.  Let's hope they accomplish their purpose.

I came across an excellent article this morning. The author pinpoints the many of the mistakes I've made in homeschooling - some of which I still struggle with! Here they are, along with my comments. 

    1. Over Scheduling 

        I will never forget my first year of homeschooling. My 
        children were involved in art classes, gymnastics, classes 
        at the zoo, science center classes, chorus, piano lessons, 
        physical education classes, and community sports. On the 
        one day per week that we did not have scheduled events, we 
        would get together with fellow homeschooling families for 
        field trips, writing classes (which I taught), and/or just for a 
        fun time. 

        I have never been so frazzled in my life! We would cram in 
        our studies in the morning, then load up the car to head out 
        to our daily routine.

This is such a common problem. In spite of the prevailing perception that homeschoolers sit alone at home all day and are bored and under-socialized, in my experience it is far more common for homeschoolers to be over-programmed, going constantly. We often have difficulty getting together with my children's homeschooled friends because we can't find a time to do it! "School" has to be at the top of the priority list. 

    2. Under Scheduling 

        Over scheduling can be a nightmare, but under-scheduling 
        can also have its detriments. Kids need variety and 
        opportunities to be with others their own age. There are 
        so many learning opportunities out there!

While many homeschooled families do have a problem with over-scheduling, I also know several who are under-scheduled. If your kids are constantly getting into trouble because they are bored; if they don't get adequate exercise because all they do is sit home and read; if you are all wearing on each other's nerves because you're together all the time; if they have few or no good friends because you never go anywhere - it's time for you all to get out of the house! Your schedule can't be dictated exclusively by what you as the parent want or need. Your children have needs too: the need for friends, the need for exercise, the need for artistic expression. Figure out which of their needs are difficult for you to meet at home, and make outside arrangements to get those needs met. In my case, it's P.E. and art that are hard for me; in yours, it might be music or crafts or foreign language or something else.

And remember, too, that field trips are a valuable and important part of your children's education. At least once a month (more often if you can arrange it), try to get your kids out of the house and into an educational experience: a museum, a historical site, an ethnic restaurant, the local fire station, the botanic gardens, or whatever works for you and fits what you are learning at the time. I've found field trips can provide a welcome change of pace, and can bring us back to the study of the subject with new energy and enthusiasm. Working together with several other homeschoolers can give you access to some neighborhood and city resources that require you to visit with a group.

At the very least, get out of the house and go to the park, or wander together through a nearby field and look at wildflowers or play in the snow! 

    3. Unrealistic Expectations 

        It is so easy to fall into the trap of unrealistic expectations. I have 
        met many a homeschool Mom who was upset because her three- 
        year old was not reading yet or because her sixth grade son was 
        not succeeding in Algebra I. I have watched as families tackle huge 
        projects trying to cram a whole year of World History into one quarter 
        and plan a World History Fair to culminate the experience. These are 
        the same parents and kids who are burned out by Christmas and 
        struggling to make it through each day!

It's unfair to your kids to expect them all to be geniuses. I have one extremely bright child who is easily two years ahead in almost any subject you could name. I also have one who is pretty much average. If I let my older daughter "cruise," failing to encourage her to the best of her ability, she may grow up thinking she can get by on 80% effort. On the other hand, if I push my younger daughter to keep up with big sister, she will become burned out and frustrated, and so will I. It's important to spend time with each of your kids and get to know them well; then set your expectations according to their needs and abilities, not those of other homeschoolers or their siblings. And be willing to revise your expectations if you find they are unrealistic. 

    4. A Disorganized School Room 

        There is nothing more frustrating than the inability to put 
        your fingers on what you need when you need it. This is 
        especially true when you are trying to keep your children 
        current with their schoolwork. 

        The inability to find a pencil, a working eraser, a textbook 
        or workbook, dictionary, calculator . . . . you get the picture. 
        These are all extremely frustrating and when piled up can 
        make for a very difficult start to a day.

It's critical to spend the time and money you need to organize your resources. It will probably require a day or two at the beginning of the year to get everything organized for that year. It may require that you spend some money on storage solutions and bookshelves. (Over the years I have purchased a large cart with multiple drawers for storing arts and crafts supplies - $20; a tub for the garage to hold outdoor toys - $5; 11 bookshelves and counting - $15 or more each; multiple Rubbermaid containers for science supplies, school supplies, etc. - usually under $5 each; and a couple of small drawer units for office supplies - $5 to $10 each.) Homeschoolers generally need much more of this kind of storage than traditionally schooled families, since they have to provide both the classroom resources and the home resources. So plan a part of your homeschooling budget to provide the storage solutions you need. 

    5. Avoiding Breaks to Allow for a Shorter Day 

        This is a biggie! We all do it—it seems like such a 
        wonderful thing to tell our kids. "Hey, if you can just 
        get this all done this morning, we will have all afternoon 
        with no school!" Guess what? Across the board, home 
        schooling kids are saying, "We'd rather have a break!"

I did not discover until this school year that my children felt this way about breaks. Think about it; the government requires that adults get a break if they work longer than four hours at a time - and if you've ever had one of those breaks you know how welcome it is. How much more do our kids need this kind of break.

I found this year that things are much smoother and I get far less rebellion when I announce every hour or two, "OK, take a break!" The stress of being together all the time is also improved, and I've come to welcome those breaks myself. 

    6. Becoming a Slave to Your Home School Curriculum 

        Another big mistake I made my first year of homeschooling 
        was to allow my curriculum to drive me. Even on days when 
        it was obvious that my kids just weren't getting it, I would 
        push them to complete the assignments we had determined 
        were appropriate for that day. 

        When I finally learned to back off, our homeschooling became 
        much more effective.

Even with the best curriculum, you are going to have to be flexible! Some curricula don't fit your family, and about the only way to figure this out at first is to try it out. I highly recommend you not spend huge amounts of money on one "sure-fire" curriculum if you can avoid it. But if you do spend money on something and it isn’t working for you after a fair trial, by all means do something different! If your budget won’t allow you to replace the ineffective curriculum, maybe you could stop using it and try teaching your child directly; or even drop the subject for a few weeks or months and pick it up later. (A word of caution here: a six-year-old’s temper tantrum may or may not mean the curriculum is terrible; you will have to determine whether you believe the problem is character or curriculum.)

At first, knowing when to be flexible can be rather difficult. With practice, though, you will become more confident about when to persist and when to be flexible. What’s important at the beginning is to commit to doing whatever meets the needs of your child and your family, regardless of what curriculum you use. 

    7. Doing it Alone

Too many homeschooling parents try to do the job entirely on their own, with no outside support. Sometimes we are too busy; sometimes we are too proud. But whatever your reason, you need to realize that your kids aren’t the only ones who need socialization. Being a homeschooling parent can be lonely at times; you need to be with other parents who are also homeschooling. In Genesis, God made it clear that He designed us for each other – “It is NOT GOOD for the man to be alone.” If Adam, being a perfect man and having fellowship with God Himself, still needed someone else, how much more do we need others around us? 

        Socialization for a homeschooling mom means a 
        sounding board for ideas, advice from those who 
        have been through it before, friendships that allow 
        us to be ourselves, an easy way to share or access 
        information and ideas, a terrific venue to pass on 
        newly discovered educational events or opportunities 
        . . . all absolutely necessary for moms who are 
        investing so much into their children. 

        Support groups, homeschool publications, seminars, 
        homeschool conferences, memberships, classes . . . 
        all of these are terrific ways for homeschooling families 
        to socialize with other children and adults.

Maybe you are in a remote location; maybe you have trouble finding a sitter; maybe it’s hard to find a supportive group. This is a critical need, though – if you haven’t found the support you need yet, it’s important that you put some serious prayer into it. The Lord will provide you with what you need, if you ask Him. 

    8. Super Mom Syndrome 

        This was probably the most difficult part of homeschooling 
        for me. Days when my friends would say, "Walking into 
        your home is like walking into an Ethan Allen Showroom" 
        were long gone. 

        Trying to keep those same standards is like trying to rake 
        leaves into a pile in the middle of a tornado. 

        Face it: your home will never be the same. Your meals will 
        not always be healthy, your errands will not always be run, 
        your bills may be late, and your bathrooms may not always 
        sparkle. 

        But take a deep breath and remember: 
        1. You live in your house all day 
        2. Your kids are in your house all day 
        3. You school in your house 
        4. You use your walls as a display for charts, projects, 
        lessons, maps, time lines, motivations, and more. 
        5. You do not have a large classroom to keep all of your 
        studies in—books and educational materials will naturally 
        take over your home. 
        6. You use your desk for more than paying bills, checking 
        e-mail, and surfing the net. 

        If you are going to survive this homeschooling experience, you 
        must learn to lower your standards! 

This is an area I’m still struggling with. Finding the balance between keeping my standards realistic and being lazy is very difficult. When my oldest daughter was a baby, it was not too hard to keep things clean and neat. But as we’ve added more and more books, school supplies, craft supplies, outdoor toys, and educational activities, the condition of my house has deteriorated. Adequate storage helps, but ultimately we have to be realistic: a pile of books on the end table or K’Nex spread all over the floor are pretty much to be expected when the kids are at home all day. (I do find it helps my hubby’s mood when I try to at least pick up the toys and activities before he gets home, though – at least most of the time!) 

    9. Ignoring the Input of your Children 

        It is so easy to get so wrapped up in your plans and ideas 
        that you forget to check with your children. This can be 
        especially challenging for moms who were teachers or 
        who served in a managerial role. Part of the beauty of 
        homeschooling is that it can be a two way street. 

        You set up the boundaries, then, allow your kids some 
        freedom within those boundaries. 

        Your willingness to bounce ideas off of your kids and to 
        really consider their input will mean so much to them . . . 
        and you might be surprised at what they come up with!

This doesn’t mean, of course, letting your seven-year-old decide whether she is going to do her phonics today or not! But it might mean being willing to take the read-aloud out on the porch so you can read in the sunshine on a nice day, or giving an extra-long break so the kids can play in the snow, or taking a couple of weeks to study an area your kids really want to learn about rather than what you had planned. I gave my ten-year-old three choices of math curricula I thought would be acceptable, and allowed her to choose which she wanted to use. I let my kids decide in what order they’d like to do their written work. There are many situations in which you can give your kids freedom, and in which their feedback can help enhance your homeschool. 

    10. Fear of the Internet 

        Let's face it—the Internet can be dangerous! There is so 
        much out there that we do not want our children to see 
        and so many people out there we do not want them to meet! 

        However, there is also a wealth of information out there 
        that is absolutely invaluable to any homeschooling program. 
        From educational and interactive games, to live cam pictures 
        of our solar system, the possibilities are endless. 

        And if you know where to go, you can tap into homeschool 
        resources and instruction that will never run dry!

If you’re reading this blog, you’re probably not one of those people who’s afraid of the Internet. In fact, your problem is probably more like mine – you struggle to control the time you spend there! It seems to me “misuse” of the Internet would be a bigger problem than fear of it – either too little time spent there, so you don’t get all the benefits, or too much spent there, so you don’t get the homeschooling done. Again, the key here is balance! (And be sure to let your kids use the Internet, too, as they get older. With supervision, the Internet is a great educational tool.)

All of these mistakes are easy to make; any one of them can result in burnout and frustration. It seems to me we all need the reminder occasionally to avoid these mistakes, to focus on what is really important, and to seek balance and flexibility.

There's an interesting post on Dr. Tony Beam's blog on Crosswalk.com today about Ted Haggard.  It's called Ted Haggard: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  Dr. Beam has some excellent, new thoughts on this already-well-rehearsed story.  

He comments on the obvious bad aspects of Haggard's sin.  The Body of Christ has been damaged.  As Dr. Beam puts it:

        Compromise and betrayal by believers is nothing 
        new but every time it happens it drains the spiritual 
        zeal of believers and gives unbelievers another 
        reason to write us all off as hypocrites who are 
        "just in it for the money."  Shame and disgrace is 
        brought, not on the name of Christ but on the 
        reputation of His followers. 

Haggard's family and his church have also suffered as a result of his sin.  Dr. Beam says, "When Satan goes after a man he goes after all that he is and all that he has."  His family has been grieved by his sin, and is now a subject of public scrutiny and even pity.  The church family has also suffered, and will continue to suffer, as they try to understand why they trusted him, and how their trust could have been betrayed, and as they deal with the aftereffect of fearing to trust anyone else again.

Dr. Beam also mentions "the ugly" part of the story:  its clear revelation of the way homosexuality has taken such a grip on our culture, not only outside the church but even within it.  He points out that, "Rather than being a culture that is merely slouching towards Gomorrah, we have become a culture that has reached and now reflects Gomorrah."

But in addition to "the bad" and "the ugly," he also makes the point that there is good to be found in this situation.  First, the way the church responded was heartening: they defended Haggard, but they also investigated the facts.  Second, when it became obvious that the facts were true, they quickly confronted Haggard with his sin.   Third, Haggard responded with a truthful confession, an admission of his sin in all its ugliness:

        The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality.  And I take 
        responsibility for the entire problem.  I am a deceiver 
        and a liar.  There's part of my life that is so repulsive 
        and dark that I have been warring against it for all 
        my adult life.

        I created this entire situation. The things that I did 
        opened the door for additional allegations . But I am 
        responsible; I alone need to be disciplined and corrected. 
        An example must be set. 

        It is important that you know how much I love and 
        appreciate my wife, Gayle. What I did should never reflect 
        in a negative way on her relationship with me. She has been 
        and continues to be incredible. The problem is not with her, 
        my children or any of you. It was created 100 percent by me. 

        I appreciate your loving and forgiving nature, and I humbly 
        ask you to do a few things. 

        1.) Please stay faithful to God through service and giving. 

        2.) Please forgive me. I am so embarrassed and ashamed. 
        I caused this and I have no excuse. I am a sinner. I have fallen. 
        I desperately need to be forgiven and healed. 

        3.) Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception 
        and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, 
        need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, 
        thank God for him. I am trusting that his action will make me, 
        my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't 
        violate you; I did.  (If you want to be really encouraged, read 
        the whole thing at Gazette.com.)

The homosexual lobby believes this kind of admission is bad; they think Haggard should have embraced "his real nature," and perhaps abandoned his wife and children in favor of a gay lover.  But the truth is, Haggard acknowledged his sin without excuses and asked for forgiveness from all those who were hurt by it.  That is the essence of how a Christian ought to respond when his or her sins are revealed.  Dr. Beam puts it this way:  "To his credit he called sin by its right name instead of resorting to the postmodern practice of confessing to 'mistakes' and 'indiscretions.'"  Haggard also made it very clear that he never expects to return to ministry at New Life Church; rather than trying to make light of his sin, he apparently realizes that his sin will keep him from further pastoral ministry.

Not only this, but the forgiveness, mercy, and prayer for restoration the church has demonstrated since Haggard's confession have provided an opportunity for the world to see the love and redemption of Jesus Christ.

Though there is much to grieve in the Ted Haggard situation, though significant harm has been done, the response of New Life Church and Haggard's confession have also provided a good example of how Christians ought to behave, and of what Christ's forgiveness is all about.

The new Carnival of Homeschooling - Library Edition is up at Spunky Homeschool.  It's full of all kinds of fun links to great posts that will enrich and support any homeschool or afterschool education you are trying to provide for your child.  Be sure to take a minute to "check it out"! 

Because I'm very much an amateur when it comes to following politics, I wanted to allow myself some time for thinking and reading about the election before I blogged about it.  With nearly two days past now since it became clear the Republicans were going to lose the Congress, many people have done a great deal of thinking about what happened and why; talk show hosts have had a chance to talk with conservative callers; and bloggers who know how to analyze politics have blogged about it.  Now it's my turn to blog a bit.  I'm sure I will have more thoughts about this over the next few weeks and months, but here are some preliminary ideas:

1)  The Republicans had amazingly good turnout.  The problem was not that conservative voters didn't show up; the problem was that those conservative voters voted against the Republican candidates, whether incumbents or new faces. 

2)  It would seem the conservative voters were voting against the Republicans, not for the Democrats.  And the Republicans who were voted out were in large measure the more middle-of-the-road ones.  According to the Family Research Council's "Washington Watch" email today, Republican who lost included a substantial number of those who voted against the federal marriage amendment, such as Lincoln Chafee, Nancy Johnson, Jim Leach, Jeb Bradley, and Charlie Bass.  In addition, FRC says that 94% of the candidates who received perfect marks on FRC Action's vote scorecard were re-elected.  And the majority of the newly-elected Democratic candidates ran on conservative platforms and issues. 

3)  Conservative ballot issues across the country won by significant margins.  In 7 of the 8 states where a one-man, one-woman marriage amendment was on the ballot, the measure passed with solid majorities.  (In Arizona, which had just had a state Supreme Court ruling preventing gay marriage, the measure lost, probably marketed as here in Colorado as "just not necessary here.")  Coloradans also refused to pass a referred measure creating gay partnerships.  Arizona passed an English-only law.  Legalization of marijuana failed in every state where it was attempted.  Californians refused to allow their government to increase taxes on oil companies, and Michigan passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, preventing any discrimination on the basis of race (including affirmative action).  Across the nation, the people voted overwhelming in favor of conservative measures and against liberal ones (even while voting out Republicans).

4)  It seems clear that existing Congressional leadership does not intend to spend a lot of time thinking about what happened or discussing the issues with the voters.  When conservatives abandon the Republican Party in such significant numbers, it is time for Republicans to ask themselves, "What happened, and how do we prevent it in the future?"  The answer cannot be more politics as usual.  The Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate must face their own failures and recognize why the American people feel the Republicans let them down.  Instead, they are rushing back to Washington in the next few weeks to try to vote in new leadership without ever stopping to find out what's really going on.

5)  On the other hand, there are potential leaders in our Congress who ARE asking themselves the tough questions.  The most remarkable of these, in my opinion, is Mike Pence, who yesterday announced he is running for House Minority Leader.  Here is part of his press release announcing his candidacy:

I am running for Republican leader, because I believe that we did not just lose our Majority-we lost our way. We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited government principles that minted the Republican Congress.

After 1994, we were a Majority committed to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform and the principles of a limited federal government. We delivered on balanced federal budgets, welfare reform and responded to a national emergency with defense spending, homeland security and tax cuts that put our economy back on its feet.

However, in recent years, to the chagrin of millions of Republicans, our Majority also voted to expand the federal government's role in education by nearly 100% and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years. We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

This was not in the Contract with America.

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people did not quit on the Contract with America, we did. In so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

        Credibility will be essential for our primary task these
         next two years-to expose, dismantle and defeat the 
        Democrat agenda. Without the votes necessary to stop 
        the advance of their liberal priorities, our mission will be 
        one of persuasion and tactics. Each of us must commit 
        ourselves to using our voices and areas of expertise to 
        dismantle Democrat arguments and expose their liberal, 
        big government agenda at every turn. (HT: Powerline)

Leaders like Mike Pence are absolutely necessary if the Republican Party is ever going to have a chance to return to leadership in this nation.  The people desperately want government leaders who stand for smaller government, lower taxes, more accountability, high standards for leaders, strong families, independence, and border security; and they are not willing to settle for wishy-washy pretense.  Mike Pence knows this and is willing to call it like it is.  He recognizes the value of public relations, of keeping the American people informed about what's really happening; he's also willing to fight rather than lie down and let the liberal media and leadership control what is happening.

It would be wise for ordinary people like us to contact our Republican leaders and let them know we want men and women like Mike Pence to lead the party in Congress.   Our voices might make the difference between the old-guard establishment and those who would effect real change.  And real change is the only thing that has any chance of defeating the agenda of those who would destroy us, whether gradually from the inside or suddenly by outside attack.

If you've been struggling, as I have from time to time, with discouragement about this President's accomplishments, you will find this article by Wayne Grudem to be a significant encouragement.  He addresses every major issue of concern to conservatives, and many we perhaps have hardly thought of yet, and details what President Bush has done.  He also talks about the war in Iraq, the McCain-Feingold bill, spending, and various other concerns that many of us have expressed. 

Here's his list of what the President has gotten done:

        He has been frustrated by a wayward and timid 
        Congress, and especially by a foolish Senate rule 
        that effectively requires 60 votes to pass anything, 
        but he himself has steadfastly done just what I (at 
        least) had hoped he would do with regard to:

        (a) appointing two excellent Supreme Court justices John 
        Roberts and Samuel Alito,

        (b) appointing dozens and dozens of Circuit Court and District 
        Court judges who are committed to just interpreting laws, not 
        making new laws from the bench,

        (c) defense against terror -- astoundingly, he has kept us free 
        from attack for over 5 years (and been criticized and attacked for 
        every part of that effort), and he has seen democratic govern-
        ments established in the Afghanistan and Iraq, setting in motion 
        a movement to change the history of the world by marginalizing 
        Islamic terrorism in Muslim countries,

        (d) school choice, doing what he can to promote this most signi-
        ficant of all needs to help overcome poverty,

        (e) abortion -- he signed the partial birth abortion ban law that 
        President Clinton vetoed twice (1996 and 1997), and he has 
        consistently been pro-life,

        (f) support for a Constitutional amendment on marriage (which 
        the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling last week shows we clearly 
        need),

        (g) the economy, pushing through several tax cuts that help 
        everyone, and as the tax cuts have helped the economy they 
        have done much good for the poor who need jobs, so that the 
        economy has weathered both 9/11 and the 2001 recession and 
        is now booming, the Dow Jones average is at its highest point 
        in history, and we produce three times more goods and services 
        than any economy in the world (we now produce about 33% of 
        the world's goods and services, and no other nation comes close),

        (h) creation of jobs, with economic policies that have given a 
        strong economy so that people who want jobs can find them 
        (the unemployment rate today is only 4.4%, the lowest in 
        years),  something again that especially helps the poor,   

        (i) wise use of the environment, resisting the immense pressure 
        to bring us onboard with the foolish Kyoto Protocol that is now 
        harming European economies and helping nothing, and wisely 
        supporting more domestic production of energy (especially ANWR 
        in Alaska), 

        (j) embryonic stem cell research (that is, the creation of the 
        beginnings of little babies just to harvest their parts), restricting 
        federal funding and taking immense criticism for it,

        (k) huge increases in aid to overcome AIDS in Africa, along with 
        promotion of abstinence-based programs, for which he has again 
        taken immense criticism,