Posted on

Ode to Covid – 2025

Just because it’s popular

Doesn’t mean it’s true!!

You’ll always find upon the ‘net’

People who’ll agree with you.

A poem written in response to the many who have told me…Covid’s just a bad cold…deal with it!!

Do you remember 2020, late in March, just after tea?

Covid 19 first became NZ’s latest enemy!

Grab your family and some food, and come back home (if you could)

From others we should isolate – still uncertain of our fate.

My house sale was meant to settle, but where would we live now?

Homeless with my mum and dad? I just had to wipe my brow!

Turned out the lawyers were busy still, so settlement was delayed!

Thank God, the “out” I hadn’t planned, but for which I’d surely prayed!

Working from home felt “safe” for some; subsidies for those affected.

Keeping jobs open was the government logic, as always, the “greedy” suspected.

Some businesses jigged their income (subsidies required a loss).

How their falsities affected others – they didn’t give a toss!

Worse still, the public (and bosses too) as we returned to “normality”

Decried “us” choosing to wear our masks, keeping safe, for sake of family.

I worked for a church where gatherings should have been the safest place…

If all obeyed the common rules, and routinely masked their face!

I saw your smirks (behind your smiles), as you walked away,

For my eldery Mum, I stayed masked, a lone soul in our sanctuary!

Masks fought off the virus, many a strand

For over two years…my silent stand.

Until you invited a helper from Perth

To sit in my office (2 weeks on this earth)!

On arrival she was ignorant, so I explained all the “stops”

Covid placed on our freedoms, while driving to the shops!

She used a mask when forced to buy her goods,

But didn’t bother elsewhere when she should!

Her coughing in my office started out little,

When asked to test, she returned “negative”.

It continued for days, and my masked stayed put

Except for my mum’s sandwiches, which we both partook!

Less than 24 hours after she left via air, I was sick as a dog…it was Covid, my fear!

I heard by next day, she too was ill, her Perth church now at risk as well.

Three other colleagues, fell ill from her source…

After meetings that week before she left our shores!

Ignorance is an effective tool, to rid someone of blame.

But really … if you use it, it is to your SHAME!

Covid struck me again last year, but this source I understood.

With No Sick leave, a widowed mum of two, masked as best she could!

It didn’t help my either Mum and or I,

So sick this time, I thought she’d die!

Again, the naysayers told me – “bold”

Covid’s just a nasty cold!

This wasn’t my experience, for two times now

Worse than my Meningitis – in a hospital bed!

But now in 2025, annually vaxed to help keep free

I get mild Covid and understand their complacency!

Covid this year, yes it’s true, a fever for a day or two!

A cold at bay with counter meds, but a cough that’s ripping my chest in two!

Even now, I can see how one might say…it’s just the ‘flu, get on with your day!

But I am so grateful for all JA did, when she harnessed the country, so our health could be free!

If you had all been as sick as the worst cases…sigh,

Our hospitals would have choked, and deaths would have been high!

I am more than happy of the shake-up we got, and a hustle to care for our neighbours in town!

You can’t blame JA for all our woes now,

they’re worldwide problems, regardless of lockdown!

Don’t point your finger, unless you are blameless

Of abusing the system for your own good.

Take a good honest look…were others in your heart,

As you coughed behind corners, not doing what you should!

And remember when in lockdown, were you paid for doing nought?

While others worked harder still, receiving pay much too short!!

And lastly, remember…

Just because it’s popular

Doesn’t mean it’s true!!

You’ll always find upon the ‘net’

People who’ll agree with you.

Anonymous
Posted on

Do you believe in ‘once saved, always saved’ (OSAS)? Why or why not?

Introduction
Biblical scholars have been arguing this question over the centuries under the alternate title of ‘eternal security’. Two distinct systems of theology, Calvinism and Arminianism, attempt to explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in the matter of salvation. How you answer this question will depend on which you adhere to most. A source of contention can be seen in two main passages in the Bible, which seem contradictory on first reading:
• John 3: 16 – For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (NIV 2012).
This is also supported by Jesus’ words to Martha in John 1: 25-26 …and whoever lives by believing in me will never die… (NIV 2012).
On the surface, it appears belief in God is all that is required to be saved, but could it also infer that if you stop believing, your salvation is put into question? What level of unbelief is needed, or what behaviours could imply possible unbelief?
• Paul discusses grace now reigning to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ in Romans 5: 21 (NIV 2012) and then asks the question in Romans 6:1 (NIV 2012), “… Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?”
There is more to this statement, which goes beyond the scope of this essay, but his response in Romans 8: 12-13 (NIV 2012) is critical in this discussion. In these later verses in Romans, Paul encourages believers not to rely on grace, but to reject a sinful lifestyle because their eternal destiny is dependent on their post-conversion lifestyle choice. This indicates one can lose their eternal security.
In this paper I propose that there are good arguments for and against ‘eternal security’ as evidenced in the Bible, where we should find the source of all theology. After describing these arguments, and discussing biblical evidence that both supports and challenges both sides, I will propose my viewpoint. The answer has eternal consequences, so the intention is to give readers enough substance to challenge their own beliefs and consider the way they should live their lives going forward. In particular, can we lower our level of responsibility and just rely on God’s grace to cover over a multitude of our sins? Or should we make every effort to do what is right and holy at all times, and take responsibility for all that we do, knowing that God’s grace is there for us when it is needed, but should never be abused?

The OSAS Argument
In the Bible there are often seemingly contradictory passages, and it behoves us to seek the true meaning through the original translations (Greek and Hebrew). In many cases, we can find the true meaning easily, but where there is a lack of clarity, we should look to what we know to be clear in the first instance. Then we should try to understand the conflicting verse within that context (a hermeneutical principle known as ‘the analogy of faith’). Following this principle, those who believe we can lose our salvation could be seen to be in error as they violate this principle in two ways:
• They base their understanding of the gospel on a few difficult or unclear passages rather than on the many very clear ones;
• They overthrow the correct interpretation of clear passages by understanding them in the light of faulty views of the unclear or more difficult passages of scripture (J. Hampton Keathley 2004).

The major arguments around OSAS seem to be centred around whether or not persistent personal sin after salvation can exclude you from eternal life. A key change that takes place between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT) is the method of atonement for sin. In Leviticus 16 the Lord tells Moses how Aaron must come before the presence of God once a year (at the Ark of the Covenant) to atone for the sins of the people. In the NT, Jesus died for our sins once and for all, making our atonement for sins complete. If we believe in Jesus, we receive the Holy Spirit to dwell within us. He is the presence of God, and it is this power we now possess that will keep us from sinning. John 3:16 tells us clearly that whoever believes in Jesus has eternal life (NIV 2012).

Many scholars have argued that this last verse is the end of the matter, taking the approach of the French theologian, John Calvin (1509 – 1564) who based his system of theology on the five tenets commonly referred to as “TULIP” (Piper 2015). On the other side of the argument, Arminians espouse the views in the Five Articles of Remonstrance of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius, 1560 – 1609 (Arminius n.d.)
While all the tenets affect this discussion, one of the main arguments between the two views is whether or not:
• God’s grace is irresistible so no one can lose their salvation of their own accord, supporting OSAS, as in Calvinism;
• God allows His desire to save all to be resisted by an individual’s will, that could lead to losing your salvation, as in the Arminian doctrine.
While Calvin and Arminius debated this in the 17th century, some of the central issues could be traced back to Augustine’s disputes with the Pelagian’s much earlier in the 5th century and are ongoing today (Wikipedia, History of the Calvinist-Arminian Debate 2019).

Discussion of the Biblical Evidence
The key verse in support of OSAS is the much-quoted:
John 3: 16 – For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (NIV, 2012).
John Piper drew on the following scriptures to support the understanding of the gift of eternal life (Piper 2015):
Matthew 10:29; Luke 18:29-30; John 3:16, 36; John 5:24, 6:40, 17:2-3; Romans 6:23; Galatians 6:8; 1 Timothy 1:16, 6:12; Titus 1:2, 3:5-7; 1 John 2:24-25, 5:11-13; Jude 1:21 (NIV 2012).
As alluded to earlier, if belief in Jesus is all that is needed to have eternal life, then we must look at ‘belief’ carefully to make sure of our eternal security. A common understanding of belief is trust, faith or confidence in someone or something. In John 3:16, belief is much more than just having an intellectual trust in someone (in this case, the one true God in the person of Jesus), as ‘(e)ven the demons believe that – and shudder’ in James 2:19 (NIV 2012). It requires action in the form of faith that will transform your life to save you from the eternal consequences of sin and demands our total surrender and obedience to God’s word. Belief in Jesus can also imply love of Jesus and following how He lives as shown in these verses: John 14:15, 21; 1 John 2:5-6; 1 John 5:1-3 (NIV 2012).

But can lower levels of belief, or actions that indicate unbelief, affect our salvation? In Calvinism, perseverance of the saints works on the premise that God will enable a believer to persevere once believing in Christ. This supposes there is only belief or disbelief. What if there are levels of belief below true belief? The Arminian view Nixon espouses holds that true belief requires adherence to the expectations of holiness required of believers who claim to follow Christ. It doesn’t mean absolute perfection is required but does mean that persistent sin, if not repented of, can cause you to lose your salvation. Piper draws on these verses that teach sinful behaviour is antithetical to faith:
Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Ephesians 5: 3-7; 1 Timothy 6:9 (NIV 2012).

Since Jesus himself said we need faith to believe, it follows that sinful behaviour is akin to disbelief. To have real faith is to take up our cross and follow Jesus as seen in Matthew 16:24-25 (NIV 2012). Jay Lucas taught his congregation that an outward profession of faith without an inward regeneration meant you never really possessed Christ at all, so they couldn’t lose a salvation they never had. God requires commitment to the process of sanctification to bring salvation to fruition (Lucas n.d.; Nixon 2019, 89). Piper concurred with these thoughts, claiming no sin a believer commits can result in condemnation or loss of salvation, but that believers who live in continued sin are hypocrites, and not really believers at all (Piper 2015).

Piper, while also a proponent of Calvinism, supports the need to continue in one’s faith to be finally saved (Piper 2015). He points out faith and actions must work together as shown in Genesis 22 and reiterated in James 2:22, where Abraham was about to offer Isaac as a sacrifice up the mountain, and God intervened and provided a ram as a replacement, for Abraham’s faithfulness. Other passages in the NT that support the view that salvation is conditional upon faith or that we must protect our faith are:
Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Hebrews 3:6, 14; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 John 1:8-9; John 15:5-6 (NIV 2012).

Nixon takes the Arminian view claiming that while the initial justification is based on faith ‘whoever believes in him’, which is your initial commitment, the final judgment is based on faithfulness, which is your post-conversion commitment (Nixon 2019, 96). He stresses the concept of Commitment, which provides a connection with judgment being based on deeds spoken throughout the NT in verses such as:
Matthew 16:27; John 5:29; Romans 2:6-10; 14:10-12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7-10; Ephesians 6:8; and 1 Peter 1:14-17 (NIV 2012).
Nixon believes, ‘commitment wends a balanced way between the justification-by-faith passages and the judgment-by deeds passages, giving equal weight to both’ (Nixon 2019, 95). He goes on to say that while Romans 2:6-10 does not suggest ‘sinless perfection’ (Nixon 2019, 94) no amount of good works can erase his disloyalty to God and to God’s way of life (Nixon 2019, 95). Abandoning commitment to God’s lifestyle is tantamount to abandoning one’s faith.
This discussion of the Biblical evidence reinforces why there has been so much debate by so many theologians over this whole issue for a long period of time. It will probably continue long into the future, but is it God’s intention to dwell on these issues? Or would he rather we spent our energy on reaching those that are yet in the position to be able to lose a salvation they haven’t yet received?

Conclusion
It is my belief that Once Saved, Always Saved is a human term that does not clearly reflect the full intent of God’s saving grace and His requirement for us to repent and turn away from our sins in order to follow Jesus and inherit eternal life.
Clearly, some passages in the Bible state we are saved for all eternity, and in others, we can lose our eternity through repeated sin. Logic follows that we should not risk our eternity by knowingly sinning, but if we do err, we should seek forgiveness and turn away from it.
I am not willing to risk being told at the end of my days, “Depart from me”! God’s love for us was so great, giving His only son’s life for us to have eternal life, that I would want to show my appreciation by extending that love back to God. How can I show love, and at the same time sin and just expect it to be covered by God’s immense grace?
I have been saved and accepted through my positional union with Christ and know that no-one can remove me from God’s hand. I am not interested in taking part in the perfect tense argument used by some to support their saved state, or just relying on the expectation of grace to cover my sins.
I don’t consider loving God and keeping His commandments “work”; doing these things doesn’t enter the realm of thinking I am being saved by “works”. I know that I can confess my sins and God is faithful to forgive them. I would rather love God by trying to emulate how Jesus lived on earth as our example. I want to act in a way that the answer to the OSAS question would never need consideration, let alone have to be proved by God, at the end of my days on earth.

References
Arminius, James. n.d. “The Works of James Arminius – Vol.1 Nine thrological questions, Q 7 and 8.” Wesley Centre Online. Accessed October 27, 2019. http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/the-works-of-james-arminius/.
J. Hampton Keathley, III. 2004. “1.4. Assurance of Eternal Security.” Bible.org – ABCs for Christian Growth – Laying the Foundation . 30 June. Accessed October 24, 2019. https://bible.org/seriespage/14-assurance-eternal-security.
Lucas, Jay. n.d. “Is Salvation Forever? The Doctrine of Eternal Security. A position paper prepared for the Grace Community Church.” Accessed October 21, 2019. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.cloversites.com/c5/c5ee493b-e6ad-4985-bdea-1a4665570f2e/documents/Is_Salvation_Forever.pdf.
NIV. 2012. NIV Faithlife Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Nixon, Timothy L. 2019. “Exegesis of Romans 8:12-13: The Epitome of Paul’s Response to the Question of Romans 6:1.” Scholar Works at Harding. Spring. Accessed October 21, 2019. https://scholarworks.harding.edu/hst-etd/12/.
Pawson, Davis. 1996. Once Saved, Always Saved?: A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Accessed October 29, 2019. https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XNJ3BgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=once+saved+always+saved&ots=AjK8zpz0gr&sig=DkaGKAIcsnDBFnG3T5twRzc42UY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=once%20saved%20always%20saved&f=false.
Piper, John. 2015. “Watershed differences between Calvinists and Arminians.” desiringGod.org. 15 August. Accessed October 25, 2019. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/watershed-differences-between-calvinists-and-arminians.
Wikipedia contributors. 2019. John Piper (theologian). 21 September. Accessed 10 27, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Piper_(theologian)&oldid=916990996.
Wikipedia, contributors. 2019. “History of the Calvinist-Arminian Debate.” Wikipedia. 31 October. Accessed November 2, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate#Augustine_and_Pelagius.

Tenets Calvinism Arminianism
Total Depravity Every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin so humans can’t come to God on their own account Even though people are depraved and corrupt, they can decide to trust God or not for their salvation
Election Unconditional – God selects His people based on His will and not on anything inherently worthy in the individual Conditional – Tied in with Pre-destination, God elected those to bring to salvation – those He foresaw would believe and provide their own decisive impetus to maintain their faith
Atonement Limited – Jesus died for all, but it would only be effective for the elect Unlimited – Jesus died for all, and this would become effective for all who believed through faith. In other words, faith is the human means of obtaining forgiveness of sins that was purchased by the cross
Grace Irresistible – Those called will come to salvation through God’s work of renewal in our hearts Prevenient – God’s work of renewal in our hearts is in response to our act of saving faith. Grace therefore enables but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation
Perseverance of the Saints People will persevere and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from him Conditional – Arminians say God works to preserve His people, but He does not always prevent some who were born again from falling away to destruction

(Arminius n.d.; Pawson 1996; Piper 2015; Wikipedia, contributors 2019)

Posted on

20/20 Vision – A clear way forward this New Year of 2020

I realised this new decade was to be opened by 2020 – the only year where 20/20 vision would be an appropriate play on words! When it comes to setting New Year goals, there is a tendency to reflect on what went wrong the last year, and what changes you want to make so it doesn’t happen again.

If a change was that easy, you would have done it last year when the grip of problems started to tighten. But changing isn’t easy to initiate, so I thank God for the opportunity each year to get some priorities back where they belong.

NB Point to self … God actually tells us “His mercies are new every morning”, so why do we waste all the other 364 mornings (or 365 as this year allows) and not do something about change every morning?

I actually started this post 6 years ago, so that gives you an idea of how change can be difficult to embark upon (or maybe I just got busy). In reality, however, I have made huge changes in that time, but it is something we need to work on continually.

  1. What area of your life seems lost or hopeless? Ask God for the strength to resist giving way to discouragement.
  2. How does God’s promise to “repay you for the years the locusts have eaten” give you hope?
  3. How does the thought that what you are enduring bring you comfort, when you know it is “but for a moment” in light of eternity?Joel 2:25, 27

“I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm—my great army that I sent among you . . . Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.”

Well, it is now September 1st 2020, and I never did finish the post – and WHAT CHANGE we have been through since then! This is more pertinent than ever, so I am now posting it, with a little extra comment…

Every morning … be grateful you are here to enjoy another day! Focus on what you can do to make a difference to your circumstances, and don’t dwell on what you can’t change. Be kind and add a smile to someone’s day (a little hard behind a mask, our compulsory added fashion item at present). You can always show your smile with a kind gesture!

Posted on

Transplant Tourism: A Euphemism for Organ Trafficking!

What could possibly go wrong? Take the survey and find out!
What could possibly go wrong? Take the survey and find out!

I am studying a Science Communication paper this summer semester, and instead of studying new topics for all the different styles of writing and presentation, we are covering the theme of organ transplantation and organ availability for all our various media.

So-o-o-o interesting, to really study a topic in depth that was completely foreign to me.

One of the communication methods we must discover and use is writing and analysing a survey. If you have the time (just 5 or 6 minutes maximum) I would really appreciate it if you would take the survey our group designed.

We want to find out about what types of legislation you would feel comfortable with the New Zealand government enacting, should they decide to try and increase the supply of organs for transplantation, which is currently very low, globally.

Sorry the survey is now closed

 

Posted on

Snooze and SOZO go hand in hand!

Snoozing
Snoozing

I had a wonderful day today at SOZO ministry training in Silverdale, with an amazing English emergency doctor, now working for Bethel Ministries in Australia. Kate Jutsum showed us how simple it can be to help pray for people to be released from the fear and bondage that can sap the strength out of their lives. By encouraging them to speak with Father God, they find a new way to have a relationship with the one who cares for us more than all others. They can be ‘Sozo’-ed – saved, healed and delivered, to enjoy the full presence of God in their lives.

Some take home one-liners I will remember:

  • The Coathanger of Mystery: We can’t afford our experiences to water down the truth of who God is!
  • We have to believe through the circumstances and believe God can do it!
  • We can get ‘slimed’ by coming under an atmosphere in a place and that can stay with us, e.g. in Islamic nations we can get ‘slimed’ by the atmosphere of martyrdom.
  • God can turn negatives around so profoundly that you might be tempted to think He put the stumbling block in front of you in the first place – He didn’t!
  • The enemy can sow a lie into the ruts of our wounds!

And what does Snooze have to do with SOZO? Well, adjust the letters and you will get “en sozo”. I spent alot of time in prayer today – well that was my excuse. In fact, I had such a busy week, I snoozed off a couple of times listening today!!! Not because it wasn’t interesting, but because candles can only burn at two ends for a short while before they burn out. I was burned out after late nights working, and busy days with school visits this week at my new job at Kelly Tarlton’s.

So, if you want some transformation in your life – find out more about the SOZO transformational training.

Posted on

Kia Kaha Ireland – Gifted Awareness Week 2013

Gifted Education Awareness Week Ireland 22 - 27 September 2013
Gifted Education Awareness Week Ireland
22 – 27 September 2013

In essence, if we want to make someone more aware of something, we need to first educate them. Educating people about the gifted should help people to become aware of the idiosyncrasies that often accompany these special people. But to be aware, you need to know more than the facts; you need to be intimately acquainted with the subject.

Some synonyms of awareness are:

  • alertness – more than just knowing, alertness implies you have a keen sense for the presence of the attribute.
  • appreciation – having a sense of awe about the subject, and keen to treat it with respect.
  • consciousness – keeping alert in the presence of the subject, ready to attend to the needs.
  • experience – being familiar with many varieties of the subject.
  • perception – have the ability to discern what is actually happening deep down; not just a surface impression.
  • realisation – when you can put all the pieces together to make sense of something.
  • understanding – knowing more than the when? where? and who?; knowing the what? how? and why?

This sort of awareness of giftedness is not going to occur in a 2 – 4 hour lecture in a pre-service education course – but it’s a start. It is not going to happen in a week of national awareness of the plight of gifted education – but it’s a great start.

Just as average New Zealanders have lately become more knowledgeable  about racing America’s Cup catamarans through prolonged exposure to the racing in San Francisco Bay, gifted education will need repeated exposure to break through the ignorance and diffidence of many mainstream educators.

Teachers make a difference in students’ lives. If they are to make a positive difference, then they need to know what actions they take that have a positive impact on their students. Over 20 years ago, William Purkey developed the Invitational Learning Model (Kane & Fielder, 2010) on the basis that learning thrives with enthusiasm. Enthusiastic teachers of the gifted will find out what encourages the development of their students, and seek to provide an environment that invites them to take part. These teachers will model an attitude of encouragement and expectation, and gifted learners will likely perceive themselves much more positively.

Kane and Fielder (2010), described Purkey’s ‘four different levels of invitation’, starting with the least inviting at number one, to the most inviting at number four:

  1. Intentionally disinviting: purposefully harmful; degrading and destroying self-worth in an individual. This occurs when teachers have personal biases that manifest in thoughts of the gifted as a form of elitism, ‘you have just got a bad attitude’.
  2. Unintentionally disinviting: Careless, thoughtless boundaries. Commonly used when teachers say, “Of course, everyone is gifted in some area” or “I have never had one in my class”. They simply don’t know what they don’t know!
  3. Unintentionally inviting: These teachers have positive results with gifted students even though they rarely plan for it specifically. This can lead to a lack of consistency, and can confuse learners as a result.
  4. Intentionally inviting: This is the highest level of professionalism and realises human potential to the greatest extent.

There is a darker side to awareness which should be kept in check, too. As with all economic decisions, we are often asked to show the value of what we do – is it worth the financial investment? Can we add value to distinguish ourselves from the competitor? Hunt and Merrotsy (2010) cautioned us in selective schools to be sure the value we add comes directly from student needs and does not degenerate into a mere comparison of education providers in leagues tables. I would add, gifted learners’ results should not be just used to ‘advertise’ a school to encourage future attendees, but should be part of a transparent process of achievement for ‘all’ learners.

Clickenbeard (2007) added to the economic argument in advocating for gifted learners, when she called for the need to consider higher societal or aggregate benefits. Providing for gifted learners, she maintained, would not only result in a higher tax take (presumably from their advanced learning generating higher incomes) and greater productivity and GDP. She went on to claim this would also be offset by savings in costs from crime and prisons, where, I guess, some of the more ‘notoriously intelligent’ end up after a compromised education that didn’t meet their needs!

In New Zealand, Moltzen (2003) explained that the move to greater awareness of gifted education was linked to the change in the economy of the country from a more subsidised, agrarian-based economy to a more diversified, innovative economy. Clickenbeard (2007) also looked at the argument for school funding reform that could return the savings made by government through the years of acceleration (and lost opportunity cost to schools for the years the gifted learners are ‘not’ enrolled and subsequently funded) and have it returned to schools as extra funding for gifted education.

I am a keen Kiwi sailor that has just been through the last few weeks of nail-biting trauma, as our boys in black, Emirates Team New Zealand, tried to lift the ‘Auld Mug’ from Oracle Team USA. America’s Cup yachting started in 1851 as a race between the British and the Americans and has been a hard fought contest ever since. I believe our boys were winners on the day, even without the trophy, as they displayed humility and determination to succeed right to the bitter end. Their attitude won the hearts of a both New Zealanders and Americans. They quietly advocated for themselves, knowing who they were and what they could achieve, even under pressure from the naysayers.

These boys are a group of gifted sailors who persevered despite all, and we loved them for it. Advocacy all comes back to people knowing how to portray themselves to the world they are living in, appealing to the funders to support their campaign, and doing the best they can with what they have got. Many negative ‘non-yachties’ who thought the New Zealand government spend of $36million was extreme now support the cause simply because of the humility of the spokesperson and skipper, Dean Barker, and his afterguard. They may have been ‘unintentionally inviting’ in their approach – but how much more can we win hearts by being ‘intentionally inviting’?

Could we ever see the day where gifted education wins the hearts of the country simply because of the humility of the advocates? This might be a tall ask, but it might be the end of the pendulum swing we need to head towards. We have a Maori saying in New Zealand, “Kia Kaha” – “Stay Strong”. So, to all the Gifted Advocates in Ireland, Kia Kaha!

References

Kane, M. & Fielder, E.D. (2010). Invitational Learning: Classrooms with enthusiasm. Available from www.seisummit.org/Data/Sites/1/PDF/invitationallearning.pdf?

Clinkenbeard, P.R. (2007). Economic Arguments for Gifted Education, Gifted Children: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol2/iss1/3

Moltzen, R. (2003). Gifted education in New Zealand. Gifted Education International, 18, 139-152.

 

Posted on

Restoration and Prophecy

HydrangeasProphet Kris Valloton prophesied the restoration of marriages over those who had a broken heart. He followed with a message about what happens when God has given you a prophetic word and the brook dries up!

1 Kings 17: 1 – 7

You may be doing exactly what God has called you to do, but for some reason time has passed and what you expected to happen just doesn’t and you feel like God has left you hanging with regards to His prophecy. Kris explained that some prophecies have an expiration date. It can be our own fault they ran out. You may have been disobedient to God’s intention! You might say you’ll keep standing on your prophetic claim until hell freezes over. Well, Hell has frozen over, so you might as well do something about it.

In Exodus 32 Moses hears from God that He is so angry with his people that He is ready to destroy them. Moses reminds God of the promise He had made to Israel and God relents. He tells us that sometimes we receive words from God like an obedient slave rather than a close friend. Often times He is testing our heart rather than determining our destiny. A friend of God is someone who interacts with Him, not just one who obeys. Moses tells God that unless He goes with them into the promised land, they did not want to go. They felt compelled to be in relationship with Him which also showed their influence with Him. What is the purpose of all this, God?

In 1 Kings 17: 8, God tells Elijah to go down to Zarephath in Sidon, to a widow who was to provide for him. When Elijah arrives, the widow is about to eat her last meal with her son and prepare to die, because they have so little. Elijah says to her in faith, just bake me a loaf of bread first. He told her God promises that her jar will not run out, and it doesn’t. Kris reminds us that when all around looks hopeless, and yet you have had multiple confirmations for what you are doing, stop feeling sorry for yourself and start prophesying into your own situation.

Kris also warns however, that there is a spirit of entitlement brooding over the body of Christ. We are sons and daughters of the king – the Bible tells us so! He makes it clear that we don’t become a king until we have been a good slave. He put it this way – some people are so busy working all their way down from the top! Sometimes our head gets too big to wear the crown designed for us.

In 2 Kings 4: 1 – 7, when there was a famine in the land, Elisha helped a poor widow. She thought all she had was a small jar of oil, but Elisha used this and her faith to multiply what she had and she was able to earn enough to repay her husband’s creditors.* So many times we compare what we have or don’t have to meet our needs with the size of the need. This shouldn’t be the case in God’s kingdom. With Him, all things are possible. Jesus fed 5000 with just a small lunchbox.

In 2 Corinthians 12: 9 we are reminded that God’s grace is all we need, and that our weakness can combine with God’s strength to accomplish all. We are not just our strengths – we are also our weaknesses. But, God has divinely designed us to be flawed in areas so we have to depend on Him or others around us to function properly. If we have weaknesses, when we divinely accomplish something, we certainly know God has had to be there for it to happen. We are to give to others, and our standard of measure will return to us in the same standard. Give abundantly and reap abundantly. The measure itself is not of amount, but of sacrifice. God expects equal sacrifice, not equal giving.

Hebrews 11 reminds us that it is faith that pleases God. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. If we stop hoping, our heart can get sick. In verse 13, the heroes of faith all died before their promises had been received. Hope feels; Faith sees; Lover never fails. There is no such thing as blind faith! To do the impossible you have to see the invisible.

 

Posted on

Who decides what giftedness is?

WCGTC logoNew Zealand may have lost a World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, but Kentucky and technology has kept those of us unable to attend this one very well connected. It was just like being there ‘in person’ (ahem, she coughs), as I listened with passion to Roland Perrson’s Keynote address –

“Who decides what giftedness is? On the dilemma of researching and educating the gifted mind.”

So much better to hear his words, than to have to wait for the printed versions later.

To me, the biggest take-home (even though I am already at home!) had to be –

  1. We in leadership need to adapt more to the traits of our gifted scholars, those of risk-taking, setting things straight, not being afraid to challenge the status quo, question established traditions (some ideas from Winner, 1996) and challenge current knowledge monopolies, if we are to make a difference.

Are we ready to become more like those we advocate for? Or are we there already, and people find it hard to work with and accept our passionate personality type?

This last question also relates to the second ‘take-home’ from his address.

  1. To be in a place of influence, people must first adopt, conform and prove loyal to the dominant knowledge monopolies and their influential leaders; their allegiance must be proven before they are rewarded. Many of our gifted would find the sort of compromise needed an almost insurmountable challenge, given their traits identified in number 1 above!

This gets to the very heart of the acceptance of giftedness and following on from this, the funding of education provisions that will promote it. I agree with Roland, that their potential contribution to the global economy, to solving global problems, and meeting their own specific needs are important.  I love his comment, with regard to new threats in synthetic biology, nanotechnology, machine intelligence, and manipulation of genetic structure (Bostrum, in press):

“Will this human error become human terror?”

Roland (from Sweden) identified two problems that cause gifted education to suffer with problems of theory, implementation, and worldwide recognition, namely:

  1. Dogmatism ( a closed mind, characterised by stubborn refusal to acknowledge truth; a wilful irrationality leading to unsound thinking; something that can contribute tremendously to survival), and
  2. Frequent failure to recognise human nature (and take it into account in research and application).

Roland makes a great case for why this is so (you will have to listen to his speech here) but I want to look at the ability of creative gifted people to compromise, or work within the status quo.

I believe policy makers may want the ‘intellectual profit’ from our gifted population, but only if they can fit into their predetermined goals. Roland reminded us that Galileo was imprisoned for his scholarly opposition, and today the same sorts of ‘opposing scholars’ (read here, our creative gifted individuals) might also be viewed with antagonism if they are not conforming to societal expectations. As Roland reminds us, gifted often refuse to accept that which does not conform to their own logic, conviction, or insight. Their conclusions often don’t coincide with the dominant knowledge economies and therefore they may experience challenges with cooperation or eventually, continued employment. If this is the case, I wonder if there is a ceiling placed on funding ‘general education’ for the gifted and talented, but avenues outside this that government can selectively fund to promote their own ideologies.

This shouldn’t be, and probably hints at scepticism. But, Roland’s address also hinted at scepticism and Big Brother tactics, and I think realistically, we need to consider everything that might be causing a disjunction for our gifted and talented. We need to BE the change our gifted population needs; we need to encourage them to know this themselves and be their own best advocates. But, we will make more inroads if we can work with the system than fight against it. Roland spoke of Clickenbeard (2007) encouraging educators to increasingly emphasise the economic benefits of their work when interacting with policy makers to be listened to.

Funding in industry follows economic benefits – in the absence of any other form of economic benefit analysis in education, we now have National Standards! As educators, we need to be accountable for our work with the children – scary as it might sound to some. Others who have worked outside of education know only too well what accountability looks like. It is a reasonable expectation that we will be measured against some sort of goal. We would be listened to better if we were offering targets for our gifted education goals to be measured against, not just rebelling against the pre-set standards. Pro-activeness, like shown in our recent Gifted Awareness campaign is a great step forward. Encouraging our gifted students to advocate for themselves is huge!

Roland Persson started with the question, “Who decides what giftedness is?” The New Zealand Education Ministry has left that to us, to every community, to decide it for themselves. Let’s keep the momentum rolling and support those members of our gifted education organisations, advisory services, special interest groups, public and private organisations, and anyone like me, who just simply believes in gifted education and wants to see the best for our gifted kids, so they cope well into their gifted adulthood.

Roll on Odense in 2015! Saving my pennies already.

References

Bostrom,  N.  (2013).  Existential  risk  prevention  as  global  priority.  Global  Policy,  in  press.

Perrson, R.S. (2013). Who decides what giftedness is? On the dilemma of researching and educating the gifted mind. Keynote address at the 20th World Conference of Gifted and Talented Children, 10-14 August, 2013, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

Winner,  E.  (1996).  Gifted  children.  Myths  and  realities.  New  York:  Basic  Books.

Posted on

Dangers and Responsibilities of the Internet

note_from_the_teacherHere is a timely reminder to keep an eye on what our gifted students need to be careful of as they participate in open online courses and MOOCs for meeting their needs. So much is available free, outside of the “walled” offerings that are paid for. Watch out that “free” sign doesn’t become more costly than you’d ever imagined.

http://blip.tv/core-ed/online-dangers-and-responsibility-not-so-virtual-4442139

Thanks to Brett for his words of wisdom.

Posted on

What all teachers in regular classrooms can do for the gifted … # 1

gifted education blog
Making learning different and meaningful for all.

Teachers often think they just haven’t got time to differentiate the curriculum for gifted students. They may not use these exact words, but they look at all the other things they have to report on each week, and doing something extra on top of that for a small minority is beyond them. Besides, if they don’t really have training in teaching gifted students, what should they do?

Here are a few things that could be done in the regular classroom that would help gifted students and not hinder the rest of the class along the way. And it won’t take too much extra time, but will probably save you much stress and time in the long term. It is the start of an ongoing set of ideas especially helpful when getting started with meeting the needs of gifted children in the regular classroom.

  1. Accept there are gifted students, even if you don’t know what they should look like. If a parent tells you their child is gifted, it is usually not out of pride or bragging. It is because they have lived 24/7 with this child for their entire life, and they know there is something different about the way they think and do life. Being accepted as they are is one of the best things you can do for a gifted student, and it doesn’t take you any time at all, short of a thank you or a smile when parents offer you advice that might help you with their child.
  2. Think about what sort of investigations could be done at a deeper level right at the planning stage. This is the time you should be thinking about your gifted students, not just when they finish early or start to cause you challenges in the classroom lessons. Just as you have to think about ESOL or physical disabilities when you are planning, so you should consider how what you are planning will affect the child who might already know what you are planning to introduce to everyone in your classroom.
  3. Use labels  and practices that will not alienate your gifted child from their peers. If you say “Extra for experts” you imply that only those who complete the task at hand are experts, and worthy of a greater challenge. Gifted students are worthy of a challenge all the time, as is every student in the classroom. If they already know what is being taught, they should not have to repeat it just to earn an extra challenge. Try finding out what level each child is at before you start a topic; pretest, or maybe challenge them with the “Five most difficult first” strategy. If anyone is already familiar with the difficult level, then they should have an advanced level made available to them, or something that will challenge them to apply this knowledge in a new way.
  4. Choice is paramount for gifted students. This involves being flexible in what you will accept as an outcome that displays what the student has learned. It might be negotiated individually with the gifted student, or be part of a whole class choice system. Having a variety of products based on learning preferences, or Bloom’s taxonomy, or The Six Thinking Hats, or allowing a different context for a standard problem will accommodate the needs of gifted students to work on meaningful tasks that they are passionate about.
  5. Have a variety of question starters at all levels of thinking displayed prominently in the classroom to provide the opportunity to “differentiate on the spot” when challenged by a student needing something extra “now”. Ask the student to reword a topic with a particular question starter, or decide it yourself.   Useful starters are … In what ways could you…? Thinking about this from the …’s point of view, how else could you …? Show how many different ways it might be possible to …? From your experience, how has this helped you …? If you are not very creative, ask someone else in the school who is, or brainstorm some good question starters at your next syndicate or staff meeting.
  6. Ask your gifted students what they are interested in – it could be Antarctica, Roald Dahl books, Science Fiction, trains, aliens, or anything that they can sit and learn about for hours. Try to incorporate these passions into the curriculum they do at least once a term. Ask them a question about it at least once a week. Give them a smile at least once a day, especially when you see them reading or hear them talking about their favourite topic.

Try these six ideas out over the next few weeks, or whenever the time is appropriate, and let me know how you get on.