Yes, really! I won’t keep boring you with this transition. But I didn’t say that this is the last words on being retired, because I know nothing of that, yet.
Upon request by my Principal to know if any teachers are coming into work next week, I replied:
“I need to clean out my classroom next week. I cannot be there on Thursday, because part of the day I will be at the doctor’s office with my wife.
I have years of accumulated “stuff” to redistribute, describe the whereabouts to others, consolidate, recycle, and file is #13. It will be a walk down memory lane and a very cathartic exercise.
I feel very much like I did during several years when I was freshly married and underemployed. I was expectant and prayerful about God’s leading and honestly intermittently scared half out of my wits.
I have plans and desires, none of which have come about at the moment, but my biggest hope is that my latter years will be more for God’s glory than my former.”
Retiring is not so much the end of something old as it is the beginning of something new. It will be appropriate to reminisce and tell old stories, but I must resist getting into the default mode of always falling back on an “I remember when” story. People tire of them quickly. Instead, my backward looking should be to inspire and caution myself and others for the forward going. How can I move forward? How can I think differently? How can I utilize what I’ve learned to be creative in what I don’t yet know? Business and education language frequently talks about flexibility and change. Yes, they are inevitable, but they are code words for embrace stress. Why not rather deal with the change that life brings rather than make it your bread and drink, your breathe and thought? I want to keep working and I must keep working, but I want to go at a pace and with a demeanor that is free of stress. For me, that is more than a lack of financial stress, it is a way of thinking about my expectations of myself.
My last day, I had an “exit interview” scheduled with my Principal. I had a suspicion that it was a party, but I was very surprised with the scope and style of the “party”. Colleagues waited in line for quite sometime as a fellow retiree and I greeted each and every person who drove by. As odd as it might seem, it was more intimate than a “regular” party, because I was able to speak to each individual separately, hugging some* and praying with a few. Our district has a long standing tradition of giving retirees a rocking chair at their retirement party. I like rocking chairs (“Rocking Chair”), so it is already placed prominently in my house for use. I am thankful that a colleague took a few pictures with her cellphone for a record of this drive through party.



Congratulatory Comments from our Principal

Hanging out in the shade

Got to have food at a party


Greetings!
*Oops! didn’t quite socially distance in every case, but I asked permission to hug those that I did.
Read Full Post »
Why our laws are not nor will be just.
Posted in America, Change, Civil Debate, Cultural commentary, Freedom, General, God's Law, Government, Judgment, Repentance, tagged Civil Debate, Constitution, Family Jurisdiction, God's Law, Government Jurisdiction, Repentance, Rule of Law, Unjust Law on June 19, 2020| Leave a Comment »
If you are reading this blog entry and have not read the prequel (“Basis of Civil Debate“), it will seem to lack context and may be confusing. Please read the previous blog entry first so that I may be truly heard in this one.
The debate itself was about the following subject:
Mr. L stated that he hated child labor laws because they represented an abrogation of family jurisdiction. The state does not have the right to tell the family how to function even if the family structure is severely compromised or clearly in the wrong. I pointed out that the reason such laws exist was because of Dickens’ writing about conditions during the Industrial Revolution. Those conditions were not right and needed to be stopped. At least two times, and I think more, I agreed in principle with Mr. L’s statement and Mr. F’s restatement of their point.
In part I may have not been heard because of my initial statement about Dickens. Why you may ask? It was immediately thrown back at me that poor conditions are no reason to lay aside the law of God. Again I agreed, but I was not allowed to state my case. The more I tried the louder the counter repetitions of the first point became.
What then was my point? I agree that it is wrong to lay aside the God-given jurisdiction of the family in favor of a mis-placed jurisdiction of government. However, I do not believe that, for instance, child labor laws are the problem or that eliminating them will solve the problem. In fact, I do not believe that under the present form of government, ruled mostly by emotion rather than law, that child labor laws, or many other family jurisdiction abrogating laws, will be rescinded until the real problem is solved. Why do I believe that? I believe that people will not allow abuse of women and children to continue even if the means of attempting to stop it is wrong and a failure* in practice.
So, what is the real problem and what is the solution? We the people, by and large have turned away from God and His Law. Until and unless we repent and turn back to His way we will not rescind these laws because we think we know better than God. And maybe we should not even try to change the laws and we definitely won’t, because there is too much travesty and hurt in a society where God’s rule is debased and ignored. Does that mean we can never go back to being a godly nation**? No, it does not, but there will need to be some deep repentance on the part of parents and employers and government officials, both bureaucratic and elected, and most notably those who claim to know God. The order of retracing our steps to godliness is more likely repentance, revival, renewal, then reformation of life and law. That does not mean that to have just, God honoring laws we must be a perfect nation, but we must first have a majority of the people acknowledging God and God’s Law. When the travesties of child abuse in the home and the society at large are rarities rather than regular fare, then we will be more likely to correct our laws to reflect God’s Law.
To simplify this idea, let me summarize by saying the following: You don’t legislate morality; morality determines just law. Mr. L stated the first half of my statement at one point in his argument, and I believe he could agree with the second half of the statement if he had truly heard me. That might have involved me having a better handle on how to present it to him and Mr. F.
The Founding Fathers, by in large, got it right. They based our laws on God’s law. Even as we, they had influences that drew them away from the knowledge of God and His law. Therefore, unlike the Scriptures, the Constitution is a human document, which cannot be perfect. It is very likely the best document of its kind produced by humans, because it so largely reflects God’s law. And I agree with Washington when he said to Henry Lee, “Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.” (letter 10/31/1786) It has been and is being trampled upon because the basis for this document, God’s law, is trampled.
*Yes, child-labor laws stopped children from working in dangerous conditions, but it did not stop the abuse of children.
**I do not equate us with Israel, nor do I say that we have no heinous sins for which God will judge us. However, we have a system that is based on God’s laws with many past examples of godly people and building of God’s kingdom around the world.
Read Full Post »