It's Not 42

I recently received a free prerelease copy of Primal by Mark Batterson with the condition that I read it and write a review. Unfortunately I’m a bit late on publishing my review, but I found that I had to take my time getting through the book. Primal is being marketed as a Christian book, and it will be used in a number of “Bible” studies in the near future, therefore it is important that the book be judged Biblically.

The basic premise of Primal is a call for our generation to have a new reformation. Batterson explains that a reformation is a rediscovery of something “primal”.  When speaking of the Protestant Reformation, Batterson identifies Luther’s “rediscovery” of [justification] “by faith alone.”  He writes, “And the rediscovery of a simple truth — sola fide, by faith alone — became the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation.”  Batterson claims that every generation needs a reformation and he asks the question, “What is our reformation?”  His answer is:

“Simply put, we’ve got to be great at the Great Commandment. Anything less isn’t good enough. Or, I should say, great enough. We must not succeed at the wrong thing. We must not invest our earthly lives in things that have no heavenly value. We must not be great at things that do not matter. We have to be great at what matters most. And what matters most is loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

When you descent the flight of stairs  into the soul of Christianity and everything is stripped away but its primal essence, what you’re left with is the Great Commandment.  Just as the medieval church  rediscovered justification by faith, so our generation must rediscover the Great Commandment.  The rallying cry of the last reformation was “sola fide.” The rallying cry of the next reformation is “Amo Dei.” Translation: “Love God.” (p. 169)

While this statement does an excellent job as a summation of Primal, it fails to capture the true essence of Christianity.   Batterson does demonstrate that he “knows” what true Christianity is, as he correctly points out that:

“In and of ourselves, we’re not capable of loving God. We cannot manufacture love for Him. We can only respond to His love….Christianity is all about receiving what Christ has done for us on the cross. And what we do for God is a reflection of and response to what God has done for us.” (p. 155)

Batterson also demonstrates a knowledge of the Gospel as in his brief definition:

“Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He lived a sinless life. He died a substitutionary death on the cross. And He was raised from the dead on the third day. Those are nonnegotiables. If you remove those doctrinal cornerstones, the foundation of Christianity fails. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone.” (p. 105)

Unfortunately, the Gospel is not the focus of this book. Primal is a man-centered works-driven “christian” self-help book. Jesus makes a brief appearance, but there is very little that is unique to the Christian faith. Actually, therein lies the problem. Primal places good works as a precursor to faith. It is all about faith through good works instead of good works as an evidence of faith.

A key point where Primal fails is on page 18. Batterson invites the reader to stop reading and to make a decision for Christ.

“Have you given your heart to Christ? All of it? If not, why not do it right here, right now? Stop reading and start praying. How? From your heart. God doesn’t just hear your words. He hears your heart. He isn’t impressed with words, but He is moved by a heartfelt prayer. And I promise you this: if you give your heart to Him, He’ll give His heart to you. And when He does, you’ll become part of this coup de compassion that started at the cross two thousand years ago. The compassion that Christ showed us at Calvary will become the driving force of your life.” (p. 18)

The first problem with this paragraph is that the Gospel is absent. The first true Gospel reference, which is well stated, does not come until page 105. The second problem is that the concept of decisional salvation is unbiblical. Faith is a gift from God and comes by hearing the Word of God. Salvation is by grace through faith. Batterson does not identify us as sinners, he does not call us to repentance, and he does not proclaim forgiveness through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on the cross.

Once salvation has been defined as a decision that we make, the “Great Commandment” becomes something that we must do to convince others to come to Christianity. A misunderstanding of the “Great Commandment” is another point where Primal fails. The intent of Jesus’ words to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength, was to show us that nothing we can do by our own means will appease God. God’s wrath is propitiated through Jesus’ substitutionary atoning sacrifice on the cross.

Much of the content of Primal appears to be based on Batterson’s ideas and experience, and then scripture is used sparsely, taken out of context, twisted, and interwoven to “prove” his points. Batterson seems to justify his scripture manipulation by comparing the Word of God with a kaleidoscope.

“Containing fragments of colored glass at the end of a mirrored tube, the kaleidoscope reflects light in an endless variety of colors and patterns. And so it is with Scripture.” (p. 70-71)

The idea that scripture can take on a multitude of meanings for different people in different situations is commonly used in liberal church bodies and is currently being utilized to justify unbiblical practices, such as homosexual clergy. Taking a verse out of context can bestow a meaning upon it that it is unrelated or completely contradictory to its intended meaning. Reading a verse within its biblical context will often clarify the true meaning of the passage.

A few of his points may be biblical, but much of Primal is a theological quagmire.  Batterson may have good intentions, but the logical conclusion of Primal hopes to undo what was accomplished in the Protestant Reformation by returning Christianity to a system of justification by works.  I recommend that readers avoid Primal. However, if one chooses to read the book, prayerfully read it with discernment and with a reliable translation of the Bible in hand.

I recently started listening to the some of the lecutres availble on iTunesU.  More specifically, I’ve been listening to lectures about Christian doctrine from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO.

One topic that I’ve found interesting is the Christian law.  My wife and I both love how Lutherans clearly differentiate between Law and Gospel.  The lectures have been beneficial in giving me a better understanding of the purposes of the Law.  I thought I’d post some notes as I listen to help the information sink in.

The instructor summarized the three uses of the law as: CURB, MIRROR, and GUIDE

He gave a side-note that Martin Luther only defined two uses of the law; political and theological.  The three uses were defined by Martin Luther’s friend, Philip Melanchthon.  The instructor also said that it is beneficial to know that Melanchthon was never ordained even though he played a major role in helping to define early Christian doctrine.

The first use of the law (curb) was defined as a means of keeping sinful desires in check.  The example given was the speed limit on the highway.  The first use of the law is essentially the civil law of the land and applies to everyone, whether they are Christian or not.  The first use is what Luther referred to as “political”.

The second use of the law (mirror) shows us our sin.  In Romans 7:7, Paul wrote, “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’”   The instructor gave the example of waking in the morning.  He said that a person may wake up feeling great and ready to go out to conquer the world  Then that person steps into the bathroom, looks in the mirror, and sees their bed-head, drool on their face, etc.  He explained that the mirror shows us as we really are.  Likewise, when we feel good about own works and deeds, the law is there to reveal us as the sinners that we really are.  The second use is what Luther referred to as “theological”.

To go along with the second use of the law, the instructor pointed out that the law only wants to do one thing: kill you.  That’s why we also need the Gospel.  While the law “shows our sin”, the Gospel “shows our Savior”.

The third use of the law (guide) teaches or shows how to live.  He pointed out that the third use of the law is only for Christians.  As he explained with the second use, the goal of the law is to kill us and then the Gospel gives us new life.  The third use is our response to the saving faith that God has done in us through Christ.  The instructor explained, “As a Christian who has God’s forgiveness, I’ve been killed by the law, made alive by the Gospel. Now I live in God’s will; And when I live in God’s will, that’s doing the law.  Not freed from the law, but freed for the law.”  He pointed out again that only Christians can do the third use of the law because only Christians are freed through Christ.

The instructed explained that Christians should be interested in all three uses of the law.  As a Christian, we do not do the law to earn salvation or to improve our standing with God.   We do the law simply because it is what we are called to do.

The instructor transitioned into the functions of the law.  He pointed out that some pastors will attempt to manipulate by preaching the law with an agenda.  The problem is that the law has a tendency to do its own thing in spite of any agenda.  In order to preach correctly, a pastor should simply preach the law and Gospel as they are in scripture and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

As I continue listening to the iTunes podcasts, I may post additional notes about what I hear.  Please feel free to comment on anything that I’ve written as I do enjoy feedback.  I welcome both encouragement and scripture-based criticism.

While doing a web search today, I stumbled across an article about the Lutheran view of sanctification. I found the article interesting as I have had exposure to a variety of different denominational views.

Having been raised in the Nazarene church, sanctification was explained to me as “the next step of what we are supposed to do after getting saved.”  The analogy that I was taught was that life is like we’re driving in a car.  When we get saved, we invite God into our car.  When we’re sanctified, we pass God the steering wheel.  I’m happy to say that I’m no longer a Nazarene.

When I was in my early twenties, I started exploring different denominations in order to find “the right one”.  Unfortunately I was initially looking for the wrong reasons.  I regularly attended a Pentecostal church where I was basically told that sanctification was evidenced by the manifestations of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues.

After my wife and I were married, we visited a variety of different denominations.  I regret to say that we were looking for the wrong things in a church.  We were basically looking for a Christian social club.  After about two years of searching and not finding what we wanted, we joined a small Baptist church where some friends attended.  I am thankful that we did receive excellent biblical teaching and we learned a lot.  Unfortunately our church was small, so we were eventually forced to find a new church when our pastor moved out of the area.

We really liked the Baptist church that we had attended, so we joined another.  This next church was larger and preached “relevant” sermons that focused on how to have a better life, how to be a better parent, how to be a tone-setter, etc.  Sanctification was never discussed by name, but we were told that we needed to participate in as many of the church’s “ministries” as possible.

After a suggestion from my brother-in-law, my wife and I started listening Issues Etc, a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) radio program, and The White Horse Inn, a Reformed round-table radio program.

As a somewhat related side note, My wife and I did have some experience with the Lutheran church.  Two of my childhood best friends were the son and daughter of a Lutheran pastor.  My wife attended and was confirmed in a Lutheran private school, in spite of the fact that her family attended nondenominational charismatic churches.  My first IT job contracted me to do desktop support at the LCMS International Center, and my wife also worked there for a brief period after we were married.  We both thought we knew what Lutherans believed and we “knew” that we would never become Lutheran.

After listening to a variety of good and bad sermon reviews on Issues Etc, my wife and I found ourselves becoming dissatisfied with the content of our “relevant” Baptist church’s sermons.  Issues Etc host, Todd Wilken, discussed doctrinal issues such as the sacraments and claimed that the Bible was very clear.  He always backed up what he said with scripture references.  When our Baptist pastor addressed the same issues, he would be in direct opposition to Wilken’s claim and also stated that the Bible was very clear.  However, he never actually backed up his teachings with scripture.  We left the Baptist church.

While listening to Issues Etc, my wife and I found ourselves agreeing more and more with Lutheran theology, but we still were not ready to become Lutheran.  Because of our backgrounds in the other churches, we still resisted the Lutheran view of the sacraments.  We joined a reformed Presbyterian (PCA) church.  In retrospect, I think that God may have used our time in the PCA church as a transition.  We learned a lot and scripture was preached rather than “how to” sermons.  However, we found ourselves taking issue with the Calvinistic view of limited atonement and Christ was not always the focus.

At this point, the only issue that I had with Lutheran theology was their belief regarding the doctrine of Baptism.  I disagreed with the Lutheran view, but I wanted to know for certain.  Rather than talking people to get a variety of opinions, I turned to the Bible.  I went to www.esv.org and did a word search for “bapti” which I figured would at least return every variation of the word baptize.  I then documented each verse, read each passage in reference, looked up the cross references, and wrote a rough analytical paper.  I attempted to approach my project with an open mind, but I admit that I initially leaned to the idea of baptism nothing more than a public profession of faith.  In the end, scripture won out and I found myself embracing the Lutheran view.

I may someday clean up and post my biblical analysis of baptism.  For now, I will provide a couple of excellent off-site links on the subject.
http://www.extremetheology.com/2005/09/baptism_quiz.html
http://www.extremetheology.com/2005/09/the_means_of_gr.html

Now my wife and I are both thrilled to be members of a confessional Lutheran church.  We love that Lutherans clearly divide and define the importance of Law and Gospel, and the importance of how they work with one another.  We also love how Christ is the focus of everything that we do in church.

I had never thought much about the Lutheran view of sanctification until today.  As mentioned, I stumbled across an article on sanctification that I found interesting.  The article, Hitting For the Cycle by Don Matzat, summarizes different views on sanctification and then explains that Lutherans tend to go in circles.  The analogy of a baseball game is presented.  The home plate represents law, first base represents the Gospel, second base represents faith, and third base represents good works or the Christian Life.  The basic gist is that the Law convicts and drives you to the Gospel, Gospel leads you to faith, faith results in good works.  Finally when pride kicks in and you start thinking of how good you really are, the law is waiting for you at home which leads you once again to the Gospel.

Click here to read the full article

In Christ,
Benjamin

Paul Golder, author of the blog titled Prove it from the Bible, contacted Bryan Wolfmueller requesting Bible references to back up the Praise Song Cruncher.  Wolfmueller provided scripture references to Golder, who then wrote up an excellent blog post.

Head over to Prove it from the Bible to read the article.

I know that it’s been a while since my last post, but life has had me busy lately.  Hopefully I can find time to write more soon.  Driving home tonight inspired me to write a quick note.

Before we were married, my wife and I both used to listen to contemporary “christian” music (CCM) almost exclusively.  We both had extensive CD collections, attended concerts regularly, and had our radio stations permanently set to the local CCM station.  Over the past several years, we’ve learned a lot and have examining things more critically.  This includes sermons, praise and worship music, and even “christian” entertainment.

The quotes are intentional.  After all, what makes something “christian”?  A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is God the Son, and that He died for our sins and rose again.  Can an object be a Christian?  I suspect that initially, the intent of applying the christian adjective to non-human objects (songs, books, t-shirts, etc) was to signify that it glorified or proclaimed Christ as Lord.  However, it seems that christian has now simply become a market segment. I’m a Christian.  I also have a couple of cats and I like them.  Does that mean that they are christian cats?  But I digress.  Getting back on point…

While driving home from a class tonight, I flipped through the radio stations.  As I hit a “christian” station, I heard a familiar song, so I stopped to listen.  The song was You Found Me, by FFH.  It was released back in 2003 and was somewhat popular.  I have to admit, I have a tendency to hear the music from a song and will completely miss the words.  (I wouldn’t stand a chance on the TV show, Don’t Forget the Lyrics!)  I never really paid attention to the lyrics before, but tonight I listened closely.

I’ve got nowhere to turn, I’ve got
nowhere to hide, and I’ve got no alibi,
You’ve been following me, you know
my history, and no matter how hard I try,
I can’t explain away
The way I feel today
There’s only one thing I can say:

(Chorus)
You, You’ve found me.
You found me and You called me from the wilderness,
From my cave of emptiness,
Yeah, You, You’ve found me.
You found me in the places of my lonliness
You told me there was more than this,
You captured me with tenderness,
Yeah, You’ve found me.

There was so many days, trying to
figure out ways to explain what I feel inside,
I tried to fill up my soul without
using control, this desire never did subside,
I’m ready to give in
I know I’ll never win
The hide and seek that I’ve been in

(Chorus)

In the pit of despair, I was all alone there.
I wasn’t looking for You, but You found me anyway.
You put Your hand on face, then you changed my ways.
Nothing can separate me from…

After seeing the lyrics, do you see anything missing?  I wouldn’t really consider this a praise song, but lets run it through the Praise Song Cruncher test for fun.

Review criteria:

1. Is Jesus mentioned?
   No, not even once.

2. Is the song clear?  Does it use full sentences or fragments?
   The song is ambiguous.  The references to God are vague and could mean different things to different people.  As a Christian listening to a religious station, I understand that the song is being sung to God.  However, a Muslim may think that “you” refers to Allah, or even a non-Christian may think that “you” refers to a love interest.  If the same song were played on a secular station, the song’s interpretation could be completely different.

3. Is the song about the things that God has done, or is it about my own emotions and experiences?
   Some may argue that sin and forgiveness are being alluded to, but the song is really about the emotional feelings and experiences of the author.  On the surface the song may appear to be about what God has done, but ultimately the focus is on man.

4. Does the song repeat the same phrases over and over in a hypnotic mantra?
   There is quite a bit of repetition in the chorus, but this is typical for most modern songs and it is not done in what I could consider a “hypnotic mantra”.  In general, this song was probably written for entertainment rather than praise and worship.  Then again, I would not be surprised to hear this sung in modern churches.

5. Does the song proclaim the law in its sternness and the Gospel in its sweetness?
   The Law and Gospel are both absent.  Some may argue that sin and forgiveness are alluded to, but the song really focuses on the emotions of the singer. Salvation seems to be assumed in the phrase, “you’ve found me”, but it is unclear.  Also, the cause of despair and reason for salvation are never defined as sin.  Are they saved from sin, or from depression?

6. Is there any explicit false teaching?
   The right teaching in this song is that God draws us to him.  We do not seek him, He draws us.  However, as I already mentioned, God is ambiguous, Christ is absent, and sin and forgiveness are undefined.
7. Final thoughts
   As I asked at the beginning, what makes something “christian”?  If Christ is never mentioned, can it be called Christian?  If references to God are vague and could just as easily be sung as Allah, Buddah, or Sheila, can that song be considered Christian?

Let it Rain

Let it rain
Let it rain
Open the floodgates of Heaven
Let it rain
(repeat until the cows come home)

1. Is Jesus mentioned?
   
   No.
   
2. Is the song clear?  Does it use full sentences or fragments?
   
   Each sentence is written in a command form with God as the implied subject.  However, the actual meaning of the song is vague and could be open to interpretation.  Typically, the intent is a command for God to pour out the Holy Spirit upon the singers.
   
3. Is the song about the things that God has done, or is it about my own emotions and experiences?
   
   The song is emotional and about what the singers want God to do.
   
4. Does the song repeat the same phrases over and over in a hypnotic mantra?
   
   Yes.  This is a classic example of what many call a “7-11 song”.  (7-11 = the same 7 lines repeated 11 times).  Let it Rain will typically begin quietly with a gradual crescendo on each repetition.  After a number of repeats, the song will climax with a much louder volume and then will finally repeat a few more times quietly.
   
5. Does the song proclaim the law in its sternness and the Gospel in its sweetness?
   The Gospel is the promise of the forgiveness of all sins won for us through Jesus’ death on the cross.  Are law and Gospel rightly divided (and not mixed up)? Is the law presented as something that we can do, or does it show us our sins? Is the Gospel conditional (based on my actions, decisions, acceptance)?
   
   The song contains no law or Gospel.
   
6. Is there any explicit false teaching?
   
   This song does not contain any teaching whatsoever.
7. Final thoughts
   Let it Rain is a popular song in many Pentecostal, charasmatic, and non-denominational churches.  Ever since Michael W. Smith, a contemporary Christian artist, recorded the song, it has gained much more attention in other denominations.  I find it unfortunate that this song’s lyrics attempt to turn God into nothing more than a genie to grant our wishes.  Rather than attempting to bend God to our will, shouldn’t we submit to his?

Breathe

This is the air I breathe
This is the air I breathe
Your holy presence
Living in me

This is my daily bread
This is my daily bread
Your very word
Spoken to me

And I … I’m desperate for you
And I … I’m lost without you

This is air I breath
This is air I breathe
Your holy presence
Living in me

This is my daily bread
This is my daily bread
Your very word
Spoken to me

And I … I’m desperate for you
And I … I’m lost without you
And I … I’m desperate for you
And I … I’m lost without you
And I … I’m desperate for you
And I … I’m lost without you
I’m lost without you
I’m lost without you
I’m lost without you
I’m lost .. without you

This is the air I breathe
This is the air I breathe

1. Is Jesus mentioned?
   
   No.
2. Is the song clear?  Does it use full sentences or fragments?
   
   This song is written with many sentence fragments.  Also, many of the main sentences begin with the word “this”, used as a demonstrative pronoun, before defining the object.  Both issues can make the song’s meaning confusing.
3. Is the song about the things that God has done, or is it about my own emotions and experiences?
   
   This song is indirectly about God, but the focus seems to be on the singer.  The air represents God’s holy presence and the bread represents God’s word.  However, the references to God seem to take a backseat to repetitious statements of being lost and desperate.  It is true that we are lost without God, but the song fails to state why we are lost and how we can be “found”.
4. Does the song repeat the same phrases over and over in a hypnotic mantra?
   
   This song is very repetitive.
5. Does the song proclaim the law in its sternness and the Gospel in its sweetness?
   The Gospel is the promise of the forgiveness of all sins won for us through Jesus’ death on the cross.  Are law and Gospel rightly divided (and not mixed up)? Is the law presented as something that we can do, or does it show us our sins? Is the Gospel conditional (based on my actions, decisions, acceptance)?
   
   The law and Gospel are both absent from this song. The song is an emotional cry to God, but it does not address the cause and solution for the being lost and desperate.  More on this in my final thoughts.
   
6. Is there any explicit false teaching?
   
   There does not appear to be any teaching whatsoever, right or wrong.   
    
7. Final thoughts
   
   Breathe has a soft, emotional melody, which is probably a primary reason for its popularity.  However, the song falls flat on actual content.  As mentioned, the singer is crying out in desperation, stating that he is lost without God.  The song never discusses why we need God, and never discusses how we reach him.
   
   The answer is that we are lost because of the sin that is in every one of us. Every one of us has broken God’s commandments and justly deserve his present and eternal punishment. The Gospel, the good news, is that Christ died for our sins. Jesus paid the penalty in our place. Faith in Jesus Christ is the only method by which we can be saved.

   “I (Jesus) am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  John 14:6

There has been a big debate in churches for a long time about the types of praise and worship songs that are sung.  Some chuch bodies stick with old classic hymns only, some churches throw out all of the old hymns in favor of modern worship, and some churches try to incorporate a blend.  What the debate frequently centers on is the worship style.  Traditional churches tend to prefer piano, organ, and a variety of classical instruments (violin, trumpet, etc).  Modern churches commonly throw out the organ and replace it with a rock band (electric guitars, drums, flashing lights, etc).

I can see a point to both sides of the style argument.  There is no place in scripture that forbids modern musical instruments.  However, should we blindly accept a song just because it is being sung in church?  Some would argue that you can sing anything you want, as long as you have good intentions and are singing it to God.  I would disagree though.  Just like we’re supposed to test what is being preached in light of scripture, I think it’s important to test what we sing in church as well.  How can we sing praises to God if we’re singing that we’re on the “Highway to Hell“?

Table Talk Radio, an online Christian radio program, occasionally does reviews of popular praise and worship songs.  Rather than evaluating the songs based on style, they examine the content of the song and use the criteria developved by Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller:

1. Is Jesus mentioned?
2. Is the song clear?  Does it use full sentences or fragments?
3. Is the song about the things that God has done, or is it about my own emotions and experiences?
4. Does the song repeat the same phrases over and over in a hypnotic mantra?
5. Does the song proclaim the law in its sternness and the Gospel in its sweetness?
   The Gospel is the promise of the forgiveness of all sins won for us through Jesus’ death on the cross. Are law and Gospel rightly divided (and not mixed up)? Is the law presented as something that we can do, or does it show us our sins? Is the Gospel conditional (based on my actions, decisions, acceptance)?
6. Is there any explicit false teaching?

I am not affiliated with Table Talk Radio, but I hope they don’t mind me borrowing their criteria as I plan to do regular reviews of both modern and classic praise/worship songs and hymns.

The lesson I’m learning is that we Americans have a right to the freedom of speech, unless we disagree with the media. If we say something the media dislikes, they discredit us through childish name calling and by digging up every mistake that we may have made in the past. In this case, it seems obvious that the media’s goal is an attempt to turn conservatives against Miss California because of her traditional marriage views.

Instead of throwing Miss California to the lions like the media wants, lets address the real issues.

• Yes, Miss California has committed sins and is a sinner.
• Homosexual behavior is a sin.
• Having sex outside of marriage is a sin (homosexual and heterosexual).
• Having lustful thoughts is a sin (homosexual and heterosexual).
• Failing to keep every one of God’s laws perfectly is a sin!!!
• We are all sinners.
• I am a sinner

The good news is that Jesus Christ died for our sins.  We are made righteous through his death burial and resurrection.  Each week in my church, we have a corporate confession:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Let us confess our sins to God our Father.

Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against You in thought, word and deed, not loved you with our whole heart; we have not love our neighbors as ourselves. We justly deserve Your present and eternal punishment. For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in your will and walk in Your ways to the glory of Your holy name. Amen

Soli Deo Gratia

I read a story on Fox News today that talks about how a growing number of schools are eliminating zeros and Fs.  Instead, student’s grades are placed on hold while they are given extra time to complete or improve the assignments.  Is this a good thing?

It seems to me that these schools are taking away consequences for students who are lazy and choose to either not do the work at all, or students who makes a minimal effort.  There are legitimate cases where a student may not grasp the lesson material as easily as others.  However, I wonder how many of those instances could be resolved by the PARENTS & teachers properly teaching the children how to apply themselves.

The article:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518101,00.html

This article made me think of other cases where society tries to remove consequences rather than dealing with the cause.   Rather than teaching teens that having sex, whether protected or not, can result in pregnancy or a wide variety of STDs, society passes out condoms, immunizes young girls against HPV, and encourages abortions.  Rather than exporting aliens that sneak into our country illegally, society wants to reward them with driver’s licenses and citizenship.

Rather than coming up ways to cover up mistakes, wouldn’t it be more beneficial to address the root problem?  Getting back to the original topic, don’t we sometimes learn from failure?  Failure is a difficult lesson, but it is also part of life.