2 Timothy 1:1-14, October 2-8, Year C:

Several things in this passage merit comment, if not necessarily in a particularly systematic way. We see that Timothy was raised by devout women. They were definitely Jewish, although perhaps his mother or grandmother even came to know Christ. In any case, we clearly see the value and the potentially very significant influence of a godly upbringing for our children. Let us never forget this as we consider our families and the role of the church in the proper training and Christian education of children today. Paul reminds Timothy that we are not given a spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and a sound mind. He encourages Timothy to "stir up" the gift that is in him. This goes well with the gospel reading for this Sunday, Luke 17:5-10, in which Jesus is encouraging a quality of faith and obedience that was a real challenge to the disciples as they sought to understand their new ministry. Let us too take these challenges seriously. Timothy was young. His temperament may have been one that tended to be too cautious or too easily intimidated. He may have also had his share of physical ailments. He no doubt had many spiritual gifts; but the gift to which Paul seems to refer here is the gift of the ministry itself. Paulhad laid hands on Timothy and conferred this ministry, this responsibility, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, he urges Timothy to trust God as he exercises this gift. Be brave and fearless in the Lord. Paul knows that he himself is but a weak and sinful vessel; but "I know whom I have believed." (In fact, we're going to sing that old gospel song Sunday.) We are persuaded that God is able to keep that which we have commited to Him. We are sometimes tempted to be ashamed of the gospel message. We see it abused by some, even within the church. We see it ridiculed by the secular media. We watch our churches struggle to do meaningful ministry or, in some cases, even to survive--and we wonder! But the gospel, though it be contained in weak vessels, is powerful truth. It is a mystery, but it is God's mystery! We need not, we dare not, be ashamed of a message that originates with the Father, is lived out in Jesus Christ His Son, and that is given life and breath by the Holy Spirit! Paul was reminding Timothy of his great potential and of the spiritual authority with which he had been blessed by virtue of the laying on of hands. Every Christian, whether ordained or commissioned in an official way for ministry, has been given a specific and wonderful calling. This is part of what we mean when we speak of the "priesthood of all believers." Our calling to service and ministry is not of our own making or choosing, but of God. The gift we have been given is irrevocable, but can become ineffective. We should live a life of discipline and self-control; but we must not doubt that we will be given the power to do what we are called to do. That is part of what it means to trust God. Be ware of trying to discern God's calling for someone else, or of assuming that someone else can discern God's calling for you. The advice and encouragement of others can be helpful, but probably cannot be determinative. Our minds must also be disciplined; and we must walk with intellectual integrity. There is inevitable conflict between the world and the Word. Paul knows that Timothy will face pressures from within and from without. He will be faced with temptation, opposition, and discouragement. Some will reject him because of his youth. Still, he is to put his trust in the truth of God, the grace of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit. This passage should be a great encouragement to our youth, or to any new Christian; but it is also necessary for those of us who have been Christians all our lives, or who are involved in Christian ministry, to remember where we get our power and our message. Truly, we have been given a special gift.

Single-Gender Education

David Chadwell is South Carolina's statewide coordinator of single-gender education. No other state has any education official like David Chadwell. It is his goal that every child in the state of South Carolina will have the available option of single-gender education in the public schools of that state within five years. It is said that there are already some 300 single-gender schools operating within secondary public education in America. This is according to a recent AP article. Chadwell is primarily interested in making this option available to kids in middle school. The article did not say whether he would later like to expand this available choice to elementary or high school. David Chadwell, who has many years of experience in various types of educational settings, believes that girls and boys of a certain age learn more effectively if they have the opportunity forsingle-gender education. Predictably, the head of the National Organization of Women has come out in opposition to Mr. Chadwell's plan. She fears the rise of sexism and certain stereotypes which she believes hold women back. But Chadwell is careful to point out that it is not the type of curriculum that he wants to change, but the method by which children learn. He says that boys and girls are attracted by different types of learning and have different learning skills. In short, he says that they learn differently. Many girls actually seem to be less intimidated in single-gender settings than they are when boys are present. And no doubt, boys and girls both may be less likely to be diverted from their studies by trying to make an impression on members of the opposite sex. Whether or not you agree with David Chadwell, the important point to be made here is that this option is viable and worth pursuing. Remember that it is only a voluntary option. No parents are required to send their kids to single-gender schools. My dad tells me that single-gender public education was more common for kids in his generation. There was a Boys High School and a Girls High School, for example, in Atlanta back in the '30's. And of course, private high schools for girls and boys were everywhere. Nowadays, most of those schools have gone co-ed. Often, when public education seeks to do something experimental or innovative to improve the quality of education, the whole project gets bogged down in politics, social sensitivities, and bureaucratic red tape. I remember when Davidson College's Board of Trustees voted for the college to go co-ed. I was a senior that spring; and I remember thinking that I was glad I wouldn't be around to see the changes take place--not because I don't like women, of course, but because I felt, and still feel, that something significant was being lost. Today, we say we stand for diversity, but we don't appreciate distinctives; we say we want to celebrate pluralism, but we can't abide too much non-conformity or obvious differences in method or objectives. We have too often sacrificed quality for novelty--in education, theology, and so many other aspects of American life. I don't know if David Chadwell is on the right track; but I think that those who believe he is have every right to make that choice.

Sports: Another Great Collapse

In 1964, it was the Philadelphia Phillies who blew a big lead late in the season and lost the National League pennant to the St. Louis Cardinals, who then went on to win the World Series. This year, it was the New York Mets, who led the National League eastern division by seven games in mid-September, only to lose the regular season division championship to--of all teams--the Philadelphia Phillies. Not only did the Mets lose the division championship, but they didn't even make the play-offs via the wild card route. Tom Glavine lost the last game of the season. The Mets gave up seven runs to Florida in the first inning of yesterday's finale. The sad thing about it, from my perspective, is that the Braves weren't able to cash in on the Mets' misfortune. Even after a late-season trade that seemed likely at least to get us in the play-offs by bringing us a big-time bat, the Braves pitching let us down, as the Braves could manage only slightly better than a .500 record for the season, with 84 wins. So the Braves have missed the post-season for two years in a row now after all those years of winning the division. Next year, TBS will no longer be telecasting the Braves as they have in the past. It will be interesting to see what the financial and ownership structure of the team will be in 2008. I hope the Braves get back in the play-offs next year; but I wonder if I'll be as big a fan of the Braves by then. For now, I have little sense of how the post-season will go this year. I expect either the Yankees or Boston to win the World Series. I just don't think the National League teams are that strong this year.