Have you ever heard a parent say, “My child is in a program at school for gifted children”? Or perhaps, “Our school offers courses of study for gifted and talented students.”
I’m sure we are all familiar with the “gifted” child idea. Somewhere a few decades ago someone coined the phrase “gifted” child, and in a culture where everyone is looking for a way to increase the
value of self, the word “gifted” really sounds good. What parent wouldn’t like for little Sally to be “gifted”? What grandparent wouldn’t like to be able to brag (something all grandparents love to do!) that their little Johnny is recognized by his teachers as being “gifted”? What school couldn’t score lots of points with the parents by providing parents with bumper stickers announcing: “My child is in the Gifted and Talented class at XYZ Middle School”?
As I reflected upon this “gifted” idea recently, it occurred to me strange that this idea exists within the muddle of a secular, humanistic society that has done everything possible to remove God from its midst. The same school that recognizes students as gifted refuses to recognize the Giver. Don’t you see? The word gift implies a giver. How can one have a gift if there is no giver? What a mixed up child we produce when we remove God, the Giver, the Gifter of all things good, from the corridors and classrooms of our schools, but then tell little Johnny that he has a gift. Little Johnny doesn’t have to be very gifted at all to ask the question, “If I have a gift, then where did it come from? Who gave it to me?”
If we conclude that some are the benefactors of a gift, and that necessitates the existence of a Gifter, then likewise we must conclude that the gifted moniker imply that others are un-gifted? If there is a Gifter, as the term gifted demands, then the Gifter apparently skips over some when passing out gifts. Trust me... I've met some people who were absent when the gifts were being passed out. And if the Gifter skips over me, but endows others, then I am not responsible for my failures. It's the Gifter's fault; he neglected me. Can the pot complain about the potter? No. He exists at the pleasure of the potter. Likewise, can the potter complain about the way the pot turned out? Again, no. The potter cannot judge the pot; he can only judge himself.
So... either a Gifter exists and he bestows gifts upon some and not others according to his independent sovereign pleasure... or there is no Gifter. If there is no Gifter, then there are no gifts. If there are no gifts, then there is no blessing. If there is no blessing, there is no Blesser. We are pots without a Potter. There is no Sovereign. We are each self-sovereign. It is each man for himself: the survival of the fittest. We are brute beasts, creatures of instinct, meant to be snared. Death and destruction await us all! Therein lies the heart of the dilemma that faces everyone who would deny God. It is the conundrum of the Atheist. It is the downfall of the Humanist. It is the end of the Agnostic.
Could there be a third option? What if each and every one of us is gifted? What if the value of each gift is measured by a standard with which we are all unaware? What if left is right? What if up is down? What if that which seems impaired is healthy and stong? What if the person whom this world evaluates as un-gifted in reality is the most gifted of all? What if the first is last and the last first? I don't know about you, but I don't like playing games in which I do not know the rules. I find no pleasure or satisfaction in blindly striving to reach goals that may or may not be correct. It's going to really upset me to find out that I thought the goal was left and I was shooting right. How could the designer of the game fault me for missing the goal, when he doesn't clearly tell me what the goal really is?
There must be some other option.
I’m sure we are all familiar with the “gifted” child idea. Somewhere a few decades ago someone coined the phrase “gifted” child, and in a culture where everyone is looking for a way to increase the
value of self, the word “gifted” really sounds good. What parent wouldn’t like for little Sally to be “gifted”? What grandparent wouldn’t like to be able to brag (something all grandparents love to do!) that their little Johnny is recognized by his teachers as being “gifted”? What school couldn’t score lots of points with the parents by providing parents with bumper stickers announcing: “My child is in the Gifted and Talented class at XYZ Middle School”?As I reflected upon this “gifted” idea recently, it occurred to me strange that this idea exists within the muddle of a secular, humanistic society that has done everything possible to remove God from its midst. The same school that recognizes students as gifted refuses to recognize the Giver. Don’t you see? The word gift implies a giver. How can one have a gift if there is no giver? What a mixed up child we produce when we remove God, the Giver, the Gifter of all things good, from the corridors and classrooms of our schools, but then tell little Johnny that he has a gift. Little Johnny doesn’t have to be very gifted at all to ask the question, “If I have a gift, then where did it come from? Who gave it to me?”
If we conclude that some are the benefactors of a gift, and that necessitates the existence of a Gifter, then likewise we must conclude that the gifted moniker imply that others are un-gifted? If there is a Gifter, as the term gifted demands, then the Gifter apparently skips over some when passing out gifts. Trust me... I've met some people who were absent when the gifts were being passed out. And if the Gifter skips over me, but endows others, then I am not responsible for my failures. It's the Gifter's fault; he neglected me. Can the pot complain about the potter? No. He exists at the pleasure of the potter. Likewise, can the potter complain about the way the pot turned out? Again, no. The potter cannot judge the pot; he can only judge himself.
So... either a Gifter exists and he bestows gifts upon some and not others according to his independent sovereign pleasure... or there is no Gifter. If there is no Gifter, then there are no gifts. If there are no gifts, then there is no blessing. If there is no blessing, there is no Blesser. We are pots without a Potter. There is no Sovereign. We are each self-sovereign. It is each man for himself: the survival of the fittest. We are brute beasts, creatures of instinct, meant to be snared. Death and destruction await us all! Therein lies the heart of the dilemma that faces everyone who would deny God. It is the conundrum of the Atheist. It is the downfall of the Humanist. It is the end of the Agnostic.
Could there be a third option? What if each and every one of us is gifted? What if the value of each gift is measured by a standard with which we are all unaware? What if left is right? What if up is down? What if that which seems impaired is healthy and stong? What if the person whom this world evaluates as un-gifted in reality is the most gifted of all? What if the first is last and the last first? I don't know about you, but I don't like playing games in which I do not know the rules. I find no pleasure or satisfaction in blindly striving to reach goals that may or may not be correct. It's going to really upset me to find out that I thought the goal was left and I was shooting right. How could the designer of the game fault me for missing the goal, when he doesn't clearly tell me what the goal really is?
There must be some other option.
No comments:
Post a Comment