Raising Children

Raising kids is hard.

I have heard it said that raising teenagers is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

Raising kids is even harder when you have two competing worldviews between parents.

My wife and I had recently attended a "convention" on home schooling our kids. I am really glad that they make venues like this available to those who don't want their kids to be corrupted by the politicization of the public schools and for those who don't want to have to take on a third job to pay for a private education. The difficulty that I have with the home schooling avenue though is that most of it seems bent toward the other extreme. Many Christians today want to keep their children safe from the evils of being taught about evolution, multi-culturalism, homosexuality and much more. But the trouble comes in the pendulum swing effect.

Much of this curriculum is centered around a more religious base, which with its own bias, can sometimes neglect other forms/uses of common logic and the sciences. I think that I saw just as many books on "how to raise godly kids" as I did books about math, science, history, and art; and even then the titles of the books primarily lent themselves to teaching these things through the eyes of faith. A book entitled Numbers In The Bible is one that comes to mind. Is there something extra special about the numbers in the Bible over any other form of numbers?

Well, my wife bought some books on dealing with discipline with children. The overall principles in the book are not bad. It speaks of the consequences of lying, stealing, discord, and many other things...but what it doesn't take into account is theological diversity. Most of the books there would probably not sit well with a Calvinist Christian.

When my daughter does something wrong, my wife deals with her and then usually follows up with having my daughter apologize to whoever she has offended [which I can totally agree with her on] and then she has her pray and ask Jesus for forgiveness and help not to do it again. Now, if I was still looking at things as a Christian, I would have to side with the Calvinist. Where in the Bible does it say that children should pray to Jesus...or that anyone should pray to Jesus? I suppose if you were to just take the words of Christ then you could account for the Kingdom of God belonging to children and God hearing their prayers- but if you heed the words of Paul, God does not hear the prayers of sinners; which is what he says that all of humanity is...until God lifts the veil of blindness off their eyes.

So doesn't it seem counter-intuitive to have a child pray to a God who very well may not hear them until he chooses to manifest his calling of them to salvation? It is a tough call for me as to how to address this with my wife. I know that she only has the best of intentions, but I see things very differently.

Apology and restitution are things that one can never go wrong with. The Bible does teach these, but I guess you just have to read the right parts to find them. But I am more of an Agnostic or Deist.

What if a child grows up with such a religious upbringing only to later walk away with certain senses of disillusionment?

A Debate About Hell

I just finished listening to a very interesting debate on the subject and nature of Hell. This debate was held by the Evangelical Theological Debate Society and can be downloaded from The Narrow Mind Aftermath website.

On one side of the aisle were 3 men who were all of the common biblical persuasion that Hell is a literal and eternal place prepared for those who do not know Christ after they die. On the other side of the aisle were 3 men who had varying views ranging from a more "liberal" form of Christianity to one who was probably more of a soft atheist.

The biblical apologists came to the table with only about 9 key biblical references to espouse their view; most of which were solely from the New Testament. The opponents came to the table with a whole list of references that ranged throughout both the Old and New Testament. My personal persuasion from this debate was definitely in the corner to those who opposed what is now the "common" understanding of a literal and eternal Hell. Their arguments were very well laid out and were overall more consistent in their presentation and congruity of ideas.

Items from those in favour of the idea of a literal and eternal Hell seemed to me to be very interesting

• The neglecting of Old Testament passages on the grounds that Jesus did away with the Old Covenant by providing what is now a superior covenant- by this, I take it that we could do well to only use the Old Testament as a backward reference point, but not glean anything from it pertaining to doctrine. If that is the case then I think that a fair application should also follow by means of not looking to the Old Testament to also try and define any theological definition of God.
• The citation that those who held the opposing view were not able to rightly interpret the passages that they quoted because "the natural man is unable to understand the things of God."- Now, when I was still calling myself a Christian [assuming that I really did have the Spirit of God in me] I was making the same opposing observations that these "non-believers" were as well. So from their line of logic they are probably opposing themselves on this issue. So it is almost like they are saying that salvation comes about by God using the the Spirit and the Bible to open our eyes to understand salvation and our need of it by reading the Bible, but if we end up using more rational means to interpret things that don't seemingly need any additional supernatural revelation then we will most likely be wrong. I understand that human logic and rational is flawed by certain words and concepts but isn't God supposed to be logical enough to at least be generally understood by us on the surface? I am just uneasy with the whole card trick being pulled that says "you guys would otherwise make sense in your argument, but the Bible isn't really saying what is actually written there."
• The ignorance of the parabolic usage of the New Testament Gehenna- Gehenna was a real place outside of Jerusalem that served a specific purpose. It was a dump. It was the place where all of the trash, leftovers of animal sacrifices, and criminals were dumped. The fire there burned for an "infinite" amount of time, but the things that burned there only burned until they were consumed. So with that in mind, how does the idea of eternal torment comport to this picture?

All in all, I think that the "evangelical" side really lost this debate. I do feel that a lot of their ideas were consistent with their theology, but I have also come to learn that building a theological system is really tricky. There are so many variables that are at play here. They lost because they violated their own rules of interpretational criticism. They were not examining the texts from the context that they were in.

It is a very interesting debate so if you have time I would recommend listening to it.

Answering Some Feedback

If you're into reading the comments to my posts, you will see that one of my old friends has written to me about my present religious position. He's simply an "old friend" because, unfortunately, life just took us in our own various directions. The time that we did have together in High School was great. I considered him to be a great friend and still consider him to be a great man.

Below I am going to post all of his letter to me [his part in italics] and my responses beneath it [in plain text]

Good evening Chris,

It is odd to read the reflections of a friend regarding a time of their life that I was part of.

I suspect it would be interesting if we as people could read the accounts of our peers with 10 years of history. How strange to see where we land.

As you have discovered I am now married and have a son and find myself suddenly a parent- (does 9 mo. count as suddenly?) Asking questions about what it means to be an adult, maturity, and who will I be to this little boy?

Congratulations again Kevin on the birth of your son! I am sure that you and Heidi are going to make the most wonderful parents!

Today you labeled yourself an "agnostic" and decided; or rather accepted a "logic ultimatum" that you are ___________. (insert an adjective)

I don't really like the idea of an ultimatum on this issue because of the limitations that it places on the alternatives...but for the sake of argument I'll concede to what you're offering here.

Like a scientist would classifies a plant, we live in a culture that thrives on control. I'd say the sequence goes like this:

If I can control it, I can master it.
Step one:
Name the problem.
Disect the parts.
Name the parts.
Claim understanding.
Claim control.

I would agree with you for the most part on this, however, I feel that I have a hard time with the idea of thinking that this is a control issue. Let me offer you this flow of steps to give you a better understanding of how I feel things have happened.

I started asking questions because I saw inconsistencies.
I stated to get a better feel for the conclusions that the inconsistencies allowed for.
I disected the parts as a part of the previous step.
I named the parts.
I then actually claimed more of a lack of understanding as I looked at the issues deeper.
I have lost the control of how I think everything should fit into its logical place and have only conceded the ability to control limited portions of my life.

I'm not trying to be nit-picky here on this. I think that you are right. There are many life issues where your logical progression would apply to this. I remember a converstation that you and I had once about how a man always feels a requirement to "fix" whatever problems come up, because there seems to be more of a sense of control in his ability to fix something...but I can't quite make the same comparison here.

I must agree with you that answers can seem elusive. I think I have given up believing that I am smart enough to name, disect, much less control myself, my neurosis(s)(huh?), or God.

That is a noble admission. Very few are able to present themselves in such an honest light. I have always appreciated that about you.

And yet.....I cannot accept the idea that because I am unable to comprehend God even partially I am unable to accept promises claimed.

I can see and understand your logic in this, but that is where the bigger issue lies with me. What do we use to comprehend God? Do we use our minds? We all perceive and comprehend in various and differening ways. Do we believe because of a book? We have enough problems understanding thoughts and intents behind emails and letters that have plain intent and language, how much more difficulty interpreting a sacred text from a divine mind...and what certainty, apart from ultimate blind faith, do we have that God was truly the author of such promises? And much less, strictly the Christian God?

I fully acknowledge you as a scholar beyond me- not as flattery or insult- but in truth. You, like others I know have a hunger for the truth- Which I wonder if that hunger was planted by culture or nature or Spirit. Nevertheless, I'm rambling.

I'm not sure about the answer to that one either. I just know that some days I wish it would just leave me alone. :-)

I read a great book by McLaren, not to mention some Don Miller and Brenden Manning. I remember discussions I had with you during your high school years about Ragamuffin Gospel.

This is one of the more difficult areas for me; literature vs. orthodoxy and corporeal evolution. I respect Don Miller. I have read a few interviews with him in various publications and I like what I read; but the problem is that he is against the grain. That isn't always bad but what does it accomplish? He inspires some and rattles other's cages.

I apologize that I don't remember the discussions about Brendon Manning. My memory isn't quite as sharp as it used to be.

Brian McLaren has also done his share of stirring the Evangelical hot pot. I read from some that what he is doing is amazing. I read from others that he is a heretic. Who decides? And while everyone who accepts him understands that his Emergent fad is changing the face of "Church" as we know it, they are failing to recongnize that this type of corporeal evolution is the same thing that happens in every generation. Even in my own lifetime I have seen how differently the Christian religion has played itself out here in the US. Every generation goes through its own pendulum swing in attempts to correct mistakes and failures. The structure and approaches are always being deconstructed and reconstructed to fit the time and issues. Would this need to be done if there were such a thing as a transcendent truth that truly apprehended all those who adhered to it.

The same things have happened with every other religion that Christianity has blackballed as being false. It is the very core issue right now with our present struggles with the Muslim world...the constant tension between fundamentalists and the moderates. Each of them claim that their sect is more correct than the other. I see emergent tendencies even within Islam today. What is the difference?

The main point is that I cannot truly trust any of those author's credibility because of the liquid margins of standards of perceived truth within Orothodox Evangelical Christianity. I wish that I could, but the system that I see does not internally allow for it. While most agree in principal that the Bible is to be the final authority in spiritual matters, the interpretations of it are as vast as the number of verses.

I cannot believe that we are accidents, as a true athiest might.

My response to this might be fitted better somewhere else, but I am not an atheist. I don't either believe that we are necessarily accidents. There very well may be some ultimate reason for our existence, I just do not feel that I possess the certainty as to what it is.

Maybe the problem with modern
Christianity is that agnostics are seen as outsiders....

I hate it when people quote definitions, but....

Agnostic:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

I am not sure where that definition came from but I am not sure that I know of any true agnostics/skeptics that would apply that definition to themselves. It seems a bit too certain of a definition. LOL

The definitions are derived from the original components. a- no/without, gnosis- knowledge; a- no/without, theos- god.

Personally, I call myself a Theological Agnostic/Diest. I have my own proclivities toward believing that there is a god/mastermind behind getting everything started. I also believe that man has within himself the extraordinary ability to imagine God/gods to be whatever he can come up with; and over the course of what is probably at least a few aeons, man has come up with a few ideas as to what/who God/the gods are.

By that one....shoot....I guess I'd agree.
We only truly trust what we have experienced, and even then, we may become skeptics of ourselves.

And yet it is the issue of experience that Christians use to either validate or reject either their own claims or the claims of others. How does one's alleged experiences stack up against a normative reality? And then extend the test further to a particular interpretation/comparison of what is written in the Bible as to what the normative reality is supposed to be.

Perhaps we should be skeptical of our own experiences. In fact, I was always taught by my elders to have a skepticism until it could be proven with Scripture. The problem is that each person truly can only end up validating their own. If they seek to either validate or deny the experience of others then it is just purely subjective conjecture. This is why Protestant Christians have such an easy way of rejecting the Mormon idea that you can simply just pray about something and have God give you a "feeling" that validates it.

If we are not skeptics of ourselves then I can be pretty sure that we'd start taking ouselves too seriously too often. Men never do more damage to a society than when they have misguided ideas backed by religious justifications. That is not to say that religion does not produce good; many humanitarian efforts have been fronted by Christian, Buddhist, Unitarian, and other groups. But those efforts usually have reasons at their core that can exist separate from their religious affiliation.

We live in a world that worships control, pleasure, and logic. And I do not believe that God is threatened by any of those three nor does he feel obligated to follow any.

I agree. I also, however, feel that the same can apply to the strictly Christian construct of the idea of God.
--------------------
Alas, I have rambled too long.

I have never known you to do such a thing. I've only known you to be someone who carefully chooses the quality and quantity of words.

Chris, I do believe you are an honest man. And that is an honorable trait. A man that cannot admit fear is more a coward than his opposite.
I also believe that we were created to seek God - Knowing that it will be a life of pursuit more like chasing the sunrise than catching a butterfly. This is not cruelty, it is the merely the preview before the big show.
------------------------
God's richest to you and your family. It was good to see your post. I hope it's ok for me to put this in your comments. I hope that you do not choose to walk alone in your search.

Best of Friday nights,
ktow

Thanks Kevin. I really do appreciate your taking the time to think and write. I hope that my responses don't come off as trying to pretend that I've got a magic bullet for any questions that I am asked. I have often asked the same things and made similar observations. Right now though the tables have turned and I must think out loud.