April 14, 2005
-
greenhouse?
Here's an interesting article about "church"
...with this interesting quote:
"Children mature morally by resisting evil, but if it comes at them too fast, too often, and from influential peers, they will become desensitized and sin will begin to appear less evil to them."
What do you all think? Is he right? Wrong? In what ways?
Some of you might think that this is irrelevant, but in a few short years this will be extremely relevant for most of us...
Comments (5)
I'm rather wary of his tone -- but I'm not sure exactly why. I mean, in a sense, we are in a battle zone, and American Christianity would do very well to take MORE care in things like raising children and picking friends.
The passage you quoted seems very true to me. I guess where I would take some issue with the article is on where you draw the line of non-association. Routinely pissing people off because their family isn't as "righteous" (his word) as yours doesn't strike me as very Christian. I think I am rather wary of the self-righteous tone of his article, although I think he generally makes some really good points. Perhaps I don't agree completely on how to apply those points, though.
What do you think?
He's a hardliner - that will always put you on edge. While I don't think I'll follow his advice in every respect, he does make good points. I think the above quote could be expanded to include more than children. Everyone, regardless of age, is susceptible to becoming desensitized if pummelled with evil. His last criteria is the most dangerous, to me: "from influential peers." It's a reminder to me to be aware whose advice i'm taking in and acting on.
I tend to agree with both of you that it's hard to know "where to draw the line." But it seems like we MUST choose, and draw the line somewhere - 2 John 1:9-11, etc... Hmmm...
Perhaps "supervision" is a magic bullet in this case? I.e. if there were some "naughty" kids whose habits I didn't want my children picking up, I could allow interaction ONLY when I am personally with them? Then my children could watch the way I interact with the kids, and correct them if necessary, etc... ?
enh... I don't think so. Obviously, this guy advocates a completely different sort of method of raising children than is the cultural norm. I would have to think about it more and probably observe some, but this idea of (almost) total supervision seems to me unrealistic to be widely applied. I imagine that the trade-offs would be too great; just like we (currently -- or at least in the past) can't make sure that everyone is always following the speed limit. We settle for some random enforcement to remind people. It's actually not worth it to enforce it much more (in the traditional sense of cops pulling people over).
Again, I do like most of his conclusion that he draws from the 4-year-olds' "Jesus is Lord" argument -- although a shouting match might not be something we want to encourage. It is a 4-year-old, of course; let's do one thing at a time. I'm happy (for the time being) with her being so confident in the face of adversity that Jesus is Lord. I think it is important to "tutor" our children on the law, as Scriptures say (both about children, and early stages of revelation), and then as they grow up gradually free them to be full sons and daughters. It's a sort of art-form, I think, to know when that moment is when we restrict or when we risk and trust the child knows enough to discern right from wrong. Always, always, always proclaim the Truth, and reprimand the child, but I think I will more often than not choose on the side of risk and trust, when it's debatable.
But then, that was something that was somewhat lacking in my upbringing. With a grain of salt.
interesting...
Comments are closed.