Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory : Should Christianity be taught to children?

Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
edited April 2021 in Limbo
This is an idea that's been buzzing round my mind for years, but came up again when talking to my counsellor the other day. I think the Christian virtue of forgiving your enemies, loving them even, isn't only a religious plus, but the answer to a happy life.

However, when kids are taught it, it easily becomes "be nice to everyone and never get cross". It seems to me that, until you've accepted that you can get angry, violent even, the message of forbidding is not liberating, but constricting. If I'm right, and I'm not sure I am, then is there a case for not teaching these virtues until people are adults? And what would that do to all our youth work?
«1345678

Comments

  • Teaching children to be kind even when others are not kind is one of the most important lessons of all in my opinion. It doesn't mean being nice to everyone and never being cross. It means being kind despite being cross. Jesus showed his anger, but responded with love.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Teaching children to be kind even when others are not kind is one of the most important lessons of all in my opinion. It doesn't mean being nice to everyone and never being cross. It means being kind despite being cross. Jesus showed his anger, but responded with love.
    This. Teaching kids “be nice to everyone and never get cross” is teaching them something other than Christianity.

    We certainly taught our kids that it’s okay to be angry, and then worked on appropriate and inappropriate ways of expressing or acting on that anger.

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    I agree with Raptor Eye. I also think that if you are not taught these virtues when you are a child, it is very unlikely that you will ever learn them.
  • I think The Golden Rule about sums up everything, but it's a summary not a situation-specific prescription.

    Children still need to be taught to understand what is a lie, what is a broken promise, what are the specific forms of behaviour that result in damaged feelings, relationships and environments.

    The mythology that surrounds Christianity is less useful IMO in a purely didactic sense. The Bible is full of horrors and traumas and adult content, and I feel it's better to leave this for later in a child's development.

    IMO it's OK to leave out the story of the life, torture, death and resurrection until the child has developed the emotional maturity to encompass some kind of concept of a world that facilitates this kind of treatment of one another, even as we try to teach behaviour to the contrary.

    AFF

  • Children need to be taught to think of others, to be truthful, to share, to help those less fortunate, and to show love.
  • I agree with everybody else that "be nice" isn't the same thing as "be Christian." As it happens I worked really hard on this differentiation with my son, because we have been, are, and will probably always be in the orbit of the church as leaders--and God's sheep BITE. If you forbid a pastor's kid to get angry or to express that anger appropriately, you're sending them out to get shredded.

    So anger and the word "Fuck" have featured prominently in our parental modeling (foul language makes a pretty good substitute for strangling certain parishioners!). And as for forgiveness, well, he's seen that modeled too, along with all the eye-rolling it sometimes involves (for example, when Person X has barely the least notion of the trouble she's caused, and yet must be forgiven and cared for instead of yeeted into the sun).

    Why, yes, I AM a little stressed about a certain person at church just now. What gave you the first clue?
  • Yeeted?
  • Most cultures have a version of the Golden Rule, so I think it’s worth teaching and encourging. Are we are just talking about parental guidance here? My wife, who used to teach Reception, assures me that 5 year olds have class discussions about being kind to each other etc., and as they get older their ideas in this area will become more sophisticated. Some schools encourage children to come up with their own rules of behaviour.
    Forgiveness is more challenging, as people have widely different views about when it should be applied e.g. ‘I can forgive but I’ll never forget’!
  • The golden rule - whoever's got the gold rules?
  • Yeeted?
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The golden rule - whoever's got the gold rules?

    Preferably the other, less cynical one.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Yeet, v. -- to throw or launch something or someone. Used in contrast to "yoink," to pull toward oneself. Origin: Gen Z-speak. Yeet, yeeted, have yeeted (except X-er var. yeet, yate, geyoten)
  • LatchKeyKidLatchKeyKid Purgatory Host
    From the title, I expected something different from teaching the Golden Rule, which can be found in some form in many faith traditions.

    I see some ideas of what teaching Christianity is to be problematic in multi-cultural school settings and appears to be relying on a remnant of a past Christian culture.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I read the title as teaching Christianity as a subject.
  • Me too. Which, to me, implies at least teaching some of the basic Christian stories.
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    All of you seem to have handled this far better than I ever would. Probably as well I've never been a parent.
  • I'm don't think I really taught my children about Christianity,partly because I don't describe myself as Christian: a churchgoer yes but I don't think I fulfil the criteria of "Christian".
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I'm don't think I really taught my children about Christianity,partly because I don't describe myself as Christian: a churchgoer yes but I don't think I fulfil the criteria of "Christian".
    That is kind of the point of Christianity. No one fulfils the criteria, but God loves us anyway.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Me too. Which, to me, implies at least teaching some of the basic Christian stories.

    Yes, I agree, but I wonder how all this affects what we do (or don't do) in church.

    'Sunday School' seems to have died out in many parishes/churches (but by no means all), so how do we teach those children who do come to church the rudiments of the Faith, if we feel that this is necessary?

    Messy Church?

  • Messy Church will probably teach some Bible stories and cover some Christian concepts which will doubtless include kindness, love, sharing etc.
    I am becoming more and more convinced that Messy Church, whilst it has enormous value, should not be seen as, of itself, Church, but as a stepping stone. I know that has been stated not to be the intention, but it seems to me that it only meets a need as church for a certain period in a family’s life, and something more is needed if those family members are to grow in their understanding and faith.
  • Yes, that is my understanding of Messy Church, too, but it seems that it can lead to more...

    My local parish church has Messy Church monthly (on a Sunday afternoon), and AIUI there is a fair attendance of children and adults - a few of whom do go to the Parish Communion on other Sundays. I'm told that Messy Church has resulted in a number of baptisms, and that one or two of the families concerned have entered further into faith, and the life of the church.
  • It depends what is meant by 'taught'.

    Obviously, children should be taught about Christianity, just as they are taught about religions and beliefs as part of Religious Education, and about geography, history, physics, and all manner of subjects. There's also subjects such as sport, art, drama, and music, which are slightly different as the child gets to participate rather than simply absorb information.

    If the child is lucky they will find one or more subjects that sparks their interest and which becomes more than just an academic qualification.

    Should they be taught to be Christians? No of course not.

    As for the idea that there are virtues which are specifically Christian or which require a Christian framework, well, no. If there were then we would see that the children of non-Christians are specifically lacking in virtues, which they are not.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Well said, Sir, though one could say that it is the job of the Church(es) to teach what it means to be a Christian, leaving it up to the individual to decide for themselves if this is a path they wish to follow, perhaps in later life.

    I belong to a church which practises infant/child baptism, but I appreciate the view of those who prefer the practice of 'believer's baptism' at a later stage...

    The OP is perhaps a little ambiguous, I agree.
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    @Colin Smith: "As for the idea that there are virtues which are specifically Christian or which require a Christian framework, well, no. If there were then we would see that the children of non-Christians are specifically lacking in virtues, which they are not."

    I was careful to say that these values are of importance to everyone, not only religious folk. But I think it's uncontroversial to say they lie at the heart of Jesus' teaching, and therefore the Christian way of life.
  • My children refused all variants of Sunday School/ Junior Church that they tried, sitting in the loft with me at first, then preferring to sit in a side aisle and draw during the sermon. Of course they joined the choir at 7 so that occupied them. Both asked why the children of the SS "weren't allowed" to come to proper church.
  • Why should children not be taught to be Christians?

    And as for specifically Christian virtues, are those not the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and love (in the specifically Christian variants--tge ones that look like stupidity to non-Christians?
  • Why should children not be taught to be Christians?

    And as for specifically Christian virtues, are those not the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and love (in the specifically Christian variants--tge ones that look like stupidity to non-Christians?

    Because being Christian is a matter of choice and as with all choices in life I would rather children grow and discover what they wish to believe in through experience and experimentation rather than having one position thrust upon them when they are too immature to understand the alternatives on offer.

    Faith hope and love do not look like stupidity to non-Christians. On the contrary, I believe particular Christian values are immensely useful to Christians. I just happen to believe they are not universally applicable or relevant to all people.
  • @Colin Smith: "As for the idea that there are virtues which are specifically Christian or which require a Christian framework, well, no. If there were then we would see that the children of non-Christians are specifically lacking in virtues, which they are not."

    I was careful to say that these values are of importance to everyone, not only religious folk. But I think it's uncontroversial to say they lie at the heart of Jesus' teaching, and therefore the Christian way of life.

    Except that historically (and even today) countless Christians ignored those values and perverted Christianity to justify all manner of horrors.
  • Why should children not be taught to be Christians?

    And as for specifically Christian virtues, are those not the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and love (in the specifically Christian variants--tge ones that look like stupidity to non-Christians?

    Because being Christian is a matter of choice and as with all choices in life I would rather children grow and discover what they wish to believe in through experience and experimentation rather than having one position thrust upon them when they are too immature to understand the alternatives on offer.
    My experience is that teaching children to be Christian (or to put it another way, raising them as Christian) and those children choosing on their own as they grow older whether they believe what Christianity teaches and want to be Christian are rarely mutually exclusive.

  • Why should children not be taught to be Christians?

    Because being Christian is a matter of choice and as with all choices in life I would rather children grow and discover what they wish to believe in through experience and experimentation rather than having one position thrust upon them when they are too immature to understand the alternatives on offer.
    Me too. That's why I never taught my kids not to steal or lie.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »

    Because being Christian is a matter of choice and as with all choices in life I would rather children grow and discover what they wish to believe in through experience and experimentation rather than having one position thrust upon them when they are too immature to understand the alternatives on offer.
    My experience is that teaching children to be Christian (or to put it another way, raising them as Christian) and those children choosing on their own as they grow older whether they believe what Christianity teaches and want to be Christian are rarely mutually exclusive.

    Not quite grasping what you mean. Do you mean children raised as Christians usually turn to Christianity, or the opposite?

    This discussion often turns on atheism versus Christianity, but in real life at the moment I know a Buddhist, a Daoist, a Christian, one atheist, one non-anything, and a few pagans, so I really do see Christianity as simply one choice among many.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited February 2020
    tclune wrote: »

    Me too. That's why I never taught my kids not to steal or lie.

    They're not even remotely the same thing.
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    @Colin Smith: "As for the idea that there are virtues which are specifically Christian or which require a Christian framework, well, no. If there were then we would see that the children of non-Christians are specifically lacking in virtues, which they are not."

    I was careful to say that these values are of importance to everyone, not only religious folk. But I think it's uncontroversial to say they lie at the heart of Jesus' teaching, and therefore the Christian way of life.

    Except that historically (and even today) countless Christians ignored those values and perverted Christianity to justify all manner of horrors.

    And your point is? Ignoring, or failing to live up to, core values does not make them any less central.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »

    Because being Christian is a matter of choice and as with all choices in life I would rather children grow and discover what they wish to believe in through experience and experimentation rather than having one position thrust upon them when they are too immature to understand the alternatives on offer.
    My experience is that teaching children to be Christian (or to put it another way, raising them as Christian) and those children choosing on their own as they grow older whether they believe what Christianity teaches and want to be Christian are rarely mutually exclusive.

    Not quite grasping what you mean. Do you mean children raised as Christians usually turn to Christianity, or the opposite?

    This discussion often turns on atheism versus Christianity, but in real life at the moment I know a Buddhist, a Daoist, a Christian, one atheist, one non-anything, and a few pagans, so I really do see Christianity as simply one choice among many.

    You can support a child in making a good choice while still leaving the choice up to them. If you believe that following Christ is a good choice then you will necessarily want to instruct your child in how to do that, even if you don't (and indeed can't possibly) force them to do so.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »

    Because being Christian is a matter of choice and as with all choices in life I would rather children grow and discover what they wish to believe in through experience and experimentation rather than having one position thrust upon them when they are too immature to understand the alternatives on offer.
    My experience is that teaching children to be Christian (or to put it another way, raising them as Christian) and those children choosing on their own as they grow older whether they believe what Christianity teaches and want to be Christian are rarely mutually exclusive.

    Not quite grasping what you mean. Do you mean children raised as Christians usually turn to Christianity, or the opposite?
    I mean that the idea that parents who raise their children as Christian are somehow making the choice for their children is, I think, a fallacy. The choice they’ve made is how the child will be raised, not how the person will live his or her life. Those children raised as Christian (or Jewish, or Buddhist or whatever) will all reach a point of deciding for themselves whether they believe it.

    There are lots of people out there who were raised as Christian and who, as they grew up, made the decision on their own to reject how they’d been raised.


  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    As for the idea that there are virtues which are specifically Christian or which require a Christian framework, well, no. If there were then we would see that the children of non-Christians are specifically lacking in virtues, which they are not.
    Tom Holland the historian's latest book, Dominion, argues that humanistic Western culture just is a Christisn framework. There are virtues that children of Europeans are brought up with that Ancient Romans and Greeks would not have recognised.
    Holland says he was an atheist as a young man; nothing suggests that's changed.

    (I believed that before reading Holland's book: many of the entries in the general section of his bibliography are familiar. But it was fun reading and Holland is sufficiently interested in the crimes and follies of humanity not to appear one-sided. Indeed, I frequently felt that he leaves the reader too much to make his case for themselves.)

    A child brought up in a mainstream secular home in Europe is being brought up with Christian values. Indeed, the very idea that there is a default called the secular that exists without something called religion is an artifact of Christian theology.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Given the success (or lack thereof, depending on POV) of teaching Christianity to adult
    Christians in the US, perhaps the OP question should be altered to read, "Can Christianity be taught to children (or indeed anybody)?"
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I mean that the idea that parents who raise their children as Christian are somehow making the choice for their children is, I think, a fallacy. The choice they’ve made is how the child will be raised, not how the person will live his or her life. Those children raised as Christian (or Jewish, or Buddhist or whatever) will all reach a point of deciding for themselves whether they believe it.

    There are lots of people out there who were raised as Christian and who, as they grew up, made the decision on their own to reject how they’d been raised.

    I think that's getting very close to it. You can't teach a child to be Christian (Buddhist, Muslim, or any other) by sitting them down and teaching them the various principles of the religion. They will learn what adherents of that religion believe, but the belief itself can not be taught in an academic manner. It can be by example - how many came to be Christians by having a smattering of the article of belief and then observing how Mother Theresa put those into action as her daily life.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Re the question in the title, Yes. If you are a Christian, if you believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, if you believe that this temporal life is a preparation for his offer of eternal life, if you love your children and want the best for them, you will want them to believe in Jesus, choose his life and spend eternity with him.

    Not only is the answer, Yes, but it's obviously and self-evidently Yes. If an assortment of atheists and agnostics think otherwise, then, so what?

  • As a teacher in a compehensive school for 30 years I witnessed various approaches to teaching Christianity. I think the term ‘Religious Instruction’ had just about run its course when I started teaching. By the time I finished teaching, Religious Education was clearly a specialised subject with its own highly respected A level exam. But it still rated only one (hour) period a week up to the age of 16, whereas History and Geography would each have at least three periods. There is no National Curriculum syllabus for R.E., unlike most other subjects. Local councils are responsible for producing their own syllabuses, and faith schools also have their own.

    The best teaching was certainly done by specialist R.E. teachers, and I think benefitted from being about religions rather than just Christianity. One of the most effective R.E. teachers I can remember in our all-white school was a moslem lady. Towards the end of my teaching career, our school went through a period of not hiring specialist R.E. staff. I joined with the rest of the Humanities staff in refusing to take over the teaching of R.E. alongside our History and Geography teaching, partly because there was no syllabus and the text book just focussed on festivals. It nearly came to the point where I, a Christian, would have had to exercise my legal right not to teach ‘Christianity’!

    I don’t think things have changed much since. I imagine Christianity is taught well in some secondary schools, but our fragmented education system is particularly fragmented when it comes to R.E.
  • I don't get the arguments about letting the child choose as an adult. As has been said already, children get to choose about basically everything as adults--if they wish to leave off brushing their teeth then, they'll do so. So my raising my son in the Christian faith does not force Christianity on him lifelong, as if he were some sort of robot.

    But there's also this: If you have something in your life that you seriously believe to be the way, the truth, and the life, the best thing that ever happened to you, the thing that humanity was made for, and so on and so forth--why ever would you withhold it from your child? It would be worse than withholding vaccinations on the grounds that the child can "choose" to be vaccinated as an adult.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Re the question in the title, Yes. If you are a Christian, if you believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, if you believe that this temporal life is a preparation for his offer of eternal life, if you love your children and want the best for them, you will want them to believe in Jesus, choose his life and spend eternity with him.

    Not only is the answer, Yes, but it's obviously and self-evidently Yes. If an assortment of atheists and agnostics think otherwise, then, so what?

    Not quibbling at all with what you say in your first paragraph, which is much what Lamb Chopped has said. What I'm saying is that you can't teach belief as you can teach mathematics etc. That sort of teaching can only pass on details of what it is that you believe. The only way you can teach the belief itself is from their observation of your life and how your belief guides and directs that.
  • There are lots of people out there who were raised as Christian and who, as they grew up, made the decision on their own to reject how they’d been raised.

    The Barna Group has been looking at this for the past five years. They have come up with six main reasons.

    *Churches seem overprotective
    *Christianity seems too shallow
    *Churches are antagonistic to science
    *The church comes across as judgmental to sexuality
    *Churches come across as exclusive
    *Churches are unfriendly to doubt."

    I know I all but left the church because of the third reason. I grew up in a denomination that taught the six 24 hour day creation. I enjoyed science. I still do. My favorite TV series has to be Cosmos with both Carl Sagan and Neal deGrasse Tyson as hosts. But it was my uncle who had a PhD in Geology that helped me start to make sense of it all, namely while science can explain how things evolved, it cannot explain why or who might be behind it.

    Churches certainly come across as unfriendly to doubt, but my mantra is that the enemy of faith is not doubt but certitude.

    The sexuality issue is certainly a killer among many young people I know. However, I think Pete Buttigieg is showing that a gay person can indeed be a faithful member of the church. He is Episcopalian and his message of social justice is definitely reflective of his denomination's message.

    Every 500 years the church has to transform itself to make it more relative to the people--it might have to do it much more often, but I would definitely say it needs to repackage its message and address the concerns of young people.

  • Hmm - N = 1 and non-standard N, but Boy#1 is foundering on the same rock as me - "what's the evidence this is actually true?"
  • From the title, I expected something different from teaching the Golden Rule, which can be found in some form in many faith traditions.

    I see some ideas of what teaching Christianity is to be problematic in multi-cultural school settings and appears to be relying on a remnant of a past Christian culture.
    Yes, I too read the title and could have immediately jumped in with a strong negative! However, on the Ship I have ffound that it is always a better idea to read first - and of course the sensible, thoughtful posts about the best way of behaving broadens the question.
    ?For me, the answer is straightforward: all religious beliefs should be taught ABOUT as they are an integral part of history, but to teach a child that beliefs which entirely lack credibility as definite truths Is, yes, a no-no.
  • It depends what is meant by 'taught'.

    Obviously, children should be taught about Christianity, just as they are taught about religions and beliefs as part of Religious Education, and about geography, history, physics, and all manner of subjects. There's also subjects such as sport, art, drama, and music, which are slightly different as the child gets to participate rather than simply absorb information.

    If the child is lucky they will find one or more subjects that sparks their interest and which becomes more than just an academic qualification.

    Should they be taught to be Christians? No of course not.

    As for the idea that there are virtues which are specifically Christian or which require a Christian framework, well, no. If there were then we would see that the children of non-Christians are specifically lacking in virtues, which they are not.
    I should have read a bit further and seconded your post!

  • Colin Smith's post completely misrepresents religious faith. It is not a matter of propositional assent to a doctrinal formula. It is a way of relating to the world and everything in it which has to be experienced. True faith is caught, not taught.

    Atheists are not neutral in this. They want "faith" to be completely mistaught, misunderstood, to wither in each passing generation. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not neutrality. It is active hostility. The wrinkle is that certain religious people agree with them, notably those who treat faith like a set of terms and conditions to which believers must adhere.
  • The idea that what are referred to as 'Christian values' have only been known and in place for a couple of thousand years is, of course, entirely wrong. Our species has survived because people evolved to behave in ways which enabled survival and the ones who did not were not numerous enough to cause our extinction.
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    I've been around long enough to know that the writer of the Original Post has no control over where the thread goes after that. But, despite all the fascinating comments, very few people have commented on the matter that perplexes me.

    "It seems to me that, until you've accepted that you can get angry, violent even, the message of forbidding is not liberating, but constricting."

    If we deny the darker side of ourselves, which is temptingly easy to do no matter how often we confess our sins, how can we practise forgiveness, or receive it? As a child the message I heard was, "Be nice and don't get angry," so I pushed a lot of my more unpleasant emotions away. Many years later I am having to deal with them. As Prospero said of Caliban, "This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine."
  • @Colin Smith: "As for the idea that there are virtues which are specifically Christian or which require a Christian framework, well, no. If there were then we would see that the children of non-Christians are specifically lacking in virtues, which they are not."

    I was careful to say that these values are of importance to everyone, not only religious folk. But I think it's uncontroversial to say they lie at the heart of Jesus' teaching, and therefore the Christian way of life.

    Except that historically (and even today) countless Christians ignored those values and perverted Christianity to justify all manner of horrors.

    And your point is? Ignoring, or failing to live up to, core values does not make them any less central.

    My point is there is nothing particularly Christian about those values. They are core to every culture because they are part of human social behaviour.
  • Colin Smith's post completely misrepresents religious faith. It is not a matter of propositional assent to a doctrinal formula. It is a way of relating to the world and everything in it which has to be experienced. True faith is caught, not taught.

    Atheists are not neutral in this. They want "faith" to be completely mistaught, misunderstood, to wither in each passing generation. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not neutrality. It is active hostility. The wrinkle is that certain religious people agree with them, notably those who treat faith like a set of terms and conditions to which believers must adhere.

    Utterly absurd comment re atheists. I'd also point out that atheism is also a belief and a way of "relating to the world and everything in it which has to be experienced".

    My main point is that Christianity is only one our of a myriad of possible faith positions any one of which may be a best fit with someone's needs and all of which are of equal value and validity.
Sign In or Register to comment.