knapp@pd1.llnl.gov (David Knapp) (11/17/89)
In reply to dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate), bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >You have effectively stated that you will be content to let your >children believe in things which God describes as being an >abomination to Him... >The Scriptures do not teach the concept of permitting our children to >be misled until they reach an age when we decide that they are old >enough to understand the truth. When I read this article, I was chilled to the bone. How sad to be a child growing up in such an environment! Besides the obvious logical contradiction in Dave's stand (after claiming repeatedly that God predestines us for salvation, he now says that we cannot permit our children not to believe), there is another problem, which I find more general in the evangelical tradition. That is the question of the _method_ of bringing people to a decision about faith in Jesus Christ. It seems to me that how we bring people to Christ is as important as simply doing so; the purported end doesn't justify the means. Two common methods I've experienced of getting people to "convert" have been the "alter call" service, in which the audience is raised to a fever pitch of emotion (often, but not always, one of fear of hellfire), and the use of force or legislative authority. Happily, the latter seems mostly to have died out (though Dave's posting makes me wonder), but the former is alive and well. Do we really feel that the Gospel is so weak that we must manipulate people into accepting Christ? I am sure that in many instances once people are pressured into asking Christ to come into their lives, He will actually do so and their faith will become genuine, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to degrade the integrity and value of those we are trying to save, as well as to be evidence of a lack of faith in Christ's ability to save them without our help. My opinion is that we should use loving, Christian means to bring people to Christ, but assiduously avoid duplicity, manipulation, psychological or emotional tricks, and most especially force. Has anyone else ever though about this? -- Dave [I think you are reading too much into Dave's comments. I don't think he was talking about forcing children to believe. The context was a discussion about Santa Claus and other imaginary characters. People had said that it was harmless for kids to have illusions. They will grow out of them. Dave is saying that we owe the truth to even the youngest child. I'm not sure I agree with all of his negative attitudes towards fantasy, but I don't see quite the same chilling implications in his posting that you do. --clh]
levy@ttbcad.att.com (Daniel R Levy) (11/20/89)
< [I think you are reading too much into Dave's comments. I don't think < he was talking about forcing children to believe. The context was a < discussion about Santa Claus and other imaginary characters. People < had said that it was harmless for kids to have illusions. They will < grow out of them. Dave is saying that we owe the truth to even the < youngest child. I'm not sure I agree with all of his negative < attitudes towards fantasy, but I don't see quite the same chilling < implications in his posting that you do. --clh] How about some kind of middle ground, i.e. the child is clearly told, just as early as he/she can understand the spoken words, that Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, etc., is all pretend? This allows the child to participate in the fun yet not be "tainted" with a false belief. This was the situation that occurred in my family. My brother and I "played" as if there was Santa Claus for years, yet we knew from the first time that we hung the stockings that our parents were filling them. Ditto for the Easter Bunny and candy hunts in the backyard. -- Daniel R. Levy UNIX(R) mail: att!ttbcad!levy, att!cbnewsc!levy AT&T Bell Laboratories 5555 West Touhy Avenue Any opinions expressed in the message above are Skokie, Illinois 60077 mine, and not necessarily AT&T's.