Lunch With A Liberal Christian
April 18, 2008
I had the pleasure of sharing a leisurely lunch recently with a Christian friend whom I had not seen in a couple of months. The lengthy interval between our meetings was a radical change from the time, not very long ago, when we saw each other twice a week: at Wednesday evening choir rehearsals and Sunday morning worship services. The responsibility for this lack of contact does not lie solely with me: Joanne quit the church about six weeks before I quit the choir.
As we exchanged emails and phone calls over the past several months, it became clear that both of us have been thinking about similar issues. The first, which I discussed in a recent post, was burnout. Church musicians, many of whom are volunteers, typically sacrifice a lot of time and energy to keep up their involvement with their musical groups. It’s not unusual for them to burnout. No doubt, our pastors felt blindsided when Joanne and I announced, within six weeks of each other and with absolutely no collusion, that we needed to step out of the church and/or choir. This may explain, partially, the pastors’ less-than-supportive response when my resignation letter arrived less than two months after Joanne’s.
The second set of issues best falls under the heading of beliefs. Regular readers here know that I settled most, if not all, of these issues when I embraced atheism last summer. Joanne’s journey has not been, thus far, this clear-cut. Nevertheless, she has come quite a long way in her personal growth.
Some background: Joanne and I both hail from old Salvation Army families and are both descendants of several generations of Salvation Army officers (ministers). In fact, we recently discovered that, if we go back a few generations, we are something like sixth cousins four times removed by marriage or something weird like that. Our veins run thick with evangelical, red-yellow-and-blue (the colors of The Salvation Army flag) blood. I (along with the deacon) was an officer for nearly a decade and, at one time, Joanne gave serious consideration to becoming an officer.
Looking back now, it’s clear that Joanne and I both had the same idea regarding the best way to start the conversation: be the first one to put the other on the spot; ask the first question and find out where the other one is before offering too much information oneself. Joanne beat me to it and, before we had even settled comfortably into our seats, opened with the first question.
Joanne: So, tell me, what are some of the issues you have with The Salvation Army?
Chaplain: Should I start with social issues or doctrines?
Joanne: Either one. It sounds like you have quite a few.
Chaplain: More than a few.
Joanne: Okay, how about one of each.
Chaplain: Okay. Two issues first. The Salvation Army’s position on alcohol is out to lunch. There’s nothing wrong with drinking. They’re also out to lunch about homosexuality. There’s nothing wrong with it. They’re wrong on both issues. Now, for a doctrine: I’ll start with the infallibility of scripture. I don’t believe the Bible is any more inspired than the hymns of Charles Wesley or John Milton’s Paradise Lost. The fact that the canon was decided by a vote -
Joanne: By a bunch of men-
Chaplain: Exactly, a bunch of men sat around in the fourth century and voted about which scriptures made the cut and which didn’t. You know there was a lot of politics involved in that decision.
Joanne: Of course.
Chaplain: They also decided that nothing written after that time could be added to the canon. Do you really think that nothing written within the past 1,600 years could supplement or supersede the 27 approved books of the New Testament?
That little exchange kicked off a discussion that lasted 2½ hours. Another brief exchange:
Joanne: Why are you still going to church at all? For the kids?
Chaplain: Partly for the kids. It’s our heritage and we wanted to connect them with that. But J2 will be going college next year, so that won’t be much of a factor soon. J1 is going to [another Salvation Army church]. He’s seriously dating a Catholic girl now, so I won’t be surprised if he ends up going there with her. He’ll have to make his own decisions about what church, if any, he will go to in the future. The biggest reason we’re staying connected now is [the deacon's] job. In light of some of the tasks he’s had in the past, as long as he’s in that position he feels obligated to keep a connection. Once we move away from this area, which will be within a couple of years, it’s unlikely that we will go to The Salvation Army.
Joanne: Which church would you go to?
Chaplain: Unitarian Universalist.
Joanne: Wow. You really are far left, aren’t you? What do they believe?
Chaplain: Well, they’re very open-minded. They welcome anyone - even atheists - to be part of their fellowship.
Joanne: Mmm. Maybe that’s the kind of broad-minded community I’m looking for.
So far, so good. This has been an invigorating discussion. Then, somewhere along the line, Joanne starts spouting some airy-fairy dualist theology she’d read recently about how there is no literal hell and that hell is really on earth.
Chaplain: That’s depressing. Why would anyone who believed that bother getting out of bed in the morning?
Joanne: Well, this world and this life are not real, the real things will be when our spirits, or whatever, go to heaven-
Chaplain: (remaining silent but obviously looking like I’m not buying a word of it)
Joanne: I’ll find the link and email it to you.
We moved on and I discussed some of Bart Ehrman’s work in textual criticism. She was interested in that and in some books I’ll be giving her the next time we see each other (the book list is at the end of the post, if you’re interested). We also discussed church-state separation (Mike Huckabee has the same nauseating effect on her that he has on me), evolution (I noted that if I ever again hear anyone teach about YEC or some other similar crap, I’m likely to stand up and start yelling at the person; she agreed that she also would find it difficult to restrain herself from doing the same), Biblical literalism, Christian communities, superficial Bible studies (sometimes referred to as “share-your-ignorance” sessions), pastoral care (she was appalled when I told her how the pastors’ had responded to my burnout letter) and other stuff. Like her recent trip to Las Vegas.
Why is her recent trip to Las Vegas significant? Because few, if any, evangelical Christians give any thought - I mean not even one - to visiting “Sin City.” The fact that she broke far enough out of the evangelical box to take a vacation in Las Vegas is significant. So was her report that she lost $50 on the slot machines, but her traveling companion (another evangelical Christian whom I know) won $150 at slots and the roulette wheel. Evangelical Christians do not gamble! They don’t even buy raffle tickets or play bingo! As Joanne put it, she is taking advantage of her break from church going to learn more about herself. She is not in a hurry to get involved in another church or to return to our church. Instead, she is trying new things - things that, just a few years ago, she would not have imagined herself doing.
Joanne: I’m still in recovery. I’m trying to find out more about who I am and sort through the brainwashing- well, not exactly brainwashing-
Chaplain: Indoctrination.
Joanne: Right. I’m still recovering from that…
And so it went. What I take away from this story (so far) is this:
Joanne is very liberal socially and politically. She has many good questions about the Christian indoctrination that she’s carried in her head for nearly 50 years. And yet…she doesn’t believe in a fire-and-brimstone hell, but she continues to believe in heaven and continues to hold a body-soul dichotomy. She’s not actively seeking to attach herself to a church community, but she holds out a slim hope that it may happen someday. She still believes in God and a divine-human Jesus. She’s still trying, as I did for many years, to cobble together some vestige of Christian belief that comports with her practical knowledge of the world. Will she ever be able to let it go? I don’t know. I know first-hand how hard it is to do so. The last step is terrifying and, initially, it feels like one has plummeted into Nietzsche’s abyss. I’m not out to proselytize atheism but, if Joanne ever is ready to take that last step, I will be there to lend a listening ear, give her more books (I’ve always got plenty of those), share ideas with her and reassure her that the view from the other side of the abyss is far better than the one she left behind.
– the chaplain
PS: Book list:
Politics
Molly Ivins - Bill of Wrongs
Walter Brasch - Sinking the Ship of State
Christianity
James Twitchell - Shopping for God
Hemant Mehta - I Sold My Soul on eBay
Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus
Bart Ehrman - Lost Christianities
NOTE: I’ve changed Joanne’s name throughout the post and comments to protect her anonymity.
Entry Filed under: thechaplain. Tags: chrisitianity, de-conversion, indoctrination, rationalism, religion.
43 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Forums (New)
Top Posts
SU Users: StumbleUpon It!!
1.
John | April 19, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“Because few, if any, evangelical Christians give any thought - I mean not even one - to visiting “Sin City.””
Oh yes, lots do give a thought and plenty visit.
“Evangelical Christians do not gamble!”
Plenty of Evangelicals do gamble!
2.
TheDeeZone | April 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’m with John about evangelical Christians visiting Las Vegas. My husband wants to go there because of the prices. Also a few years ago our denomination held its annual convention there.
So what exactly is the Salvation Army? We were just discussing if it was a church or some sort of mission and what they believed.
3.
karen | April 19, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Fascinating conversation, chaplain! Thanks for letting us be “flies on the wall” for it.
I have recently connected with a couple other former fundies and it’s amazing how the words and the shared experiences start pouring out! Before you know it, hours have passed. It’s a good feeling to be face-to-face with someone who’s gone through a similar experience, isn’t it?
We had a close friend a few years ago who was Salvation Army born and bred. It seemed to me like they are fundies of the old school - really conservative and really legalistic. Not sure if that’s your impression as well.
Also, this guy had been pretty seriously mistreated by his older brother when he was a kid, but his parents were so involved in ministry (or just blind or neglectful maybe) that they never noticed and never protected him. He had some real psychological issues, but never left the organization.
In terms of your friend’s current spiritual state, I find that’s common. A lot of people seem willing to question fundamentalist belief, and even Christianity to an extent, but dropping theism is the big kahuna that many people cannot bring themselves to contemplate.
4.
frodo441 | April 19, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I find the popular notion, that somehow the world is in jeopardy because of organized atheism, is latently a naive topic anyway…I draw your attention to the reality of all renaissances through out history, the product is “humanistic secularism”. I have no problem with “humanistic secularism,” and it in no way determines what I think about “tongue in cheek” approaches towards religion, much like American pragmatism. I do have contention with “social darwinists” who think (though while precocious meditations) that we all evolve together collectively and societally, and that one day we all get there together. That sounds good, but the inherent deception is if you convince society that in fact as history progresses that we devolve somehow…all that will happen is you’ll have a lot of people spreading rumors and gossip and “prophetic end time” diatribes on collectivist social norms and moray’s…when in fact, aside from the truly reactive idealogue’s …nothing could be further from the truth…unless, you think somehow, the world has to make France’s Left bank look good.
5.
the chaplain | April 19, 2008 at 4:28 pm
John and Dee Zone:
Thanks for balancing and correcting my generalization of evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. It likely would have been more accurate to limit my statement to evangelicals I’ve known personally. Having lived all over the USA and Canada, I’ve known a good number. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Generalizations are risky because they never apply entirely to whole groups.
Here is The Salvation Army’s Mission Statement:
It may be easiest to think of The Salvation Army as having two branches.
1. With regard to its “church” branch, The Salvation Army is an evangelical Christian church that has local congregations that worship together every week and hold various activities designed to nurture Christians in their spiritual development. Additionally, there continues to be a strong emphasis on soul-winning through various outreach and program initiatives. In the USA, The Salvation Army is actually a rather small denomination numerically, although it ministers in 117 countries around the world. You can go here to read its 11 core doctrines.
2. The second branch of The Salvation Army is its charitable ministries branch. You may be familiar with this, as these ministries are, by far, the most well-known activities of the organization. These are considered to be practical expressions of the “Salvationist’s” love for God. You’ve probably heard the motto, “Heart to God, Hand to Man.” That sums up pretty nicely the organization’s idea that Christians are called to minister to the full range of people’s needs, not just the spiritual ones. An early Salvation Army motto was “Soup, Soap & Salvation.” The belief (later articulated quite well by Maslow) is that people won’t be the least bit interested in addressing spiritual needs if their basic physical needs have not been met. The Salvation Army generally seeks to minister to the body as well as to the spirit.
6.
TheDeeZone | April 19, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The Chaplain,
Thanks for clarifying that. I have only had contact with the charitable ministries. Many of the people that attended a homeless ministry that our church sponsored lived at the Salvation Army. Didn’t realize that “Heart to God, Hand to Man.” was from the salvation army. Actually, only heard that in an old Geoff Moore song.
7.
olymatt | April 19, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Am I missing something or was the reason people followed Jesus, and later the church that followed, due the radical transformation of their lives- be it being healed from sickness and other miraculous and unexplainable things? It’s the things you can’t explain intellectually that God does for you (or those around you) that shape and change your view on the material. For instance, if you were the woman who grabbed Jesus garment and had been sick for who knows how long and suddenly were healed and then he asked you to believe and follow things that didn’t make sense (and perhaps even offend you) you might do it.
The “evangelical” churches outside of the US has no problem with drinking, don’t they?
8.
Scavenger | April 20, 2008 at 12:39 am
What is it about athiests that make them so fervently evangelical in spreading thier belief system?
9.
LeoPardus | April 20, 2008 at 1:03 am
We seem to be having a bumper crop lately.
olymatt:
You’re going to have to try again. You didn’t make any sense.
Scavenger:
Most atheists are very fervently evangelical. There are a few like Dawkins. I do not understand his motivations.
As for the crowd here, we don’t go to other blogs, we’re not tossing out flyers or anything to draw traffic here. But there may be some hereabouts who are more fervent. Perhaps they can answer for you.
10.
Quester | April 20, 2008 at 1:10 am
Most atheists are very fervently evangelical
LeoP,
Is it just me, or did you say the exact opposite of what you intended.
We seem to be having a bumper crop lately.
Yeah, but at least it’s better than the random nonsense spam comments we also seem to be getting a lot of lately. I mean, these people might not be reading anything before spouting off, but at least their comments are actually addressed to us.
11.
LeoPardus | April 20, 2008 at 1:42 am
Oops. Wish I could edit that. You are right. I left out a word. It should have read “Most atheists are *not* very fervently evangelical”
You’re also right that the current bumper crop is better than spam.
12.
Gary | April 20, 2008 at 2:21 am
I’ve just had a couple of similar conversations with a friend from an evangelical church I used to attend, except with one big difference: he still holds to the same kind of faith that I once did. The most interesting aspect of the conversations has been my ability to tie in what I now believe to what he believes, while at the same time being very clear on where I differ! In other words, I wrap my nondualistic belief in the language of scripture, in the places where both dualistic and nondualistic interpretations can be made. It seems I’m finding the ways in which we can be united rather than divided, and as such both of us are refreshed by the conversation. As such, I would call it a ’spiritual’ conversation, in the sense that both of us have been uplifted.
13.
Stephen P | April 20, 2008 at 6:09 am
I think they are easy enough to understand. Dawkins is a biologist, with a particular interest in evolution. For decades biology in the US has been on the receiving end of a malicious and deceitful campaign by fundamentalist Christians. As a result teaching of evolution - and by extension the proper teaching of biology as a whole - is largely suppressed in many states of the US. Even in states where teaching evolution is nominally compulsory, many schools capitulate to fundamentalist parents.
Dawkins has decided that it is time to do something about it. And quite right too.
14.
TheDeeZone | April 20, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Chaplain & Leo and anyone else who cares to answer
Can you please help me understand something? Why would an atheist attend church? Personally, if I was a Christian I mostly likely would not attend church. I would prefer to sleep in or since it is our only day together time the Big Guy and I could just have some time a lone. My question is not intended to be disrespectful or slam anyone just would like your personal reasons or answers.
DH
15.
HeIsSailing | April 20, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Dee, I attend church (Catholic mass) for four main reasons:
1) My wife sings in the choir, and her voice is beautiful. Can an atheist not enjoy stirring renditions of Handel’s Messiah, just because the atheist does not literally believe the message? Ask a Christian how they can enjoy Harry Potter books and movies when the message is clearly one they do not believe, and you will know why some atheists enjoy religious Christmas Carols.
2) I like to get involved in some of the missions that my church does across the border ( I live in El Paso, TX). They focus little on evangelism and more on humanitarian needs. I like that - and my lack of belief of God is irrelevant. Atheist or not, I really admire some of the priests and nuns here who have devoted their lives to ministering to the poor and disadvantaged.
3) I get wrapped up in religious myth and symbolism. I like attending different liturgical serives - it is like entering an unknown culture. I know, I am an oddball…
4) Face it, we are social creatures. I have good friends in the church and I enjoy thier company. In fact, I think that everyone I know is a Christian of some variety.
Does that help, Dee?
16.
TheDeeZone | April 20, 2008 at 3:15 pm
HeIsSaling,
Thank you for your answer.
I guess I am such not a morning person I getting up early for services is a tough one. Yes, I get up earlier for church than for work.
El Paso, man I miss real BBQ and good Mexican food. Oh, I have a post scheduled for tomorrow about Texas & I posted some Bluebonnets Friday. Ok sorry for getting off topic.
DH
17.
TheDeeZone | April 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I apologize for all of the errors in #14 my dyslexia is really bothering me today.
18.
karen | April 20, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Dee,
I no longer attend church, but I did for several years after my deconversion.
The reason? My husband and kids. They went to church and felt very bereft without me there. Many of us whose spouses are still religious face this dilemma.
Churches tend to be family- and marriage-oriented. To suddenly start showing up without a spouse engenders gossip, pity, and lots of awkward questions about being “unequally yoked.” My husband was understandably concerned about this, and how it might affect our children.
I obliged him for a while until it got too difficult for me to continue - I started to feel like a real hypocrite - and then he changed churches about that time (unrelated) and so there were no expectations for me to be there anyway.
19.
the chaplain | April 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Dee:
My answer to this question was provided in the post:
As you can see, Karen’s answer is similar to mine. People who deconvert have to work through issues that lifelong nonbelievers don’t face. My husband and I have deconverted within the past year and still have social and professional connections to our particular church and to the denomination at large. The time will come, as it did for Karen, when we will be able to ease ourselves out of those connections, but it can’t be done abruptly and insensitively.
20.
Cthulhu | April 20, 2008 at 5:16 pm
karen,
How do you feel about your children going to church? This is no longer an issue for me as my spouse was/is a very casual believer. I took my children to church every time the doors were open when I was still a fundie - and now I am trying to make up for the indoctrination by teaching them to be critical thinkers. The biggest guilt I carry from my time in the church is the lies I subjected my children to. I hope this is not an offensive question and I understand if you do not want to answer. But I would welcome comments from anyone with children. Thanks…
21.
Andrea | April 20, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I have a question for further commenting to answer (I subscribe to comments): What is there to replace the church for my (now infant) son, as far as peer involvement goes?
I have very fond memories of ice cream socials and even trips across the nation with friends I had known for years. How can I make sure my son has those same memories without the indoctrination aspect of it?
Also, I am strongly considering home schooling, simply because my experience of going to both private and public schools is that the public school education is severely lacking in quality. I want to make sure my son gets a superior education, without the dogma (and price) of public school, and without time spent after school hours trying to supplement his poor education at a public school. The bearing this has on my question is that he will also not have social interaction to the same degree as if he was schooled outside the home.
Any suggestions for organizations we can join, or other ideas you may have, are welcome.
22.
Cthulhu | April 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Andrea,
Unfortunately, most home-school organizations are religious in nature and here where we live the curriculum choices are limited to the same. We home school our daughter, but we kind of cheat on the required bible courses. Fortunately for us, our kids have a wide circle of friends and we travel often. Good luck with your search.
23.
TheDeeZone | April 20, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Thank you for the answers to my question. While we will never agree theologically, I respect your right to deconvert. I do enjoy the thought provoking and usually civil discussions here.
Andrea: On my page there is a link to a home school site that I am an editor for.
24.
LeoPardus | April 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Dee:
On going to church: HIS has mostly the same reasons as I do.
-My family goes so I go to be with them.
-We have good friends there.
-My wife too is in the choir and the octet.
-The EOC service, as I’ve said a number of times, is one of the more peace-inducing things I know of. (If only the sermon could be dispensed with now. At least it’s only 10-15 minutes long.)
-I also like the symbolism and pageantry.
25.
LeoPardus | April 20, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Andrea:
Since my kids have been churched all their lives, they have a lot of friends there. (Another reason for me to go Dee.)
Since your son is so young, you don’t have that problem. But as he grows, you want him to have good friends.
Maybe you can find a liberal or UU church, if they have decently behaved kids.
Maybe you can get the kiddo into some sports, community choir, school functions/clubs.
For home schooling it depends on your community and your state. You’re free to set your own curricula as long as your kid can pass any state-required exams that your state may have. Many home schoolers join together to form sports teams and stuff like that. Look on the internet, at the local library and recreation centers.
Maybe you’ll have decent kids in the neighborhood for you kid to play with. Some groups that often provide interaction are biking, hunting, climbing, hiking, or other outdoors activities clubs. Martial arts clubs often become communities outside the dojo.
Just some ideas
26.
HeIsSailing | April 20, 2008 at 6:45 pm
LeoPardus:
“If only the sermon could be dispensed with now. ”
Concur - the homily in the Catholic church is always filler. I have not once heard a single profound statement during this portion of the mass.
Although I have attended a few masses where the homily was dispensed with completely - usually during the heat of the summer months.
27.
TheDeeZone | April 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“If only the sermon could be dispensed with now. ”
Gee, I’ve felt that way. We decided not to attend one church here because the sermon is at least 45 minutes long.
28.
Luke | April 21, 2008 at 10:46 am
facinating read! thanks for the post. i mourn the lack of pastoral care and the clumsy handling of your burn out. just shows you that pastors are no better than the rest of us. we’re all flawed and limited and don’t know the full consquences of our actions.
the comments were vast and very interesting… looks like you have a great following and an active, diverse dialogue which is the whole purpose of church! (at least in my mind!). keep rawk’n out!
29.
Andrea | April 21, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I have looked into a UU church nearby. The photo on the site showed a lot of older people, so there is plenty of wisdom to share, but I won’t know about the socializing aspect until I visit. I find it fascinating that I have been hearing so much about them in the last week, from many different sources, though I had not heard of them before. Even if it is not for me, it is a respectful organization. The sharp contrast to evangelical Christianity is made even more apparent after I got the willies during a Calvinist “Christ commanded us to shove our beliefs down other’s throats, while rejecting theirs” sermon. I just can’t take any more thinly-masked hate for humanity.
Also, very good tips on community organizations. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one wanting a non-religious home education for my son. I hope to see this movement grow, until we have a public education system of which we can be proud.
30.
TheDeeZone | April 21, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Andrea,
Here is something to shake that Calvinists. I don’t know what variety of Calvinists you were dealing with.
One of the most extreme forms of hyper-Calvinism are Primitive Baptist (pausing for all the jokes coming about that) are from the Particular Baptist branch. The other extreme from the General Baptist branch would be UU. That is straight out of McBeth’s Baptist Heritage. McBeth is considered one of the leading Baptist historians.
31.
karen | April 21, 2008 at 5:20 pm
My kids went to church with my husband for a few years after I stopped going. I had no big problem with that, as I knew the youth pastors and programs and didn’t think they’d be overtly harmed by attending (they’d already been indoctrinated anyway).
When they got to high school age, they started asking not to go. They had never liked church (we insisted they attend) in the first place. I tried to stay out of it, and eventually they negotiated and complained enough that my husband stopped forcing them to go. They’ve never asked to go back.
I think they have picked up critical thinking just by being around me and my husband (we’re both skeptics, but just suspended disbelief about religion). A few years ago I sat them down and told them I no longer believed in god and it would be up to them to decide what they believed when they were mature enough.
I have apologized to them for some of the things I enforced in our home when I was a fundy: Particularly the corporal punishment. I think I probably could have handled discipline much better had I not read so much Dobson. Fortunately there doesn’t seem to have been any long-term resentment on their part.
32.
karen | April 21, 2008 at 5:33 pm
There are tons of great groups for children that your kid can get involved in that don’t involve religious indoctrination. It depends on where he gravitates according to his interests - sports? science clubs? library group? boys and girls clubs? I’d suggest you let him try several different things and see what works, and eventually he’ll find his niche(s).
Don’t worry. There are ice cream parties and trips put on by all sorts of groups. You remember the good times in Christian circles, but they are not limited to religion.
I’m a big proponent and supporter of public education. We moved into our current home in part because of the excellent public school district here, and my kids have gotten a superior education by any account. My oldest son has just been accepted for admission to the number one public university in the nation, in fact - a direct result of him excelling in our local public schools. A number of the students at our high school have been accepted to top universities, including Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, CalTech, etc.
I’d encourage you to really look into your public school alternatives when your son gets a little older. You may hear negative things about the schools but when you go visit, look at test scores and meet some teachers, you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Often, even if the local junior highs and high schools are sub-par, you’ll find very good elementary schools and you can save money for several years before you start shelling out for private jr. high/high school.
I have several friends who home-school, both for religious and non-religious reasons. Most wind up putting their kids in school by the time they get to jr high or high school. If they stay home, they miss out on so many activities like athletics, band, orchestra, drama club, debate team, school newspaper, etc.
The social aspect of homeschooled kids has to be worked at very diligently, from what I’ve seen. One family we know has extremely outgoing kids who’ve made all kinds of friends in sports and church - however, their education level just sucks. Others have done a good job educating their kids, but I do notice that the kids are “outsiders” socially and are sometimes inappropriate or awkward because they’re not used to interacting with large groups of kids and kids who are very different from them.
My experience may not be universally applicable, of course. Just some food for thought.
33.
LeoPardus | April 21, 2008 at 6:01 pm
karen:
I think I probably could have handled discipline much better had I not read so much Dobson.
What did you get from reading Dobson?
I’ve read him and his take on corporal punishment was that it should not be the first resort, should be used sparingly, should never be done in anger, should be done only for clear and deliberate violations of established house rules, and should become rarer with age, pretty well vanishing long before the teens. I can hardly something harmful with such approaches.
34.
karen | April 21, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Whoops - wanted to mention (but forgot) a great book called “Parenting Beyond Belief” that addresses how you can instill morals and values in your kids and raise them excellently without religion. You can order it online at:
http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/
35.
TheDeeZone | April 21, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Leo,
Thank you for your response to my question.
36.
Rachel | April 21, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I’ve read him and his take on corporal punishment was that it should not be the first resort, should be used sparingly, should never be done in anger, should be done only for clear and deliberate violations of established house rules, and should become rarer with age, pretty well vanishing long before the teens. I can hardly something harmful with such approaches.
I actually think I’m with Karen on this one. I’ve made up my mind never to use corporal punishment on my children, should I have any. My parents used it on me and all it did was make me angry, afraid of them, and clever at finding ways not to get spanked instead of really talking through the problem. And it teaches kids that it’s ok to use force/violence to solve a problem. Plus parents spank kids when they’re way too old for it and it can sexually stimulate a kid. Yeesh, talk about future problems! I think that the calculated Dobsonian humiliation is even worse than a parent lashing out in the heat of the moment. The former almost seems sadistic.
37.
TheDeeZone | April 22, 2008 at 1:02 am
Karen & Rachel,
Not spanking works for some kids. I’ve heard how my mom was one of those kids. However, I was not one of those kids. My parents used many forms of consequences and rewards for my actions including spanking. Sometimes that was the only thing that worked. Punishment was rarely administered without explaining the reasons and most of the time there was some form or reward system. spent most of the years between 8-17 on restriction (too old to be spanked) and that really didn’t work with me. My parents were actually pretty fair about the length of restrictions usually administered in 1-2 day increments. Of course, your children are probably much more compliant than I was I was just one of those difficult kids.
38.
LeoPardus | April 22, 2008 at 11:49 am
Rachel:
I’ve known parents who raised without spanking and were successful. Of course I’ve known parents who raised with spanking and were utter failures (my own for a prime example).
I think Dee hit it with by touching on the fact that one size never fits all. If you make the absolute decision never to spank, you may set yourself up for failure with a kid who needs corporal punishment.
Your parents may well have overused it. Or you may be one of those kids for whom it’s not the best approach. (Obviously I don’t know enough to say either way.) But don’t allow their misuse to misinform your decision.
A couple specifics you said:
And it teaches kids that it’s ok to use force/violence to solve a problem.
True. And as you know, force must be used in some situations. If you can use spanking properly, you can teach them that such things are only used in certain situations. That you don’t use lashing out for anything.
Plus parents spank kids when they’re way too old for it
See what I said earlier. Dobson clearly says that spanking is not for older kids.
I think that the calculated Dobsonian humiliation is even worse than a parent lashing out in the heat of the moment.
You are incorrect. Lashing out is what teaches kids to solve things with violence. Proper and controlled use of force teaches propriety and control.
The former almost seems sadistic.
Only when misunderstood.
39.
TheDeeZone | April 22, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Leo & Rachel,
R: Plus parents spank kids when they’re way too old for it
L:See what I said earlier. Dobson clearly says that spanking is not for older kids.
In my case, spanking was more effective. About the age of 8 when my parents transitioned from spanking to restrictions as the highest form of discipline it wasn’t as effective. Simply, I wasn’t really bothered by restrictions. I didn’t like the extra chores that came with restrictions. Often the only thing that kept me from going to far was fear.
Of course, that was also when I started becoming more rebellious in general. I was the kind of kid/teen that rebelled against rules and societal norms just because they existed.
40.
Andrea | April 22, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Food for thought: studies have linked corporal punishment with the sexual fetishization of spanking at an older age.
- http://www.smartspanking.com/fetishism.html
- http://www.nospank.net/straus14.htm
- http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/spanking_leads_to_sexual_deviancy which links to http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080228/spanking-raises-chances-of-risky-deviant-sexual-behavior.htm
41.
karen | April 22, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I got a very strong impression that not only was spanking okay, it was the “right” way and more importantly it was “god’s way” to discipline children. It seems to me that he overly emphasized the “spare the rod and spoil the child” school of thinking by talking about corporal punishment so much in his books.
Now, maybe I’m off-base and I don’t remember his more temperate attitudes - it’s been 20+ years since I read his books.
But looking back now, I wish I’d been less quick to resort to physical punishment with my boys and more committed to use non-violent methods. Dobson seems to have given me the mental and spiritual “okay” to jump right to spanking instead of persisting through repeated time-outs, etc. as I see recommended nowadays.
42.
Cthulhu | April 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm
karen,
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Brad
43.
heatlight | May 1, 2008 at 1:35 pm
As a solidly Evangelical Christian I worked for the Salvation Army for a Summer once…
…it was hell on earth. Not only the legalism, and the lack of openness to discussion on doctrinal issues, but the fact that there doctrine was so off in so many areas…
if you’re going to be a fundamentalist, at least you should TRY to be ‘right’!
Took me months to recover from that Summer…