Posted on 12/20/2004 9:51:00 AM PST by dukeman
How do you teach youngsters about truth in a culture that says there is no truth? It's not easy—as I know from experience.
Over recent months, I've taught worldview to groups of bright young students. With each group, I had the same distressing experience. When I presented a classic example of a self-refuting moral proposition, they just didn't get it.
An example: The late Christopher Reeve, in his wheelchair with a breathing tube, was testifying before a Senate committee. Reeve dismissed moral objections to embryonic stem-cell research, claiming that the purpose of government is "to serve the greatest good for the greatest number."
I then asked the students, "What's wrong with this picture?" When I got no answers I dropped heavy hints. Only one student gave the correct answer: If what Reeve advocated actually were our governing philosophy, he would not have been there to testify. Who would spend millions to keep him alive when that money could help thousands?
I don't know whether the students lacked analytical skills or were just confused, but when I explained the inherent contradiction, the lights went on. When I discussed the concept of absolute truth, and the fact that it is knowable, there was an occasional nod of understanding, but it was clear I was breaking new ground. These students, mind you, were products of Christian homes and schools.
This lack of worldview awareness is appalling—but it's exactly what George Barna has found in his recent polls: Just 9 percent of evangelical students believe in anything called absolute truth. What does this say about the job our schools, our families, and our churches are doing?
Let's tackle the schools first. Many Christians—like Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley, who spent 13 years in public office—support the public school system. They believe Christian students ought to be part of it and provide a Christian influence. Mark has practiced what he preaches, sending his six children to public schools.
But for the first time in his life, Mark is having real doubts. The problem is that diversity training—in which students are told it's wrong to make truth claims of any kind—has been impressed in the minds of our children. This twisted interpretation of tolerance makes it an offense even to make truth claims—or judge the ideas and behaviors of others.
Parents, whether their children are in public or Christian schools, must carefully scrutinize the worldview being taught. If necessary, they should confront school officials.
Second, we must examine what our churches are teaching our kids about truth—assuming they're teaching anything. Youth leaders are good at activities like laser tag and Ultimate Frisbee. That's fine: Draw kids in. But they must couple this with a bracing dose of worldview instruction. In the Wilberforce Forum, we've been trying out some sample curriculums—and discovering young people hunger for it. We'd better ground our students in worldview thinking before they leave for college, where professors challenge everything they believe.
Even if our kids do get trained at church, the family must supplement it: around the breakfast table, reading devotionals that tackle worldview questions, and at other times critiquing films, analyzing the news, and unmasking unbiblical teachings in everything from popular music to television commercials.
Lay people can do this. A friend, Nancy Fitzgerald, has been teaching basic apologetics for teens in her home for years. Between 150 and 200 kids come for a lecture, then break into groups to discuss the material. They often continue the discussion later via e-mail. The results among the kids—an ability to boldly witness to the truth—have been spectacular.
Do you think I'm overstating the need for worldview training? Look around: It's impossible to disconnect kids from the culture. The idea that we can separate ourselves from our social surroundings, as Christians did a century ago, is foolish—unless we move to a desert island. We simply cannot escape the long, grubby arm of television, the internet, music, and magazines.
Our only hope is to teach discernment. It's no coincidence that of the five groups I've spoken to in the last year, the only student who had the right worldview answers was a senior at Virginia Tech who grew up in a family that is both godly and worldly-wise.
We've no time to lose. All the evidence shows that we're already losing our kids. With only 9 percent of born-again teens believing in absolute truth, can we rescue this generation? Can we afford not to try?
thanks for the post
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to you and your family
I then asked the students, "What's wrong with this picture?" When I got no answers I dropped heavy hints. Only one student gave the correct answer: If what Reeve advocated actually were our governing philosophy, he would not have been there to testify. Who would spend millions to keep him alive when that money could help thousands?
A nice way to put it - more realistic was that Christopher Reeve was a ghoul...
"But for the first time in his life, Mark is having real doubts. The problem is that diversity training—in which students are told it's wrong to make truth claims of any kind—has been impressed in the minds of our children. This twisted interpretation of tolerance makes it an offense even to make truth claims—or judge the ideas and behaviors of others."
In my opinion, many christian parents could be arrested for neglect by sending their children to public schools! Especially the children under the age of 10 where the indoctrination is most intense. I think "child services" should look into this problem....
I wonder he's been smokin'?
Fallacious argument. The assumption is that the only measure of the "good" is money. Simply not true.
I have no idea why you would suggest that Reeves was a ghoul.
I guess I'm one of the ignorant 91%, because off-hand, I don't know the absolute truth. Will one of the enlightened representatives of the 9% please help me out and tell me what it is?
Also, I wonder what the relationship should be between those who possess the absolute truth and those who don't (or can't) understand the absolute truth. If there are people out there who understand universal truth, wouldn't our society be better off if we were ruled by the 9% who think they know what it is, rather than the majority (who like me) just don't get it?
I think you all see where I'm going with this.
Reeves was an extremely strong proponent for embryonic stem-cell research (and other types of "gray area" research) that had some potential to help him personally - but at the cost of creating and then destroying thousands of what many believe is human lives.
And their crime would be...what?
Having their children exposed to things of which you don't approve?
I love it especially that you think only Christian parents should be arrested for child neglect.
(please tell me i simply missed this poster's sarcasm tag)
Feel free to add your own.
Colson is standing up for the concept that truth is knowable. This counters the relativist/PC approach that there is no such thing as truth. Understanding this is key to mature, intelligent discernment. This doesn't mean you know or possess the truth all the time and on all subjects.
There is a simple solution to this problem: teach your children the Bible (especially the New Testament) from birth on up!
The Scriptures give the very words of God and the foundations needed for every Christian.
Why complicate things so much? I promise you that if every child is reared knowing (not just memorizing) the Scriptures and is filled with the Holy Spirit, these children will automatically be blessed with discernment. I've seen it take place in the lives of many children who were reared this way.
God's command is to bring up your children "in the Lord" --not just taking (or forcing them to go) to Church on Sundays.... but to teach them about Jesus Christ and His redemption.
Even Bible songs CDs are a great way to establish the truths of the Lord--children love songs and to sing along.
At the same time, the different contradictions in society (and in some cases blasphemy--anything making fun or degrading God) can be explained to the child as being very wrong and against the teachings of the Lord.
This takes time and dedication on the parents' part--but it is their Christian responsibility for their children's sake.
By the time they are "young people," their worldview will be planted in their hearts and be as a protection from the "secular" point of view. For example the Christopher Reeve situation: if a child is brought up to be for life, for protecting the unborn babies in the wombs, then it will be easier for them to see the wrongs of embryonic stem cell research. (The "logic" used in the article is not even necessary.)
And as the child matures, the Christian parent will be dealing and discussing these issues anyway with the child. This is all part of bringing up a child "in the Lord."
No wonder so many young people are confused---they are fed large daily doses of Hollywood and MTV's philosophies (no morals, just filth). And at the same time, they have not been sufficiently grounded in the Lord nor the teachings of the Bible.
There may be some temporary "strayings" of especially teenagers even brought up in the Lord. But as the prodigal son returned to his father, so these also will return to their Heavenly Father (if they know Him to begin with!).
Teach them the Bible early and continue daily with it! This is extremely important! Only the Word of God is strong enough to overcome and put down the false secular teachings that are so rampant in the world today.
Just going to Church (or joining church activity groups for children) will not do it. Many times the children are just provided lots of "nice" entertainment. And that is okay to have as a side benefit.
But the REAL training must come at home--daily instruction of the Lord and His Word. This is your sure guarantee for bringing them up "in the Lord" and will be their lifelong guide and protection.
Interesting. But it seems to me that there is a difference between acknowledging that there is such a thing as truth and that it is knowable and saying that there is such a thing as absolute truth. Sure, we can all agree that the idea that all things are equally true is pretty silly, but I think the idea of absolute truth is just the flip side to zero truth. If you know an absolute truth, it means literally that you do know the truth at all times, though perhaps not on all subjects. And if you do know the absolute truth, then why should you be questioned by those who don't know the absolute truth at all?
It sounds nice, but it sounds suspiciously like the arguments of elites who 'know' better than everybody else and can override the majority view thanks to their privileged knowledge.
The fact that truth is "knowable" does not mean that we all know it, it means that it can be known. I would say that it is "progressively" knowable, that over time, by experience, by the use of reason, we can know it.
You can't know it all, but you will uncover parts of it that were not known to your grandparents, and your grandkids will uncover parts of it that were hidden from you. You will know more when you die than you did when you were born, you will grasp parts of it that I do not, and vice versa.
But the knowing of truth is in part the project that we are all engaged in.
This is different from the idea that one "truth" is as good as another truth, or that there is no truth, or that truth is ultimately unknowable.
There are two equally important concepts here:
one is that there are "absolute truths", while the other has to do with critical thinking, also known as logical thinking.
That's the process by which you can sort out the true from the untrue from the downright silly.
Who think? You answered your own question. Any one who professes to know the absolute truth is fooling themselves and trying to fool the rest of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.