Banner
Skanky Movie III PDF Print E-mail
Education - Education
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Friday, July 30, 2010 11:52 am

One trap that parents fall into is the trap of not wanting sin around their kids. But I suppose this requres some explanation.

The mistake arises because there are a bunch of sins that parents should keep away from their kids -- kidnappers, for starters, and cocaine dealers, and pornographers, and seducers, and Cartesian dualists. One of the accusations leveled against private Christian education is that conservative parents are sheltering their kids. What next?! Parents sheltering children! We feed them too.

But here is where the mistake come in. There is a question of degree here. We are not supposed to keep our children away from the presence of all sin whatever. And that's a good thing, too, because it is impossible. There is a type of sin, common to the human condition, that your children will encounter (on a daily basis) on the playground of the finest Christian school imaginable. If you don't send your kids to that school (because of all the sin there), they will encounter even more of it at church, in their relationships with their siblings, in their bedroom all alone, and in the midst of all the dirty thoughts between their ears. The task of parents in this is not to avoid this kind of sin, but rather to teach their children how to battle it. You cannot learn to battle something if you are constantly endeavoring to stay away from it.

In short, with this kind of sin, there are two errors -- equally bad. One is to accommodate yourself to the  presence of this kind of room temperature sin, in such a way as to assume room temperature yourself. That is the way of spiritual death. The other is to pretend to yourself that the choices you have made have somehow successfully distanced you from all that icky stuff. But it is as close to you now as it ever was, but is now invisible because you have daubed your eyes with a special Pharisee salve. This is another way of spiritual death.

 

The mere presence of sin discredits nothing and no one. A school is not a poor school because junior high girls are catty at lunch, because one of the boys in the fourth grade makes earthy observations about certain bodily functions, or because some blonde named Kimberly gets great grades and the word among the kids in the back row who don't like to study is that she might be the teacher's pet. Welcome to earth, everybody. This is not the kind of sin parents are required to keep their kids away from. They are in fact required not to try. This is the kind of sin that parents need to teach their kids to handle, and avoidance is not a biblical strategy. Because it will be necessarily unsuccessful, avoidance is simply a pretence of avoidance, with the down side -- because you are too busy kidding yourself -- of having children who are not learning how to respond and resist.

Suppose your child is in the classroom of a fine Christian school, one with a great reputation. You know the teachers and administrators, and they really love the Lord. But you know for a fact that two/thirds of the kids in your son's class are all hot about the latest skanky movie. Just last night, after the youth group get together, they all went to see Skanky Movie III, one that has set records for both kinds of box office gross. What will your temptation be? Your temptation will be to think that however well-intentioned the folks running the school might be, the "tone" of the school is not nearly "high enough," and that all these families clearly have poor standards. You regret having to do this, but you are considering pulling your son, wrapping him up in cotton batting for two final semesters of Mom School.

You think the problem is low entertainment standards, when the actual problem is that no Christian parents -- including you -- are teaching their kids what moral leadership looks like. About a third of the kids who went to that movie didn't really want to, and wouldn't have gone if someone in the class -- I am thinking of your son in particular -- had done more than simply studied his shoelaces when the subject came up. You are tempted to think that the others have low entertainment standards, when the real lesson is that your son is not a moral leader. The response ought not to be to do something that will make him even less of one.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Steven Opp  Friday, July 30, 2010 4:49 pm
It's wonderful you've addressed this. One of my friends grew up homeschooled and says he's still recovering. He said the sin of the homeschooled kid is invisible pride. Their whole life they've been indirectly told that they're world is so much better than everyone else's, and how bad everything out there is. As true as this may be, these things are probably not the best humility synthesizers. My friend said the cure for him was just rubbing shoulders with other people and interaction.
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Friday, July 30, 2010 5:09 pm
Umm...I don't think Doug is condemning homeschooling. Read again.
Steven Opp  Saturday, July 31, 2010 2:18 am
"Mom school" is the term he uses, implying a place of learning walled off from potential entanglements. My point was not that homeshooling or private schooling is evil within itself, but that the sin to watch out for is this sort of subtle pride/self-righteousness. Public schools have their own list of sins to be on the lookout for, and we all know what those are. My point is that in the midst of the excitement of providing a solid and moral education for a kid, we must not forget to remind him that his poop still stinks and he puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.
Shayne McAllister  Friday, July 30, 2010 6:03 pm
Pastor Wilson,

This is a great topic. It's sort of like your Death Metal series on CanonWired. Can you write more on this? How does one parent and lead in such a way as to help kids have true moral character? When should we be hands off, and when should we intervene?

Shayne
Joe Canney  - Thief  Friday, July 30, 2010 6:45 pm
Clearly Pastor Wilson has been reading my blog! =)

http://canneyfamily.blogspot.com/2010/07/my-wife-seemed-to-touch-little-bit-of.html

Tom Brainerd  Friday, July 30, 2010 6:50 pm
It depends upon what you mean when you say "condemn," now doesn't it. Let's just say that Pastor Wilson seems to posit that homeschooling is a deficient environment for the development of character and moral leadership in young people, when compared to the Christian school.

Maybe. And maybe not. The factors that play into this one on both sides are too numerous to address in shorthand. And the answers that come out the other end (on feet, mind you) aren't consistent enough to provide what rises to the level of evidence.

What is it that causes one young man in a school to shine as an exemplar, but not others (maybe not any others), even in his own family? Can you point to the school? Can you point to the family?

The same can be said for the homeschool. Some families produce exemplars like clockwork, others one or a few, and others none. Sometimes you can assess 'what worked,' others you can't.

It's just not as simple as the implications in the above seem to indicate.
Shayne McAllister  Friday, July 30, 2010 7:55 pm
Tom, you need to read this article in the context of the whole of Pastor Wilson's writing and discussing. It would help you understand what he is and isn't implying. He's talking about a reactionary parent who hides their kids from all sin. Many homeschooling parents don't do that, but there is a type that does. That's the target here, not the level-headed homeschooler.

This is recent.

http://www.canonwired.com/featured/virtual-state-sponsored-schools/
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, July 31, 2010 4:06 am
And some Christian schooling families produce exemplars and others not. But the point of Doug's post was to target a certain parental error, not a homeschooling error, per se. Mrs. Cottonbatting is an illustration, not the main topic. The illustration could easily have been about parents pulling their kids from one school to another or even moving from one church to another. Don't miss the point about an error any parent is prone to by assuming that Doug is addressing only Those Parents Over There.
Tom Brainerd  Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:39 am
I am afraid that the "context of the whole of Pastor Wilson's writing and discussing" says some things about homeschooling in different way than it says them about those who have children in school. Those of us who use online educational options are 'avoiders of community.' If we don't have our kids in a school, we impair their developoment of moral leadership. The family is a primary rival of the church. These are all positions that lay it a lot heavier on one side than the other.

I am a homeschooler. I am a supporter of Christian Education, whether in homes or schools. I agree that the issue is parental error. But the whole of Pastor Wilson's discourse tends to make where we educate our children a 'parental error' issue.

I don't think that my post denied that there can be, and indeed are, problems in the homeschool. There certainly are in ours. It does try to make the point that they are not just there, but are systemic within the whole of Christian Education. It's just not that simple.
Rob Steele  Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:48 am
This is a live issue. One of my young Facebook friends is having way too much fun at Camp Raging Hormone. Re. homeschooling, one can do that or anything else for bad or good reasons.
Tom Brainerd  Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:22 pm
Rob,
Would you please email me. tom.brainerd@sbcglobal.net
Thanks,
Tom
Jane Dunsworth  Saturday, July 31, 2010 11:34 am
"Where" we educate our kids can be a parental error if the "where" is driven by parental error. It may be true that for a given parent, homeschooling would not be an error if it were done for different reasons in a different way. But of course things never are done for different reasons or in a different way, than the how and why in which they are done.

So, if you are homeschooling your kid *because* you want to prevent him from facing moral difficulties, you shouldn't be homeschooling him. Or maybe you should be, but only *after* deciding that homeschooling isn't the answer to that problem, but might be the answer to a completely different problem. You shouldn't be doing it while thinking that homeschooling to prevent moral difficulties is a good idea. It just might be that all other things considered rightly, the kid should be in school, so in that case, homeschooling would in fact be an error.
Douglas Wilson  Saturday, July 31, 2010 3:50 pm
Tom, this wasn't really about homeschooling at all. The whole post was simply answering a bad but nevertheless common argument against schools (that have sin in them), but that argument could be employed by any number of people. There was only one (oblique) reference to homeschooling here.
oldfatslow  - re:  Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:44 pm
Steven Opp wrote:
He said the sin of the homeschooled kid is invisible pride.

Invisible nothing. I made
t-shirts that said, "Support
Public Education" on the
front and "Homeschoolers
need a servant class" on
the back.

ofs
Tom Brainerd  Saturday, July 31, 2010 6:18 pm
Doug,

Is it about homeschooling? No and yes.

These principles actually apply on a whole host of levels, in many places. They apply on moving from school to school, church to church, and even town to town and state to state. Any of those examples could have been used. They all can be, at their core, the result of the same parental error.

They were not used. The moral was The response ought not to be to do something that will make him even less of one. The thing that would be making that parental error was withdrawal, specifically pulling your son, wrapping him up in cotton batting for two final semesters of Mom School. That's a lot less oblique in your piece than the implication of needing to take up the cross of parental covenantal resonsibility.

Though the particulars may differ, the essence is no different than last fall, when the hypothesis was that utilizing online learning opportunities was a self-extrication from community-in-the-form-of-school, with all the formative aspects of its rough edges. Hence, I have drawn lines between the dots. Exegeting Doug Wilson by the analogy of Doug Wilson, if you will.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the heart of this is a parental problem. But it is exactly that, a parental problem, and one that has little to do with whether the parent chooses to stay, go to another school, or homeschool. Sure, the alternatives are ways of playing ostrich, but given your hypothetical, that's been happening in the context of the first school already. Machts nichts.

Who knows, maybe if that Mom has to deal with that little sinner one-on-one for a while, the parents will begin to understand the real problem.
Robert Seward  Sunday, August 01, 2010 12:28 pm
It becomes impossible to hide the kids from sin when your next door neighbors are unbelievers with public school kids that have a lot of friends coming and going. In a nice summer day, the neighbor’s kids are playing their stereos too loud with whatever is on the top 40, your kids can see though the neighbor’s open door whatever movie is playing, etc. When there is no way the kids can totally avoid seeing the neighbors’ lifestyle, how do you keep kids from wanting to join the party if you don't teach them character?
William Chad Newsom  - Something Else...  Monday, August 02, 2010 9:26 am
Greetings, everyone: long-time reader, new commenter. While I agree with the main thrust of this post, there’s another element to consider, here. Exposure to even the sort of sin mentioned in the post (i.e., the kind “that your children will encounter (on a daily basis) on the playground of the finest Christian school imaginable”) can and must be regulated as much as possible by parents. There is such a thing as kids growing up too fast. That today’s five and six year olds are capable of using obscene blasphemies and talking about sex like pros in no way obligates me to expose my little ones to such things before they’re ready. To maintain that I should is just another form of the “missionary” argument used by Christians who keep their kids in public schools. Note also that such controlled exposure can more effectively be accomplished by Homeschool families.

As a Homeschool father, I know full well that my children will be exposed to such sin, but I want them to be old enough, mature enough, and prepared enough before that happens. What am I doing before I allow such exposure? Certainly not pretending I can keep them sealed off from all sin. Rather, I am training them in moral leadership.

I know the examples under discussion were mainly about older kids and the situations they find themselves in, but I thought the application to younger children worthy of mention as well.

William Chad Newsom
williamchadnewsom.com
Brad Donovan  Monday, August 02, 2010 4:28 pm
ofs,

Could you send me some of those t-shirts? Like 20 or so? I'd love to wear one, and have lots to give to my friends......
oldfatslow  - Out of Stock  Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:21 am
Brad,

SheWhoMustBeObeyed told me
I couldn't publicly
embarrass her with those
shirts anymore. I haven't
reprinted them in 15
years. You are free
to run with it though.
Here are photos.

ofs
Steven Opp  - Who's supposed to be the servant class?  Saturday, September 04, 2010 8:46 pm
God's people are educated in truth so that when they leave the classroom or home they can go die for the world. Graduates of John Calvin's university had a quite high mortality rate as they went out and died for the the sake of the world they were ministering to. A better use for that shirt would be to dry the toes of the public school student whose feet you just washed.