Salt, light and schooling

My homeschooled children don't live behind a baracade. I don't understand the animosity and scepticism--"You can't protect them from everything,"-- stance. We go to the grocery store, library, post office, parades, little league. We socialize with people in our comminunity. If we choose to homeschool, and attend church, and avoid TV does that mean we are not a part of society? NO! We are salt and light, just in a way tat respects the child's need for spiritual and intellectual shelter.

Or, Connie, it may have something to do with the cream puff versions of Islamic history that, for instance, fail to mention the Armenian massacres. Of course, I could give you other examples, but I'm sure you're a very smart person and don't need a list.

It may come as a shock to Connie, but the great majority of Christians I know are comfortable living in a universe that is quite a bit older than 6000 years...say about thirteen billion years older. The Scopes trial was a long, long time ago.

I thought the author was referring to either extremely anti-Christian or completely secular interpretations of history that are often presented in public schools. I would think that the "6000 year old earth theory" would fall under science more than history. This whole side issues really doesn't have much to do with her main premise, which I find very compelling.

I wouldn't send my children into a hostile environment. I'm so very, very, pleased with our public schools. I find that the values that the schools enforce are very consistent with what they hear at home. You respect other people. You don't have to like everyone, but you do need to treat everyone with kindness. I can't think of anything that the teachers have taught that goes against what they've learned at home.

Ultimately, parents are responsible for raising their children. If you don't think that your child is safe or is receiving the right education, then private schooling or homeschooling is an alternative.

I don't feel as if I let God down by researching the schools prior to selecting a home and choosing to live in an area where my children could go to public school and be safe and get an excellent public education.

I think Sally Thomas has a good point. As a recently joined member of the Religious Society of Friends, it strikes me that Quakers have historically had an impact on society that is disproportionate to their numbers in the general population. I think the reason for this is that they were acting, in Ms. Thomas's words, "from the locus of a distinct Christian culture, however microcosmic, that makes readily apparent what the truth actually is and that nurtures moral courage." Friends have not been heavily evangelical since the early days of their existence, yet the way have they let their Light shine has had great impact on individuals and society alike over the last 300 years.

That said, many modern Friends are falling victim to the same problems Ms. Thomas describes in the article quoted above. FWIW, I think the problem of excessive conformity is itself partly a result of institutional public schooling. (Whether by design or circumstance doesn't really matter in the end.) Resistance to blind conformity is yet another one of the many reasons we homeschool.

The modern salt and light theory is pretty much child abuse. Jesus never said to send your seven year old into a school where the teacher will mock them in front of the entire class, nor did He say to instruct your 12 year old to get beat up after gym class for preaching abstinence to his classmates. A parent's first job is to protect his or her own child.

More on the Rockdale County story. This is an excerpt from interviews on the film's website. This is from one with a father named Frank:

Was Amy addicted to drugs, do you think?

I don't know. It's very hard to say. My own opinion is that, you know, the parents cannot put as much pressure on them as the social pressure that's put on them [at school]. . . . Amy, like I said before, she was very smart. She had good grades in school. And she won't tell you this. But I think she kind of dumbed herself down. What I mean is she didn't want to study in school. She didn't want to make the good grades because they would not accept her in the group. . . You got to be accepted somewhere.
[snip]
I'm not a George Bush fan, but when he talked about the family unit and the [disintegration] of a family unit, that's the way it is. And as much--I do as much to destroy it as anybody else. We got TV's in every room of the house. I watch my programs. My wife watches her programs in another room in the house, you know. The kids watch it or play on their their Ataris, the video games. You mentioned a while ago about the time we spent together. Yeah. We would spend time together. But much of the time we had in the house together was not together. Our supper meal was a big meal when the girls were comin' up--and we'd always sit down to supper and had our meals. Until they got old enough and they'd come grab somethin' and run out the door and they'd go. . .
----
Here is the transcript of the entire program. Excerpts:

PEGGY COOPER: My students were talking to me about the parties that they were having on weekends, and there was one place in particular that they had lots of privacy. The parents were off and gone. And they said that they were watching the Playboy Channel in the girl's bedroom. And there would be, like, 10 or 12 of them up there.

And so I said, "Well, is everybody watching it?" "Oh, yeah. They're all watching it." And so one of the little guys goes, "And we're getting pretty good at it, too." I said, "Good at what?" So he said, "Well, we- you have to do- the game is you have to imitate what the Playboy people are doing."

And one of them said, "And sometimes it's all mixed up, too. You know, it's just like- there may be three or four of us at one time. And it doesn't matter if you're two guys or two girls or a girl and a guy. It doesn't matter. You just have to do what they're doing."

NICOLE: There was this one time when we were all at a party. There's about 30, 40 people there. And this one girl, she- they had been drinking. They were pretty drunk. And she, like, was going to have- she told everybody she was going to have sex with almost every guy that was there.

And her and her friend went back in the bedroom. Her friend had sex with her boyfriend and came out. And then the girl stayed in there, and it was, like, all the guys lined up. And it was like they were from the door to the front door. I mean, it was a lot of people.

And we brought out the bag of condoms we got from the health department, passed them out. And, like, two guys would go in there, you know, and they were having sex with her. And they were, like, having oral sex and, you know, sex. And all the guys that- most of the guys that were there went in the room and had sex with her.

And then she came out. She was- she thought it was the coolest thing, just that she had just had sex with all them. Or maybe they thought she was cool or whatever. Then she was like, bleeding, and her hair had cum all in it, and it was all over her clothes.
---
Dr. KATHLEEN TOOMEY: What was so extraordinary to me is these parents started looking for externally who to blame. "This has caused this," "T.V. has caused that," "External groups have caused this." But few of them - none of them that I can recall - ever looked to themselves. And the minister turned to me and said, "They don't see. It's them. It's the parents. They have done this. The kids don't talk to them."

What was extraordinary to me, a year after this outbreak, was here was a community in total denial about what happened.
---
NARRATOR: Jennifer is 17. Her friends, Penie and Kira, are 16. They are devout Christians.

INTERVIEWER: Are you guys all virgins?

JENNIFER, KIRA, PENIE: Yes. Yes.

INTERVIEWER: Why? Why have you stayed virgins?

KIRA: Because that's- that's my morals that I live by. My parents have taught me from- since I was little that that's a good thing to do. I mean, it's just always been a right to me. It's always been right to save it.

NARRATOR: The girls say their way of life has isolated them from their peers.

KIRA: We got into high school, and high school's a lot different than middle school. Sex is the cool thing, and drugs is the cool thing, and drinking is cool. I went to one party in 9th grade, and I just- I just didn't like it after that. I mean- I mean, I wanted to go, I mean, because everybody wants to go to parties. And I got there, and I just knew that was not what I'm- that's not what I'm about. I'm about something different.

NARRATOR: The girls all left the Conyers public schools for a private Christian school called Springs Academy. Their circle of friends has narrowed, too, to those who share their beliefs.

JENNIFER: Guys definitely seem to be intimidated- I don't know by other Christian girls, but seem to be intimidated by me. Sometimes it's hard, and it's- like, you question yourself. It's, like, "Why is this worth it?" It's, like, "These guys are there afraid of me." It's definitely been lonely at times.

PENIE: It really is hard, you know, when you try to be good, and then people want to always tar you and say, "Oh, no. You're a hypocrite," you know? It's really hard.

NARRATOR: At times, the girls say, they have even been harassed by their peers.

PENIE: People like to say things. You know, they said that I was sleeping with- around with a lot of guys, you know, and that's not the case, you know? And they'd say I get drunk, and I was not doing that at all, you know? And drugs and anything else you can imagine. You know, none of that was true.
---
[interview with a different set of girls]
INTERVIEWER: What kind of music do you guys like?

GIRLS: Rap.

INTERVIEWER: Like what?

GIRLS: Like, Master P. Tupac, definitely. Oh, I love Tupac.

INTERVIEWER: What do you like about rap?

GIRLS: The beat. The beat. And the words. And it's just, like, loud. You can really get up and dance.

CHRISTINE: And the way that it's, like- they can talk about something that's, like, completely stupid, like drugs and stuff. [crosstalk] But it's the way they put it, it sounds interesting.

INTERVIEWER: Give me an example.

CHRISTINE: I can't think of a song.

GIRLS: [singing rap] Oh, take three witches and put 'em in a [unintelligible] I take clothes off you, and I'm blowing [unintelligible] mind. Take one more before I go [unintelligible] Seven bitches get fucked at the same time. The [unintelligible] she can suck a ding-dong all day, all night, all evening long. Bitch has never done it. She says she never tried. [unintelligible] mother-fucking [unintelligible] if the bitch is a good trick. Anybody can talk to a bitch and get the bitch to fuck, but how many [unintelligible] talk to a bitch and get their dick sucked like me? A pimp that you never saw [unintelligible]

INTERVIEWER: That's about group sex.

GIRLS: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Is that something anybody does around here?

GIRLS: Uh-huh!

BRIDGET: Lots of people. A lot of people.

CHRISTINE: Yes, a lot of people.
---
[Rod:] I'm not saying that every public school is like the one in Rockdale County. What I am saying is that I don't have confidence that the public realm in general is all that different from Rockdale County: populated by parents who have lost contact with their children, and who have given themselves and their family lives over to material culture -- and are utterly clueless as to why their children are coming undone. It's clearly not a question of poverty. It's a question of spirit, of virtue, and of community. Those people have poisoned the communal well.

Great story Rod.

I know a similar one about a Catholic school in a local suburb. A friend's family sacrificed to send her daughter to that school. She refused to participate in the wealthy suburban students' culture of sex and drugs and they made her life a living hell. The administration would not interfere because they didn't want to offend rich, full-tuition-paying parents. Our friends had a partial scholarship. They pulled the girl out and she happily attended the local public high school that my son also attended. Both got in to good colleges and are doing very well.

Does that mean you can't trust any Catholic school? Of course not. Materialist parents who give kids things but not time exist in all areas of the country and some of them send children to Christian schools. Stop generalizing from a sick case to an entire system.

Parents have to do what they think is best for their kids. No argument. We moved our son from public to Catholic school for middle-school because that was a weak link in our public schools.

The inner-city HS my son graduated from last year has highly attractive magnate programs and a high degree of parental involvement and interest to college recruiters. It's all in what a school community makes of itself, not the fact of whether or not it is public or private.

"10:48 am" on June 19 was me. Still getting used to the new comment arrangement.

I don't think it's 'sanctimony' to worry about how our children are being shaped and formed during the 30-60 hours a week they'd be involved in school and extra-curricular activities; if the local options -- public or Catholic or (non-catholic) Christian -- aren't up to snuff, too bad. As far as losing an opportunity to 'impact the culture': (1) as many have noted, homeschool kids still interact with the broader world, but in the contexts of neighborhoods, rec sports, etc. (2) No one takes to a task without training; no soldier goes to battle without boot camp; no athlete plays the game without practice. Homeschool kids will have *their entire lives* to impact the culture, and will do a better job if they are raised right in the first place.

I guess I'm less worried about perceived 'sanctimony' than I am the good of our children. If you can't handle it, well, I'm not going to be responsible for your psychological responses. That's on you.

Ossicle,

Thanks for your honest question. If I may employreductio ad absurdum, Jesus said absolutely nothing about incest, or gang rape, or genocide, or etc. Being Jewish, he would have accepted the standard Jewish view of the family, which is that marriage is good and children are a blessing (this is why talk of "Judeo-Christian ethics" or "J-Ch tradition" isn't an ecumenical sop to the Jews but the reality of the case: Christianity is a Jewish phenomenon, an offshoot of Judaism). He did affirm the goodness and indissolubility of marriage in Matthew 19.1-9 (parallel in Mark 10.2-12).

Further, Christians accept the whole Bible, not just Jesus (who is usually interpreted through a fairly liberal lens by those who assert, "Well, Jesus didn't say much about X...); Paul and others had a lot of things to say about sex and marriage.

Finally, Catholic or Orthodox Christians also accept the tradition of the church on these matters.

I've always been puzzled by the claim that by sending one's kids to a educational institution is some sort of public virtue. So many false assumptions here:

1) Just because the majority does it does not make it a good thing. Nobody has ever shown mass institutionalization of children offers a public benefit.

2) How did isolating children in institutional schools become more "public" than not? Homeschoolers certainly have more time to interact with the public. Whether they do so depends on them; however, public school students simply cannot. They lock the doors behind them.

3) How did "education" become the litmus test for "public"? Wouldn't recreation, religion, sports, or even give more back to the public? I never hear that not sending your kid to the public library is somehow hurting the public.

4) One should look with suspicion on self-serving logic. The public schools are free-all-day day-care. (I remember reading about a TV commerical that captures this perfectly as a mother, after tearfully waving good-by after the out-the-door morning rush, relaxes into her bubble bath with a smirk and a book.)

So no matter what one's personal educational choice, the public school=virtue thing never made much logical sense. Liberals have just latched onto this propaganda because the public educational institutions (school unions, textbook publishers, etc.) are in their corner - they teach sort of a bland secular worldview. People who are big public-school fans are generally fans for ideological reasons. They would be singing a different tune if public schools taught what they taught, say, in 1800.

Irenaeus,

Thank you for your thoughts. Those three factors don't seem very compelling to me as an outsider but I gather they're pretty persuasive to many practicing Christians.

Here are my thoughts on them, in the order you wrote them, with no expectation they'll modify anyone's views in the slightest.

1. "Reductio ad absurdum." I don't think this really scans, i.e., I don't think your mention of incest, gang rape and genocide constitute a reduction to absurdity of the point I'm making: Prohibitions against gang rape and genocide can readily be extrapolated from what Jesus said, which as far as I know is not true of traditional/conservative Christian views on sexual practices and arrangements. As for incest, while I think it's rightly frowned up by all cultures (and I think Jesus would have frowned upon it), in fact I don't think anything Jesus said touches on it especially so it kind of falls outside the rightful purview of Christianity. (Imagine that, something that falls outside its purview!)

2. "Christians accept the whole Bible, as well as the teachings of certain Church fathers." This just leads us down the path to cherry-picking. I don't mean to be sophomoric, but this point forces me to be the 100 millionth person to point out that religious folk seem to feel free to take what they like from the Bible and forget about what they don't like. There are hundreds if not thousands of rules found inside it, many of which strike the modern ear as comical (of the "you must not use a polyprene leash for your hampster" variety). Certainly, there are enough varying statements in it about sex and family arrangements for people to come to very different conclusions about, say, pre-marital sex. You obviously (along with many readers of Rod's blog) happen to be in a group of traditional/conservative Christians who have, entirely on your own contingent judgment, concluded that a particular set of interpretations of "the whole Bible" is the correct one. This is hardly insane, but it is by _leagues_ weaker to an outsider's ear than a strict reliance on Jesus's actual words would be. I think it's amazingly striking -- and I think you should find it so as well -- that Jesus never said anything about sex, and that what he said about family life is by and large opposite to much of what "family values" people would endorse. Bottom line: The imprimatur of Jesus is utterly absent on almost all matters relating to sex and family arrangements. What's considered by you and others to be "Christian" is merely the work of man. That doesn't make it wrong (I think lots of it is great, myself), but obviously it's considerably less than you're claiming for it.

3. "Catholics and Orthodox Christians accept the tradition of the church on these matters." I guess this is pretty much a subset of #2, so never mind.

-O

Daniel:

Be careful with the "yous". I'm not whining or claiming victimhood about anything. Homeschooling is the choice we made, and we live with it. It doesn't mean it's the right decision for anyone else.

And you still haven't explained what makes it "selfish."

Well said, Rod. It all depends on the situation.

1:11 comment was mine.

Oh, I forgot to add. Is there a great deal of difference between the parent who says, "I don't want you to teach my child about condoms" and the parent who says, "Why does my daughter need to pass algebra? She's just going to be a hairdresser anyway." In some subjects, the public schools are meant to deliver some conformity of education.

Connie,

A couple of points. In England, "history we know to be a lie" can include, for instance, being taught that Elizabeth I was a proponent of religious freedom of conscience. Which is true if you define religious freedom as believing what you want so long as you went to the village church (of England) or paid a fine. You weren't executed for choosing to pay the fine. Of course, you were executed if you were a priest. And you weren't supposed to assist at Mass. And you might be executed for hiding a priest...

Second, I used to agree with you about the need for a broad-based education. But for the last two years I have been tutoring a home-schooled high school student who is an enormously talented French horn player. Of the ilk who wins the first seat in national orchestras and appears on "From the Top." He can communicate clearly in writing when he cares to, he is a voracious reader, he is good at math, and knows a lot more than I do about environmental science. But literary analysis, together with writing critical essays of the standard which would be expected of him at a liberal arts college -- well, he doesn't see the point, and he refuses to work at it. And I wonder... is this necessary for him? If he hated math, would calculus be necessary for him? There comes a point at which true education is driven by the young adult. Maybe the future hairdresser, who can calculate tips but doesn't care for advanced math, although she can write enormously creative short stories, has a point, too.

I'm no proponent of the European vocational system -- but our own educational system used to allow for a much greater variety of educational ability and experiences -- and value such things as wood shop, auto mechanics, and home economics much more than it does now.

As far as condoms go, teaching what they are and do takes about five minutes. My (homeschooled) eleven year old understands the basic mechanism and its purpose. However, it is a rare gym teacher who stops with that. And I've yet to meet a public school teacher who will support me in telling my children that contraceptive use is immoral and why. So why should I send my kids to a school that will directly contradict me, and which will not even give complete and accurate factual information? That school which will NOT tell them (I know this because I foolishly allowed my oldest child to sit through this stuff, thinking it was what we taught at home that mattered) that they can catch STD's through foreplay and oral sex. That school which will not give them even a hint of the many, many potential side effects of OCPs? My husband the neurologist goes ballistic on the pill, because every single day he's in clinic he sees migraine patients who want other drugs because they don't want to go off the pill. It's the values that make sexuality education a hot potato. And I don't think Connie would want the sex ed class that I would approve -- so why should I put up with the one she likes? To enforce conformity in the public schools in this regard is not uniformly broad education -- it's the dictatorship of a certain set of values.

Again, why do you believe homeschooling is selfish? You haven't explained the basis for your repeated declarations on this score.

The costs of Catholic parochial school where I live are quickly creating a situation where only the elite can possibly afford it. I find this difficult personally as I try and figure how I can keep my three kids there. It also is very ironic in that their school is located at a Franciscan parish, where the friars are increasingly at the service of the kids of the well to do. This creates the equally ironic situation that material success i.e. making more money, becomes the only path to the best spiritual environment for our children. (I write as I sit in an airport awaiting a flight for a meaningless business trip that takes me from my wife and kids for several days that easily could be done if at all by phone in minutes, yet this is how I can make a few more bucks for the kids school fund.)

The dilemma for those who live in areas with poor government schools but can't afford to continue to send their kids to Catholic schools is something that causes this parent to loose allot of sleep. The choices seem to be excepting financial hardships if it will be enough, or moving, where God knows, with all that means for home and work, or dumping them in a huge governmental entity that by law is prohibited from supporting the truth we teach at home and is often hostile to it, where my kids if they maintain their faith will be marginalized if not outright scorned by their peers.

"The costs of Catholic parochial school where I live are quickly creating a situation where only the elite can possibly afford it."

Then the church has failed. If it cannot provide a Catholic education for all of its parishoners, then it is the failure of the Church and a failure or priorities. I do feel bad that parents are put in this situation, but it means it is time to put pressure on the church to reprioritize and not expect someone to bail them out.

Reading that Frontline material was too much of a flashback for me. I was in my 20's when my father died and was dealing with an adolescent sibling who was stuck in a world similar to that. High school kids hanging out at hotel rooms or abandoned homes every weekend, doing God knows what. I tried to convince my mother that NONE of his friends could be trusted and that he should just be kept in the house whenever he wasn't at school. It took her quite a few unbelievable episodes to realize just how bad it was out there.

That generation of teenagers was the first where a significant percentage were raised in daycare starting at 2-3 months. It's safe to say that is likely true for 50%+ of the current generation of teenagers. In ten years it will be more than 2-thirds. When children's formative emotional and cognitive years are farmed out to people paid relatively low wages for the work of a priceless vocation, are we truly surprised at their profound difficulties at developing independent self-worth or adopting an ethical core?

4:40 was me. Sigh. New system adjustment period.

I am a retired public school teacher, senior high school, 30 years, in a big city. Although I retired in 1993, what I hear against the public schools in 2007 is not much different from what I heard then. Folks, the biggest threat to your children in a public school is not what the teachers have to say but what the kids say to each other.

Teachers are terrified of parents and their complaints and potential lawsuits and losing credentials which have cost them an enormous amount of time energy and money, credentials in which they have their lives and lives of their own families invested. You have to be a retired teacher with a safe pension to speak the truth.

It's what is cool that counts and whatever teachers have to say is not likely to be cool be it liberal, conservative, Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, you name it. Cool and what they care about is what they learn from each other.

You want to take your kids out of public school because you want to keep them away from the other kids who go to public school. The rot comes from their companions. It's the bad companions you want to keep them away from as long as possible until you have them shaped as you want them shaped. In private schools, you have a better chance at bringing your kids into the right companionship but the filter of who can afford to attend the private school is not fool proof either. And what other filter is there?

One of my favorite public school teaching experiences concerns a young man who was programmed into my class shortly after the start of the semester. He had been "kicked out" of a very fancy and a very expensive private school in our city. I could not imagine how this thoroughly genteel young man could have been expelled from a top-notch private school for behavior problems--until I talked to his mother. It was a drug issue. The boy had been shocked by observing his private school companions buying and selling drugs and he had reported their behavior to his private school officials who had winked at the problem, allowed the boy to be mistreated by his companions in their very expensive private school, the financial support of the parents of the same culprits being needed to keep the very expensive private school afloat, until finally the very rich and very high up professional parents of my student pulled him out of the private school and put him into the public school where he thrived happily until graduation in a little within-the-school enclave of fine boys and girls into which he was happily programmed as to his academic subjects by his counsellors.

"Here's what I, as a homeschooling parent, want from the state: Stay the he** out of my homeschool. Period. No whining necessary."

If you agree to not complain about how homeschoolers are treated and expect validation from everyone about your decision, I think we can probably reach an agreement. That's my primary beef. Homeschool away.

Daniel,

If homeschoolers are treated unfairly, why shouldn't they complain?

Let me give you an example. A local Scout council funds a scholarship which is described as being intended for an Eagle Scout from a particular town with preference going to a young man with an interest in conservation. An Eagle Scout who participated in a state championship environmental science team applies. The award is given to another Scout, not an Eagle, with no comparable, demonstrable interest in conservation. Why? No reason is given, but perhaps it's because the award committee is composed of teachers at the town's public high school. Oh, and this Scout also participated (at the request of the school) as a musician for every high school musical and in several school bands, and represented the school in District and State musical groups.

Why shouldn't his mother complain (she's a friend, not me)?

In other words, when people are treated badly, in order to change things, they must speak up. Of course, they shouldn't go around moaning and groaning and pointing fingers every time things don't go their way... what you seem to be proposing is that no one should complain, even about injustice. Please say I'm wrong, and that's not what you mean!

And keep your hands out of my tax dollars

Out of your tax dollars? Don't homeschoolers pay taxes too?

Irenaeus,

Thanks very much for your interesting and thorough reply. Apologies if my tone seemed(s) splenetic -- FWIW at such moments I intend to be vigorous and/or caustically playful, not angry. Successfully executing that maneuver, though, probably exceeds my talents as a prose stylist.

In the interest of keeping this relatively brief, I'll get the lede out of the way: You've refuted me. You're right and I'm wrong. I've learned a lot from what you said.

I have a few follow-up thoughts concerning your points #3 and #5, if you have any interest in continuing the conversation. If not, no worries.

Your point #3 --

"You mention that Christians cherry pick stuff, and suggest the Bible is a big diverse mess that can’t be put together – a Humpty Dumpty situation. In some ways I agree. But I think the problem really lies in whether a denomination/congregation/person takes the Bible serious. There’s diversity on sexuality among Christian denominations not because they read the Bible differently, but because many of them, with the rise of modernity, decided that reason and culture and experience would be theological sources that would judge the Bible’s view of things. Throughout most of Christian history, there was remarkable consensus on sexual morality."

I understand and accept your overarching point. With respect to denominations that accept culture and experience as theological sources (as opposed to those that do not, or who do so to a much lesser extent), one of things that irritates me most about traditional/conservative Christians is their continued decision to view homosexuality as immoral. It simply cannot last, given how attitudes are changing with each generation, and the science which increasingly proves that homosexuality is an innate/physical characteristic, and the fact that as more and more straights develop frienships with gays (or have them as children) we see that there is nothing disordered about them, i.e., they're just people like us and their love relationships are every bit as valid. The pincers are closing in: Condemning them simply doesn't pass the reality test, no more than accepting slavery would pass the reality test today. (That's why I was interested in this post --

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/scripture_and_h.html#more

-- at Andrew Sullivan's site a couple of weeks ago. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. [For my part, even though I do not think there's an exact analogy between condemning slavery and accepting homosexuality, I do think that for the reasons I mentioned, and for those provided in the post, the latter maps onto the former sufficiently well that traditionalists/conservatives should be persuaded and change their beliefs.])

Your point #5 --

"The problem with construals of the “whole Bible” is Protestantism – we’re severed from tradition. (This is why I’m considering becoming a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.) But there are traditional rules of thumb according to which Christians interpret Scripture, generally shared by all Christians: interpret the OT in light of the NT, interpret everything in light of Jesus’ death and resurrection, interpret the Bible in light of the rule of faith (like the apostle’s creed)."

Once again, I do understand and don't dispute the point you're making here. (What I'm about to say reminds me of what you said about me seeming more fundamentalist about scripture than the fundies you know, but whatever!) What I think is a problem, though, is that once one defines Christianity as more than just the discrete, well-defined Protestant island, and decides to expand its pronounced borders by including the surrounding shoals and sand-bars of tradition (i.e., R.C. and Orthodox), one enters the morass of "what is valid tradition, and how and when may it be changed?" I'm actually very sympathetic to that morass -- I would go R.C. or Orthodox myself if I ever signed up. But it is the thin edge of a wedge that can open the door to traditions changing or being added to -- as (per the above post) the Bible-endorsed tradition about slavery changed, and as I would like the Bible-endorsed condemnation of homosexual acts to change.

So much for brevity.

-O

That should have read we not "hide the light under a bushel basket.

Sorry about that.

Christine

Being obedient to your faith and being selfish generally are not mutually exclusive. The Vatican is not the state and therefore obedience to the church is not necessarily in the greater public interest.

May I infer then that you think obedience to the state IS necessarily in the public's best interest?

A Catholic would argue, of course, that obedience to the Church - that is, Christ - is ALWAYS in the state's best interest, even when that obedience is in conflict with the state's laws, or desired behavior of its citizens. A Catholic, for example, would argue that protection of the unborn is both immediately and ultimately in the best interest of the state, even though the state obviously "thinks" otherwise. This characteristic - elevating duty to Christ above duty to the state when these duties are in conflict - is one of the things the Roman Empire originally found objectionable about Christianity.

"May I infer then that you think obedience to the state IS necessarily in the public's best interest?"

Obedience to the state is never in the public's best interest as a policy matter, unless you live under Communism or a theocracy.

What I am saying is obedience to the Vatican is not necessarily in the best interest of the U.S., for instance, given that 75% of people are not Catholic. Obedience to the Vatican's view on women, on contraception, on public health make perfect sense in the context of the church but can make for appallingly bad public policy if applied to a population that isn't Catholic.