Oh, I totally agree with this. However, my church growing up was an excellent teaching church. I learned a ton about the Bible, some church history, and the basics of faith there. We don't see children's programs doing such a good job of that anymore. Also, the culture has changed a lot in the past few decades, and as Christianity becomes more and more counter-cultural, I think we need to take more seriously our role as parents to educate our kids about faith. I also want them to learn how faith gets lived out in life. Of course, a lot of that is by example, but if you never explain why you do the things you do, they may not catch the connection. If our kids don't see that faith makes a difference in our lives, why will they be motivated to hold onto it when they leave home?

LOL! I'm always worried that my posts are misinterpreted. Maybe we should have disclaimers in our signatures. I agree that this is a big part of it. There was a time that I considered sending my oldest (who was 2 at the time) to MDO just to get a break a couple of days a week and get other things done. Not that there's anything wrong with sending your kid to MDO, but I was convicted that it was more important for me to make a priority of my relationship with my daughter (who was making me nuts at the end of my pg with #2) than to be able to get housework done.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the change would be negative. I guess I'm just a bit nervous that this is a dimension to the relationship that I haven't really seen modelled. It sounds like, mostly, it forces you to address issues that you might not have the need (or time) to address otherwise. I agree that that's a good thing. Thanks for your responses... they are helpful.

I've been wondering about this lately. It seems that some parents use school as a way to not have to deal with their kid's annoying habits or character issues. Like, my mom (who was a great mom and very involved in my life, and did what she thought was best) has always said that it would have been difficult to homeschool me because I didn't take criticism from her well. I handled it from teachers better (apparently). Would I have had a better chance to deal with my perfectionism if she had kept me home? Also, when parents send their kids to school, the kids can come home and vent to their parents about their mean ol' teachers. A parent can be in more of a sympathetic-friend-type-role, even if they encourage their kid to continue to work hard etc etc. So, I guess, I'm wondering how it's different when you're your child's primary teacher as well as his/her parent? Has this been written/talked about the homeschool community? Like I mentioned earlier, I had great parents, who modelled marriage, family and parenting really well for me. I wonder if I'm going to come upon some surprises and new challenges as I move more into the role of homeschooling my kids as well. And another, related thing (maybe this should be a separate thread). :) For those who want to teach your kids about your faith: does it ever feel goofy and cheesy? Although my dad went to seminary and has been in church leadership all of my life and now is a senior pastor of a church, my parents didn't really teach us about faith. We talked about it as issues came up. We learned a lot from church. They answered our questions. I'm sure we read story bibles when we were little. But, they didn't really intentionally teach us. No family devotional time or Bible time. I guess they felt it was a personal thing that they didn't want to push on us. The result, though, is that it's still awkward to talk about spiritual things as a family. I want differently for my family, but I find it difficult to find a way to do it that doesn't feel goofy to me. My kids are still young... maybe we'll grow into it?

That is absolutely adorable and reminds me of my girls together. But, there's no way I could ever get them to nap in the same room, let alone in the same bed! They do, actually, share a room (at night), and my 18 month old is very very disappointed when her big sis doesn't got to bed at the same time as she does.

This is helpful for me. I was never sure how to line up the phonics stuff with my dd's reading lessons, but it makes more sense to just use them for phonics review.

My 3 yr old is similar. I wanted to wait to teach her to read, but she was just ready. One thing I used to stall a bit was to work on her phonemic awareness (mostly as a game in the car). I used this article as a guide. Once she was doing those things comfortably (picking out first sound, last sound, and able to segment two-sound words), I got Phonics Pathways. It's nice for a young one because it doesn't require any writing (my 3 year old is learning to write capital letters, but she's not ready for workbook type programs). We only do about 5 minutes a day. She's steadily improving and still asks to do a reading lesson every day (after 2-3 months). I don't push, and I try to make it fun and playful. Another alternative I'm considering when it comes out is All About Spelling's guide to use their spelling curriculum for teaching reading. My mom was a lower school director of a Classical private school, and she is sold on the Orton-Gillingham method of teaching reading. The problem is, most of the O-G methods are expensive (or require a lot of writing, which, again, we're not ready for). I think AAS might be a good alternative. I hear that the reading guide (plus readers?) is due out in April. Generally, I think young readers need to be taught phonics, so they don't learn to rely on guessing strategies. But, they need to have fairly immediate rewards (like fun games and readers to use their phonics skills, not just pages and pages of drills). Phonics Pathways has games for practice, and we will be adding BOB readers and others soon, when she's ready for them.

I've heard not until April or May. Is there an update by SWB on the General Board?

We have one illustrated by Gyo Fujikawa (sp?) that we like.

I'm sorry, but this made me LOL. I can only imagine! :lol: I didn't notice if others had responded to this, but I've seen this done in extra-ordinary circumstances. For instance, an elder at a church I attended (Evangelical Free) had a long-standing affair, and he confessed it to the senior pastor, who then had him confess to the members at a member meeting (so, not actually at a service). The pastor felt like it was a good time for others to stand and repent for any habitual sins, and some did and were prayed for. Another was at that same church, where a man who had been a male escort supposedly converted (edited to add: I don't mean to be cynical, but I had a friend who was in a relationship with this guy, and I don't think it really "stuck") and wanted to be baptised. He had revealed to the pastor that he recognized women in the congregation from "business meetings" (sorry, my words, not his). Because of this, the pastor thought it was important that he be specific about his past at his baptism (not too specific, and he didn't call out any of the women or anything). There's also the good ol' altar call type of public confession. Not just for new converts, but for Christians struggling with sin. I saw a lot more of those at a more charismatic church I attended.

Donna, I'm so sorry. I honestly think that a habit of self-centeredness can turn into a mental disorder (not that everyone or even most people with a mental disorder got there that way), and people can get to the point where they believe their own lies. I hope she'll come to her senses.

But don't you think there's a difference between comic books (passive entertainment) and pretend play (requires creativity and imagination)? I like the idea of limiting them to after school work is done, so that the OP doesn't have to do battle when it's time to switch gears to studies.

I'm using the Memoria Press Latin cursive copywork book to re-teach myself cursive (I have terrible handwriting). I find the simplified style less intimidating.

Thank you, Alice and Julie for explaining some alternate views. I have not done much research into this stuff at all, so your thoughts are helpful. I've heard of this guy, but don't claim him as any sort of authority, nor do I necessarily agree with everything he says. I just did a Google search on "death disease theism evolution", and this is what popped up. Here are a couple of things he mentions that are concerns for me: "Even more seriously, it (Theistic Evolution) attacks the very character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and purposeless course of evolution." That's why I say I don't believe in evolution of species by natural selection. Natural selection is the real problem to me. It's difficult for me to reconcile that with what I know of God's character. There's more in the article, particularly about the Fall and about redemption, but more than I'm going to copy and paste into this post. I do think scripture refers in other places (like Romans 5:12) to death being the result of Adam and Eve's sin. It could, I guess, mean just spiritual death. But why, then, would Jesus come healing diseases and even raising some from the dead? That, to me, is Him beginning the work of restoring the creation back to it's original state, redeeming the effects of the Fall, and giving us a taste of what it will be like when God's kingdom comes in it's fullness (Rev 21:3-5). Anyway, I need to do more research myself. I am interested to hear about Keller's position. I've been meaning to read "The Reason for God". Does he talk about his view of origins in it?

If sin caused disease, then disease was not present before the Fall (and thus has not been present since life began). Is that consistent with the evolutionary view? That's all I'm asking. I don't know the answer. But do you believe that God created man without sin and the consequences of sin? I don't care (at the moment) if that happened via evolution or not. My concern is that evolution be somehow compatible with the idea that man fell from his original state, and is therefore capable of being redeemed back to that state. If it's not compatible, then the Genesis account of creation is the least of my concerns. The entire story of scripture hinges on the idea that man fell. I'm not trying to exclude anyone from my box. I don't even know what my box is! But, I do believe that ideas have consequences, and that if you embrace an idea, you have to embrace the consequences of that idea as well. If we can't agree about that, then I guess we don't have enough common ground to even have this discussion. Please please please understand me. I am not attacking, judging, labelling anyone. I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm just trying to clarify my question because I'd really like to know the answer.

Well, thanks for trying, Monica! ;) Looks like our kids are the same ages (and it looks like we realized that at the same time)! LOL

No one?

Literal is a loaded word, but just a glimpse of the church creeds over the centuries can tell you that the orthodox church has believed that the stories of scripture are historical facts, not just mythological stories. I am not a young earth creationist (necessarily). I do not think that you have to believe that God took 6 24 hour days to create the earth in order to take scripture seriously. Please hear me. What got me on this track is the idea that theistic evolutionists believe that death and disease were around since life began (thus before the Fall). If there is some way to believe in evolution of species without this being the case, I'm anxious to hear about it. But the story of scripture is the story of God's redemption of mankind. If there wasn't a Fall, then there is no need (or even possibility) of redemption. The validity of the story of scripture, and even the need for Christ, are dependent on a literal Fall. I'm still interested in an explanation for why death and disease had to have always been present since life began in order for evolution to be a valid explanation of the origin of species. Maybe it isn't. But someone, towards the beginning of this thread, listed the views of 4 major "camps" of theistic evolutionists and every one of them had this view. That is why it sparked my interest. Alice - I am not at all saying that your view is not Christian enough. I'm trying to make sense of what I'm reading. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm only hoping that someone will explain: 1) Why a believe in the evolution of species requires a belief that death and disease were around since life began 2) If this really is the case, how a Christian can take scripture seriously while holding this view

bump

Dawn - You're right that if there wasn't a literal Fall, then it never can get better than this. I'm with Pamela - that's horribly depressing. You're convincing me of what I suspected... in order to accept evolution of species, you must either reject the Bible OR stray from the orothodox view of scripture. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12) And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" (Rev 21:3-5)

Thanks, that's helpful. So, maybe I could just hold off on using TOG until my oldest is in 5th. Anyone with experience using the two together?

It is interesting to me that all of the different versions (at least in this list) of Theist Evolutionists believe this. I'm guessing that in order to believe in evolution of species, death and disease must have always been present? Can someone explain why this is? This seems directly contradictory to the Genesis account, no matter how you interpret it. FWIW, I'm a Christian, and I know I don't believe in evolution of species by natural selection. Beyond that, I'm not sure what I think, but I tend to agree with the old earth theory. Replying to my own reply.... :) So, maybe this isn't specifically mentioned in Genesis, but death and disease being results of the Fall (and not present in creation before the Fall) is certainly an (almost) universal belief of the orthodox church... isn't it? I'm still curious how it relates to evolution of species.

I plan on beginning Ancient History when my oldest is in 1st grade. I really like the looks of TOG, but it seems like overkill for one grammar-stage student, so I'm thinking I'll just use SOTW w/the Activity Guide for her first couple of years. Then, my 2nd will be joining us, and I'd really like to combine history for them. If, at that point, we're liking the homeschooling thing and think we'll be continuing on at least to middle school, I was planning on getting TOG (instead of the Activity Guide). Am I right that SOTW 3 and the activity guide are going to be geared more to a 3rd grader (and SOTW 4 for a 4th grader)? Would TOG be a help in finding resources for covering the same period for my younger one? However, now I'm noticing that SOTW and TOG are paced very differently. So, if we were starting SOTW 3 when my girls are in 3rd/1st grades, we'd actually need TOG 2 for most of the year (maybe just getting into the beginning of TOG 3 at the end of the year)... is that right? Then what would I do? Race through TOG 3 & 4 at the pace of SOTW 4 the next year? Do you follow? Any ideas? Who has used both together?

It is interesting to me that all of the different versions (at least in this list) of Theist Evolutionists believe this. I'm guessing that in order to believe in evolution of species, death and disease must have always been present? Can someone explain why this is? This seems directly contradictory to the Genesis account, no matter how you interpret it. FWIW, I'm a Christian, and I know I don't believe in evolution of species by natural selection. Beyond that, I'm not sure what I think, but I tend to agree with the old earth theory.

Not at all... I've actually had a similar "change of heart" about education philosophy in general. I think a lot of people interpret CM very shallowly, and what people consider CM is not necessarily what she intended at all. Even my mom, who loves CM, says that CM's language arts was not enough. They just didn't have the research and understanding that's been gained since she lived. And SWB's interpretation of a classical education really makes a lot of sense to me, and, I think, lines up well with what CM intended. I think what you said about what you really want to be able to focus on in the upper years (like content) makes a lot of sense. It does seem worth it to invest the time in learning grammar during the early years, so that you can have that time later. I look forward to hearing how FLL goes for you!