How to not brainwash your children with your faith? CC

[Anne in CA]

I have taught my kids to question EVERYTHING, even me, lol. I don't pretend to know everything or be perfect. But I make sure my kids know that I know what I know about God. I also make sure they know what the BIBLE says about things, not necessarily religious leaders, but the BIBLE. I make sure my kids know that theology is here to day, gone tomorrow in the greater picture, what matters is relationship with God.

[Ellie]

I think you know what I mean: evangelicals, fundamentalists, born again, Bible believing - Biblical literalists.  Not your everyday Episcopal.  

 

Oops.  Hit enter too soon.

 

 

Well, no. I don't know what you mean. Sorry.

 

It just always confuses me when people classify non-Catholic Christians as "Evangelicals." If you are a Christian, and you're not Orthodox or Catholic, then you're...what? A Protestant?  Why wouldn't your everyday Episcopal be an "Evangelical"? Wouldn't that be sort of judgmental, or scrupulous, or something, to say that an Episcopal isn't Evangelical? And is "Evangelical" a denomination?

 

Before I came back to the Catholic Church, I described myself as a Christian. So did everyone else I knew. We might describe our beliefs as being evangelical or fundamental or Bible-believing, but if anyone asked, we were Christians. To hear Catholics talk about "Evangelicals" as if they were a denomination, or different from other non-Catholic Christians, doesn't seem right. o_0

[albeto.]

Well, no. I don't know what you mean. Sorry.

 

It just always confuses me when people classify non-Catholic Christians as "Evangelicals." If you are a Christian, and you're not Orthodox or Catholic, then you're...what? A Protestant?  Why wouldn't your everyday Episcopal be an "Evangelical"? Wouldn't that be sort of judgmental, or scrupulous, or something, to say that an Episcopal isn't Evangelical? And is "Evangelical" a denomination?

 

Before I came back to the Catholic Church, I described myself as a Christian. So did everyone else I knew. We might describe our beliefs as being evangelical or fundamental or Bible-believing, but if anyone asked, we were Christians. To hear Catholics talk about "Evangelicals" as if they were a denomination, or different from other non-Catholic Christians, doesn't seem right. o_0

 

Evangelical Christian is a particular Christian identification, but I hear ya. When I was Catholic, I was taught to respond with similar confusion. After all, the "great commission" commands all Christians to evangelize, so all Christians are called to be evangelical. But still, it's a legitimate group within modern Christianity. 

[Slache]

I have taught my kids to question EVERYTHING, even me, lol. I don't pretend to know everything or be perfect. But I make sure my kids know that I know what I know about God. I also make sure they know what the BIBLE says about things, not necessarily religious leaders, but the BIBLE. I make sure my kids know that theology is here to day, gone tomorrow in the greater picture, what matters is relationship with God.

 

Ok, can we be best friends? When we were church shopping a pastor called us into his office to chat. He inquired as to what we believe, and I said essentially what you said, also what my first pastor 2,000 miles away told me when I first got saved. He actually had the nerve to tell us we needed a church to help us with that, especially since we were so young and not raised in a church. NO. I do not need a person, or a congregation to tell me what the Bible says. It was written TO ME. That's a cult, not a church.

[HRAAB]

Well, no. I don't know what you mean. Sorry.

 

It just always confuses me when people classify non-Catholic Christians as "Evangelicals." If you are a Christian, and you're not Orthodox or Catholic, then you're...what? A Protestant?  Why wouldn't your everyday Episcopal be an "Evangelical"? Wouldn't that be sort of judgmental, or scrupulous, or something, to say that an Episcopal isn't Evangelical? And is "Evangelical" a denomination?

 

Before I came back to the Catholic Church, I described myself as a Christian. So did everyone else I knew. We might describe our beliefs as being evangelical or fundamental or Bible-believing, but if anyone asked, we were Christians. To hear Catholics talk about "Evangelicals" as if they were a denomination, or different from other non-Catholic Christians, doesn't seem right. o_0

 

I have family members that, if asked, will identify themselves as Evangelical Christians.  I'm capitalizing the word because that's the way they use it.  They attend non-denomination churches or home church.  They are nothing like the Episcopals I know nor would they want to be confused with Episcopals.  Way too liberal for them.  I guess I shouldn't have capitalized it and used it as an adjective which for me means the Bible is their sole basis for faith and they take the entire Bible literally.  Anyway, that's what they call themselves.  I thought it must be a rather common name for very conservative, Bible believing Christians.  Heck, I've even heard Catholics call other extremely conservative Catholics evangelical Catholics as a descriptive term.

[HS Mom in NC]

Slache wrote:

 

"Thank you for this. This is not normal in my circles. I go to a Baptist church and the general plan seems to be 1. Pressure them into accepting Christ in kindergarten, 2. Make sure they rededicate their lives to God every year at VBS, 3. Tell them they're bad Christians when they sin and insist they repent (rather than allow the Holy Spirit to convict), and 4. Wonder where you went wrong when they turn 16 and walk away from "their" faith. It was this particular pattern that caused us to leave a church when the pastor insisted we do what the church does (age segregated Sunday School with alter calls, church school, and VBS) and felt that we were raising our children wrong. We were very involved in the church, don't get me wrong, but we found the general parenting and childcare giving very upsetting."

 

Now we have to have a doctrinal discussion and I'm going to try to keep it short and general.  I grew up in S. Baptist churches with strong Arminian beliefs.  I came to the conclusion that Calvin was right, not Arminias (sp?) when it came to election.  (Notice readers, that I was specific and don't agree with Calvin on everything.) So, when my kids were young we (my then believing or professing to be a believer husband-read Hebrews chapter 6 and get back to me) left S. Baptist churches and we started attending churches that were very literal in their interpretation of predestination.  No alter calls, no "sinner's prayer" and such.  This doesn't solve the problem of pressure to "raise kids to be Christian," my experience has been that there still seems to be some pressure among my new crowd this way, but not nearly as much and not in those ways that you list.

Covenant/Replacement theology is a factor here too.  If you're around Christians who believe they are "spiritual Israel" and they believe that christening replaces circumcision among  "spiritual Israel/The Church" then you'll get more pressure to "raise your kids to be Christians." Even those that believe in baptism for believers only like S. Baptist churches claim, can still put on pressure. If you lean more Dispensationally on Scripture like I do (the NT supersedes the OT for believers) rather than seeing them as equal and to be equally mixed, you'll be much less comfortable with the idea of Christian tradition, culture, imposing Judeo-Christian ethics legally, etc. This is a whole, long reaching, interconnected discussion and probably not what most people want to discuss on this thread.  If it's relevant to you, you may want to look for a different denomination or a different local church within your denomination that is closer to where you come down on these and other related theological issues.

Note* Churches Calvinist in their views on election and with Dispensational tendencies (there is a spectrum) are harder to find because they're fewer in number.

[HRAAB]

Evangelical Christian is a particular Christian identification, but I hear ya. When I was Catholic, I was taught to respond with similar confusion. After all, the "great commission" commands all Christians to evangelize, so all Christians are called to be evangelical. But still, it's a legitimate group within modern Christianity. 

 

I understand this, but normally when I hear someone talk about evangelicals today, they mean conservative, fundamentalist, Bible believing.

 

So, should it be capitalized or not?  I'm confused.

[KRG]

You know we did everything 'right' with our oldest.  Even enrolled him in a private Christian school.  Everything we did was torn down by church and a Christian school.  Then there is that point where they have to make their own decisions. He's almost 17 and is somewhere between agnostic and atheist and occasionally being ok w/Christianity.   So I'm clueless as to how to go about it.  We no longer attend church and chances are pretty good that I will homeschool our youngest. I pray and continue on the best way I know how.   

[Slache]

Now we have to have a doctrinal discussion and I'm going to try to keep it short and general.  I grew up in S. Baptist churches with strong Arminian beliefs.  I came to the conclusion that Calvin was right, not Arminias (sp?) when it came to election.  (Notice readers, that I was specific and don't agree with Calvin on everything.) So, when my kids were young we (my then believing or professing to be a believer husband-read Hebrews chapter 6 and get back to me) left S. Baptist churches and we started attending churches that were very literal in their interpretation of predestination.  No alter calls, no "sinner's prayer" and such.  This doesn't solve the problem of pressure to "raise kids to be Christian," my experience has been that there still seems to be some pressure among my new crowd this way, but not nearly as much and not in those ways that you list.

Covenant/Replacement theology is a factor here too.  If you're around Christians who believe they are "spiritual Israel" and they believe that christening replaces circumcision among  "spiritual Israel/The Church" then you'll get more pressure to "raise your kids to be Christians." Even those that believe in baptism for believers only like S. Baptist churches claim, can still put on pressure. If you lean more Dispensationally on Scripture like I do (the NT supersedes the OT for believers) rather than seeing them as equal and to be equally mixed, you'll be much less comfortable with the idea of Christian tradition, culture, imposing Judeo-Christian ethics legally, etc. This is a whole, long reaching, interconnected discussion and probably not what most people want to discuss on this thread.  If it's relevant to you, you may want to look for a different denomination or a different local church within your denomination that is closer to where you come down on these and other related theological issues.

 

Note* Churches Calvinist in their views on election and with Dispensational tendencies (there is a spectrum) are harder to find because they're fewer in number.

 

I'd say we're in agreement theologically on just about every point. We're back in Oregon now, going to a great church, the one I mentioned was in Ohio. When our debt is payed off we're buying land out in Indiana and we have an amazing church picked out. When I was pregnant I only went to one couple for parenting advice, the husband of which now pastors that church. We're going out to visit them (and my in laws  :scared:) next month.

[MercyA]

 NO. I do not need a person, or a congregation to tell me what the Bible says. It was written TO ME.

 

I also make sure they know what the BIBLE says about things, not necessarily religious leaders, but the BIBLE. 

 

Amen, ladies.   :thumbup1:

[MercyA]

Great suggestions, MercyA!

 

Thanks, Seasider!  

[Guest]

This is the kind of thing that I mean when applying objective skepticism to the mix. What does this mean? I mean, objectively, factually, what does "love is the trump card" mean? Can you clarify this in an objective way? I ask because otherwise it sounds like you're saying, "faith is real because I have faith it's real." Which is fine, but from the outside sounds very much like a brainwashed kind of answer.  

 

I mean that whatever happens, you love your child.  That's the trump card.  It means everyone wins.

[albeto.]

I mean that whatever happens, you love your child.  That's the trump card.

Okay, that makes sense.

 

It means everyone wins.

 

Unless one really does need to accept Jesus as lord and savior in order to avoid eternal damnation. Then the person who didn't, would lose. Big time. 

 

This raises for me one of the biggest problems with Christian theology. If the claims of the Christian religion are true, claims like the presence of "sin," the need to be reconciled with God, the mechanics of the temporary sacrifice and crucifixion of Jesus being somehow related to justification, then one's opinion wouldn't matter. Either something is real or it is not. If something is real, and if this something has eternal consequences, then knowing what it really is would be of paramount importance, no? If eternal damnation really is the consequence of not having faith (or the right faith, really), then brainwashing children would be the compassionate thing to do if the alternative is a child who would ultimately choose to believe another claim. If one is predestined, like Slache believes, then teaching the faith would be completely irrelevant. The holy spirit would break through any false beliefs to compel the individual to accept Jesus as lord and savior, and so teaching of the faith would be unnecessary. 

 

In any case, loving one's child wouldn't be related to this at all. It's like saying, Eat lots of fiber, it's good for you. Well, that's true, but it doesn't affect the validity of these theological claims. 

 

[6packofun]

 I assume for most people, spiritual health is more important than spiritual correctness, if push comes to shove.

 

I have no idea what this means.  Can you explain?  If we are all spiritual beings, what does it mean to be spiritually healthy or spiritually "correct"?  (Does the latter refer to doctrine?)

[6packofun]

 It means everyone wins.

 

Everyone wins what?  Wins heaven?  Because we are having a conversation about religious faith here and I don't understand the connection. 

 

It reminds me of the plea to just "love like Jesus" which means be really, really nice to people (to most who say it) and not worry about the rest.  (i.e. not worry about tackling the compelling, challenging nature of truth and how/if religion addresses that)

[Guest]

Okay, that makes sense.

 

 

Unless one really does need to accept Jesus as lord and savior in order to avoid eternal damnation. Then the person who didn't, would lose. Big time. 

 

This raises for me one of the biggest problems with Christian theology. If the claims of the Christian religion are true, claims like the presence of "sin," the need to be reconciled with God, the mechanics of the temporary sacrifice and crucifixion of Jesus being somehow related to justification, then one's opinion wouldn't matter. Either something is real or it is not. If something is real, and if this something has eternal consequences, then knowing what it really is would be of paramount importance, no? If eternal damnation really is the consequence of not having faith (or the right faith, really), then brainwashing children would be the compassionate thing to do if the alternative is a child who would ultimately choose to believe another claim. If one is predestined, like Slache believes, then teaching the faith would be completely irrelevant. The holy spirit would break through any false beliefs to compel the individual to accept Jesus as lord and savior, and so teaching of the faith would be unnecessary. 

 

In any case, loving one's child wouldn't be related to this at all. It's like saying, Eat lots of fiber, it's good for you. Well, that's true, but it doesn't affect the validity of these theological claims. 

 

Yes, if it is true, it matters a great deal.

 

However, I don't see how anyone can FORCE someone to believe something.  It's inherently contradictory.  That leaves me with a couple of options--to stay in relationship with any child who is willing to be in relationship with me, and to be true to the Truth.  

 

It is very likely that I do not believe in the God you do not believe in, at least as you present Him here and in other posts. 

 

Love is love only when it is freely offered and freely received.  It can't be forced from us or on us.  God loves us but does not force himself on us.  He allows us to receive his love or to reject it.  But he never stops loving us; he doesn't change who He is.  This is a model that I can follow only in the weakest possible sense because I fail all the time in my relationship with my own offspring.  It is up to him to form his own relationship with God, and I trust a great deal in God's mercies toward him, and toward myself.  That's as plain as I can be, and it might not make a lot of sense.  I hold to the Truth, I love my son; we talk and discuss, and when he asks, I tell him what I think, but not what TO think--because how can I really DO that anyway??  It is my job to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.  That's my son's job too, but HE is the one who has to do it.  

[Guest]

Everyone wins what?  Wins heaven?  Because we are having a conversation about religious faith here and I don't understand the connection. 

 

It reminds me of the plea to just "love like Jesus" which means be really, really nice to people (to most who say it) and not worry about the rest.  (i.e. not worry about tackling the compelling, challenging nature of truth and how/if religion addresses that)

 

By "everyone wins" I mean I do not fail in giving love, my son is loved.  Taking this snippet out of the context of my (short) post makes it seem irrelevant to the conversation, I agree.  In context, it was intended to convey that regardless of the twists and turns my kid takes in his relationship with God, in his life in general, and what I think of those twists and turns, the main point is to keep loving my offspring.  

 

This is not an untested statement.  Alas.  

 

If we were ever to understand for 3 seconds what it meant to "love like Jesus" we would never, ever, ever confuse it would "being really really nice."  We would know that on our own, we are completely incapable of the kenotic love of Jesus, of the fullness of humanity that is expressed in Jesus' love.  We would know social ostracism to express that kind of love, and be considered "not nice to know"--even as He was in his day.  At least by the "nice" people.  

 

People who think that it ends well when we "love like Jesus" haven't read the whole book.  

[Lisbeth]

The last two paragraphs are also what I'm worried about. I'm from the bay area and I consider myself knowledgeable when it comes to cultural diversity. I want that for my children. I'm tired of "Christians" who disrespect certain people groups and completely justify it to themselves. I knew a woman who wanted to dispan our Spanish Ministry because the people coming were illegals and didn't speak English. She literally hated an entire people group. And then you have a website called G*d hates f*gs. When I tell people I'm a Christian that's what they think. It's so sad. Thank you for taking the time to write that out. It was enlightening.

 

This is hardly a Christian problem. Look around. Intolerance abounds. Some groups KILL or jail non-believers. The last time I checked, Christians weren't doing that. How many violent protests have you seen from Mormons upset that there is a whole Broadway production making fun of their beliefs?

 

If you sincerely believe your faith, of course you teach your children that it is true. There is a reason for a decline in civility. Parents are now afraid to impose moral belief systems on their children. To me, this is so wishy washy and sad. I think you can teach strong belief in something, and also respect for other people to hold their own beliefs.

[HS Mom in NC]

, then brainwashing children would be the compassionate thing to do if the alternative is a child who would ultimately choose to believe another claim.

 

Brainwashing is not faith in the Biblical sense whether you believe in free will or a literal interpretation of predestination, so no, that's not true.  The Bible talks about believing coming through preaching which allows a believer preaching or witnessing to be a tool in the process, but not the source of anything.

 

Also, the Bible distinguishes between preaching the gospel to unbelievers as in, "Jesus said, 'I am the Way The Truth and The Life, no one comes to the Father, except through Me."" and teaching which is more daily living, internal disciplines, doctrine, etc. for people who are already believers to be more mature and to move from understanding basic doctrines to more advanced ones.

 

 

[albeto.]

Yes, if it is true, it matters a great deal.

 

However, I don't see how anyone can FORCE someone to believe something.  It's inherently contradictory.  That leaves me with a couple of options--to stay in relationship with any child who is willing to be in relationship with me, and to be true to the Truth.  

 

It is very likely that I do not believe in the God you do not believe in, at least as you present Him here and in other posts. 

 

Love is love only when it is freely offered and freely received.  It can't be forced from us or on us.  God loves us but does not force himself on us.  He allows us to receive his love or to reject it.  But he never stops loving us; he doesn't change who He is.  This is a model that I can follow only in the weakest possible sense because I fail all the time in my relationship with my own offspring.  It is up to him to form his own relationship with God, and I trust a great deal in God's mercies toward him, and toward myself.  That's as plain as I can be, and it might not make a lot of sense.  I hold to the Truth, I love my son; we talk and discuss, and when he asks, I tell him what I think, but not what TO think--because how can I really DO that anyway??  It is my job to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.  That's my son's job too, but HE is the one who has to do it.  

 

If justification is a thing, if it exists, it works in a certain way. It has a mechanism, if you will. Loving your child isn't the mechanism. I don't know how directly related it is, or if it is related at all. 

 

The answers given don't make sense in my opinion,  because they either don't answer the question, or they distract by offering unrelated beliefs into the equation. 

 

 Is the god Slache believes in the real god? How would she know? Is she teaching her kids to know the real god? If she was brainwashed, would she know it? Would she even be able to teach her children correctly? 

 

These aren't questions for you directly, but questions one would ideally ask if they wanted to know how to identify elements of brainwashing/conditioning/indoctrination as it opposes reality.

[6packofun]

I think of brainwashing on a spectrum. "Brainwashing" is like "legalism," it's a descriptive word used to reflect a more intense application of a methodology than the one referenced, one that cannot be justified by the one doing the referencing. So for example, people who teach that to reject Christ is to reject Salvation, that to not be a believing Christian is to spend an eternity in Hell, that to believe in him is to respond in particular ways, is often considered "legalistic" from the viewpoint of those who teach that to reject Christ is to reject the formal teachings, that Christ is present in whatever belief, so long as one is true to what is right and wrong. Both ideas are biblical, btw, which is what makes it so difficult to hear as well as defend the accusation of being legalistic......

.

.

 

This link decidedly atheist, to be sure. But don't let that throw you off. If your faith has merit, it will withstand the challenge of critical skepticism. In other words, if your faith is "true," it will not be harmed by this application of objective, critical analysis. 

 

Thank you for all of this!  I appreciate your thoughtful posts.  I printed out your post and will check out the website as well.

[T'smom]

I have not read all the replies but here is my response to the OP. My dad is a pastor. When I was growing up, he answered ALL theological questions with "well, what do you think?" And then question me and make me back up my opinions. Sometimes he would say "maybe you should look at *whatever chapter/verse was applicable*" My parents also made sure that we had study bibles/commentaries, etc. I don't feel like I was brainwashed/indoctrinated.

[albeto.]

Brainwashing is not faith in the Biblical sense whether you believe in free will or a literal interpretation of predestination, so no, that's not true.

Refer to my first post here about brainwashing, legalism, and other definitions that rely on one's personal position as a matter of reference.

 

The Bible talks about believing coming through preaching which allows a believer preaching or witnessing to be a tool in the process, but not the source of anything.

 

Also, the Bible distinguishes between preaching the gospel to unbelievers as in, "Jesus said, 'I am the Way The Truth and The Life, no one comes to the Father, except through Me."" and teaching which is more daily living, internal disciplines, doctrine, etc. for people who are already believers to be more mature and to move from understanding basic doctrines to more advanced ones.

The bible also talks about the importance of correcting the sinful child with force, assuring the parent that if done in [correct] faith the child will only bruise, not die. The bible also talks about the importance of avoiding temptation, as one "runs the race" of struggling for faith for life. The bible also says people will be judged according to the "law" written on their hearts, they need not follow the faith of Jesus in order to be justified.

 

The bible says a lot of things frankly, and all of them are honored by various communities. None of this addresses whether or not Slache knows if she's contributing to the cultural indoctrination of her children. Would she know if she was erroneously indoctrinated in the first place?

[Elisabet1]

Children are born as open slates. There is no brainwashing involved. It is simply raising your children. If you don't raise them one way...someone will raise them for you. They will get their answers and ideas somewhere. 

[Rosie_0801]

I have no idea what this means.  Can you explain?  If we are all spiritual beings, what does it mean to be spiritually healthy or spiritually "correct"?  (Does the latter refer to doctrine?)

 

By correctness, I meant adhering to the teachings of the family of origin, yes. By healthy, I mean the person's spiritual beliefs are uplifting, inspiring and provide some comfort when they need it. I might not like someone's religion, but if they are inspired and comforted by it, I'll believe they are on the right path for them (for the time being at least.) If someone's beliefs have them in what seems like a constant state of anxiety and self flagellation, I'm going to wish they'd ditch it for something else.

 

I assume most people want their kids to follow their religion, but I also assume they'd rather see their kids as a healthy something else than an anxious or angry squirming mess of a whatever-mum-and-dad-are.

 

I figure the OP has a good idea on what she thinks a good Christian should believe and do, but with her current question, it might help to take Christianity out of the equation for the time being and think about what spiritual health and unhealthiness might be. If she has clear ideas on those things, she'll have another yard stick with which to judge healthy and unhealthy teaching within Christianity. 

 

Or maybe not. :)

[HS Mom in NC]

Children are born as open slates.

 

I disagree. 

[OnTheBrink]

First, no matter what your beliefs are, you're teaching them to your children every day. It doesn't matter what curriculum you use, what church you attend (or not). What you believe is being laid out in front of your children every day of their lives. Now, if what you profess is different than what you live, then your profession could well be "brainwashing." To me, brainwashing is making someone believe what's not true, like when cults "love bomb" people to convince them that the cult is the only place where they're loved, etc. 

 

Secondly, to go along with what Patty Joanna said about love, I have an adult child who walked away from church. He was very very hurt over my divorce and feels our church didn't support him in the way he needed. I don't know if his feelings accurately represent what happened, but they're his feelings and there's nothing I can say to change that. What I can do is love him. I don't preach to him, I don't chastise him, I don't nag him to go to church. I keep communication open and I love him. And, more than anything else, I pray for him. I can't "make" him believe anything. That's between him and God and I trust God with my son's life. Because my son's personality and temperament are very similar to mine, I feel like he will come back to God and attend church again. But I can't know that for sure. All I can do is love him. 

[Elfknitter.#]

Children are born as open slates. There is no brainwashing involved. It is simply raising your children. If you don't raise them one way...someone will raise them for you. They will get their answers and ideas somewhere.

 

  

I disagree.

 

Could you explain? Does that mean children are born religious?

[Guest]

First, no matter what your beliefs are, you're teaching them to your children every day. It doesn't matter what curriculum you use, what church you attend (or not). What you believe is being laid out in front of your children every day of their lives. Now, if what you profess is different than what you live, then your profession could well be "brainwashing." To me, brainwashing is making someone believe what's not true, like when cults "love bomb" people to convince them that the cult is the only place where they're loved, etc. 

 

Secondly, to go along with what Patty Joanna said about love, I have an adult child who walked away from church. He was very very hurt over my divorce and feels our church didn't support him in the way he needed. I don't know if his feelings accurately represent what happened, but they're his feelings and there's nothing I can say to change that. What I can do is love him. I don't preach to him, I don't chastise him, I don't nag him to go to church. I keep communication open and I love him. And, more than anything else, I pray for him. I can't "make" him believe anything. That's between him and God and I trust God with my son's life. Because my son's personality and temperament are very similar to mine, I feel like he will come back to God and attend church again. But I can't know that for sure. All I can do is love him. 

 

This.

 

And God be with you as you bear the pain you bear...and mulitply to your son the love you give.

[Guest]

If justification is a thing, if it exists, it works in a certain way. It has a mechanism, if you will. Loving your child isn't the mechanism. I don't know how directly related it is, or if it is related at all. 

 

The answers given don't make sense in my opinion,  because they either don't answer the question, or they distract by offering unrelated beliefs into the equation. 

 

 Is the god Slache believes in the real god? How would she know? Is she teaching her kids to know the real god? If she was brainwashed, would she know it? Would she even be able to teach her children correctly? 

 

These aren't questions for you directly, but questions one would ideally ask if they wanted to know how to identify elements of brainwashing/conditioning/indoctrination as it opposes reality.

 

I don't really know what to say, or where to start.  There is so much to untangle.  Justification as a mechanism is really beyond my understanding.  "Loving my child" was stated as my response to whatever my child is or believes, not as an explanation of the "mechanism of justification."  I do not look to loving my son as any part of a mechanism of anything.  It's just love and it is as important to me as to him that i offer it. 

 

As to the second question, how do any of us know that we have or have not been brainwashed?  You yourself have as much responsibility to answer this question as to demand an answer of another.  I think the term may have been used too much, too often, too incorrectly to have any meaning at this point.  

 

And as for getting into "reality"--that's too big for my brains tonight.  :0)  

 

I really do not mean to *contend* with you.  However, it seems that in a thread that was directed at Christians in its subject line, there has been a lot of distracting conversation in this thread.   Christ Himself distilled Christian teaching into "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself."  In relation to the initial question, which was how to teach the faith without making it a condition of love, many people have made their responses.  Mine included the ideal (at which I have too often failed) of loving my son as he did his own battle to seek the truth.  That's all. 

[albeto.]

I don't really know what to say, or where to start.  There is so much to untangle.  Justification as a mechanism is really beyond my understanding.  "Loving my child" was stated as my response to whatever my child is or believes, not as an explanation of the "mechanism of justification."  I do not look to loving my son as any part of a mechanism of anything.  It's just love and it is as important to me as to him that i offer it.

 

Justification as a mechanism is really beyond anyone's understanding simply because there's no way to objectively understand it. In relation to this thread, how would Slache know if she was brainwashed into believing an erroneous thing about justification, and was then encouraging her children to embrace that which would only function to lead them astray. 

 

As far as loving your child, you said it was the trump card, it means everyone wins. I assumed you meant in response to the topic of brainwashing, of how to guide the child in matters of the faith. If you mean in general, loving your child is a good and healthy thing, then yeah, I totally agree. 

 

As to the second question, how do any of us know that we have or have not been brainwashed?  You yourself have as much responsibility to answer this question as to demand an answer of another.  I think the term may have been used too much, too often, too incorrectly to have any meaning at this point.

 

I agree that I have as much responsibility to answer this question, but my answers are corrected and modified with evidence. Any cognitive biases I may have are modified when pointed out to me. I don't maintain them against evidence to the contrary. Not that I know of anyway. 

 

And as for getting into "reality"--that's too big for my brains tonight.  :0)

 

Fair enough.  ^_^

 

I really do not mean to *contend* with you.  However, it seems that in a thread that was directed at Christians in its subject line, there has been a lot of distracting conversation in this thread.   Christ Himself distilled Christian teaching into "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself."  In relation to the initial question, which was how to teach the faith without making it a condition of love, many people have made their responses.  Mine included the ideal (at which I have too often failed) of loving my son as he did his own battle to seek the truth.  That's all.

 

Religion is a subject that touches us all, regardless of the particular religion, the sect within a religion, or the absence of belief of that religion. It should come as no surprise that a question like this would pique the interests of people of all religions and no religion. Furthermore, the idea of brainwashing isn't isolated to religion, not by any stretch of the imagination. In short, it's not a religious only concept. I simply asked you a question because your comment had confused me. 

[redsquirrel]

My smart alec-y answer is that you could always become a Unitarian Universalist. There are Christian UUs, just not fundamentalist ones. 

 

But I think there is always some amount of 'brain washing' when it comes to kids because we adults have to make choices for them. The younger they are, the more power we have to control their world. I think the trick is to take responsibility for it, see it for what it is, and acknowledge its limitations. For example, my husband and I are vegetarians. I have literally been accused of 'brainwashing' my kids by not feeding them meat. When I pointed out that all parents make decisions about what their kids eat, read, wear, etc I was met with a blank stare. I should say that I know that my kids are now old enough that they have to make their own decisions about what they chose to eat. They also have to respect my choices about what I will and will not buy or cook, but as they get older more and more of that becomes their decision. Most importantly to me, my kids know that I have zero expectation about how they will eat when they are on their own. Do I have some hopes? Yes I do. But their decisions are theirs to make and I will love them the exact same no matter what.

 

I know it is not a perfect analogy. There is a big difference between food choices and what some believe to be eternal damnation or eternal separation etc, but it's the best I got.

[HS Mom in NC]

Refer to my first post here about brainwashing, legalism, and other definitions that rely on one's personal position as a matter of reference.

 

The bible also talks about the importance of correcting the sinful child with force, assuring the parent that if done in [correct] faith the child will only bruise, not die. The bible also talks about the importance of avoiding temptation, as one "runs the race" of struggling for faith for life. The bible also says people will be judged according to the "law" written on their hearts, they need not follow the faith of Jesus in order to be justified.

 

The bible says a lot of things frankly, and all of them are honored by various communities. None of this addresses whether or not Slache knows if she's contributing to the cultural indoctrination of her children. Would she know if she was erroneously indoctrinated in the first place?

Instructions for Christian living are found in the NT and apply to believers, not unbelievers. People in the OT were not believers in Jesus Christ because He hadn't come yet.  Judaism is a culture based faith and not about regeneration through the Holy Spirit so those instructions aren't about Christian living.  See my posts upthread on my views on Scriptural interpretation, specifically about Dispensationalism. Your reference to "the law on their hearts" is from Romans Ch.2 which follows a few verses earlier with, "God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." How is that saying that not having faith in Jesus is acceptable?

 

Everyone has to teach their children to live in the culture by a code of conduct.  Unbelievers and believers do it all the time.but that's not the same thing as living out faith on daily basis by a believer.

 

Are you suggesting I should try to get my children to outwardly conform to a faith they don't have through some sort of brainwashing? I really don't understand where you're going with your posts.

[Liz CA]

You can present the tenets of your faith but where the rubber meets the road is in daily living. Daily thankfulness, daily grace for each other. Forgiveness and openness to questions, not being afraid to say "I don't know," admitting our own struggles, yet modeling self respect (not doormat behavior for anyone), love and truthfulness. All easier said than done.

[HS Mom in NC]

  

Could you explain? Does that mean children are born religious?

 

Some may be inclined to be attracted to religion  naturally without being raised that way and others may not. I don't believe a one size fits all statement about children and religion could possibly be accurate.  No one is a blank slate.  Everyone is born with a personality and way of thinking and their own unique responses to things.  I think the assumption that children are blank slates that can, with a certain environment, be brought to a certain outcome is a common theological mistake lots of Christians make.  I don't agree with that, but I do know parents who do think that's possible.  They think if they live a certain way and do certain things then their children will follow in their faith throughout adulthood.  I think it's really common in homeschooling circles with certain churches and denominations and I think too many parents are being bamboozled by it and kids are suffering because of it. To reiterate, when I say "faith" I mean what is coming from someone regenerated by the Holy Spirit like Jesus was talking about with Nicodemus. I do not mean custom, culture, tradition, theological arguments and facts, intellectualism, emotionalism, superstition, etc.

[HS Mom in NC]

All easier said than done.

 

That's for sure.  Where I come from we use the phrase, "It preaches easy."  when we mean it's easier to live than to discuss.

 

[Anne in CA]

Ok, can we be best friends? When we were church shopping a pastor called us into his office to chat. He inquired as to what we believe, and I said essentially what you said, also what my first pastor 2,000 miles away told me when I first got saved. He actually had the nerve to tell us we needed a church to help us with that, especially since we were so young and not raised in a church. NO. I do not need a person, or a congregation to tell me what the Bible says. It was written TO ME. That's a cult, not a church.

LOL, we can be best friends!

[gardenmom5]

I have four adult children, all practicing our faith.

 

questions about the family's religious beliefs are okay.  you can't get an answer if you don't ask the question.  God can handle questions just fine, and will answere sincere ones. (though learning to hear the answer can be more difficult, and is perhaps one of the more important things I worked to teach them).  God gave us a brain and expects us to use it.

 

we attended church regularly, family prayer, scripture study, family lessons, etc. - but those are just a foundation.

 

 

[Laurie4b]

 

So, what do you do, as a christian to raise your child in the Lord? What did you do right? What do you regret?

 

Thanks,

 

Rachel

 

ETA: This is sort of a shout out (or whatever s/o stands for) of ?'s for christians with adult children. Just a more concentrated question.

 

My 4 kids range in age between nearly 16-nearly 22.

 

I think you've gotten a lot of good advice.

 

Some things I can think of from our own experience and the experiences of friends:

 

I think what we can try to do is not to put stumbling blocks in our kids' way. They will have to come to their own relationship with God, but we don't want to put obstacles in their way. John the Baptist saw his ministry as preparing the way for the Lord. That's the part we can do.

 

Your own walk with the Lord, and your husband's is very important. You can read sociological research by Christian Smith to get a sociological viewpoint about which factors tend to be associated with kids continuing in faith. The parents' walk with the Lord and the child's ability to articulate their faith are key factors in terms of teens believing. (ie do they know enough to articulate it or are their beliefs really vague?) In terms of young adults believing, their parents' faith walk and their own spiritual experiences as a teen seem to be most important.

 

Love your spouse. Kids seeing a loving, healthy, spiritual relationship between their parents is very important.

 

Love your kids unconditionally. Delight in them.

 

Pray for them regularly.

 

Keep your eyes open to discerning who God made each of your children to be. It can be very tempting to try to take a child made in the image of God and try to sculpt them into our own image. Try rather to find out the unique person God made them to be. Delight in each of your children.

 

Pray with them. Warm snuggly bedtime routines where they share their day and you pray together, etc. are sweet times for parents and kids.

 

Don't try to control them with Scripture. It is quite easy to mistake your goal as one of socializing and civilizing (lots of emphasis on morality) rather than on encouraging them to recognize their need of God. When you focus on moralizing, you end up with "older brothers" from the parable of the prodigal son. You are aiming at prodigals--kids who realize they need God and turn to Him.

 

Don't try to control them by keeping them in a bubble to "protect" them. (You've said you don't plan to do this.)

 

As you've done here, ask Christians you know in real life with adult children the same question. Honestly, I'd say stay away from speakers at conventions who have formulas for raising your kids. You have no way of knowing what their families are actually like. So much yuck has gotten propagated at conferences. Don't jump on bandwagons. There are lots of right ways to do things. You need to seek God about what is right for you and for each particular child. If someone has a formula, run the other way.

 

Encourage questions. Say, " I don't know"  when you don't know.  Seek answers together. Look at what different branches of Christianity say to the question.  Where there are answers that it might not be easy for a kid to find him or herself, provide resources. We made sure while they were in the grammar stage that we poured all kinds of knowledge into them (ie made sure they learned the Bible well, understood their faith well, did memory work, etc.) I think that piece is very important and I don't consider it brainwashing at all. They can't evaluate what is only vague stuff once they hit the logic stage. Once they were in logic stage, we backed off and allowed and encouraged them to do the analysis, etc. of that age.

 

We are very ecumenical Christians, using the historical creeds (Apostles' and Nicene) as a place of unity. Where we disagreed with other Christians who also embrace the creeds, we would teach what we believed, but also say that we could be the ones who were wrong. We thought it was important for them to know how Christians of various flavors have understood things down through the ages, and how they understand things around the world today.

 

We exposed them to Christians around the world. One of the great anchors to their faith, I think, was seeing the faith of people who were very poor in terms of the world's goods, but very rich in faith. They saw that it was real when the rubber hit the road, not just in a middle-class American family. That made an impression. We made sure to tell them our own stories, stories of friends of ours or people they knew and their experiences with God. We read them stories of missionaries.

 

We apologized a lot and asked forgiveness. We didn't try to keep on a mask. When we messed up, we acknowledged that. That sort of living out the truth that we are sinners and in need of mercy and forgiveness not the "righteous" that had it all sewn up was important to them.

 

We exposed our kids to other adult mentors. We have had excellent youth ministers, but there are also other Christian parents whose homes our kids hung around in.

 

The most consistent mistakes I see Christian parents make are: trying to control their kids (and over-protection, however well meant, can feel like control to kids as much as lots of rules, strict discipline, etc. ), wearing masks at home or in public, & having a walk that doesn't match the talk. Kids can see your priorities by the choices you make every day. 

 

"Walking the walk" is about love: Love of God and love of other people. Caring for those on the margins, loving enemies, taking reconciliation seriously.Walking the walk is also about admitting when your walk does not match your talk, repenting, and getting up again and back to the journey.

[Tess in the Burbs]

While I teach my kids my faith I am very clear that at some point in their own life they will have to choose.  I have told them when I had doubts and how I sought to seek out truth.  I have told them about some theological differences and how I went about finding truth and how I came to truly believe in God.  And every time I tell my kids that at some point in their life they will have doubts and they must seek out truth.  We love them no matter what they choose.  They know my faith and what I believe.  But I have always told them to seek truth for their own faith. 

[poppy]

 

It just always confuses me when people classify non-Catholic Christians as "Evangelicals." If you are a Christian, and you're not Orthodox or Catholic, then you're...what? A Protestant?  Why wouldn't your everyday Episcopal be an "Evangelical"? Wouldn't that be sort of judgmental, or scrupulous, or something, to say that an Episcopal isn't Evangelical? And is "Evangelical" a denomination?

 

Before I came back to the Catholic Church, I described myself as a Christian. So did everyone else I knew. We might describe our beliefs as being evangelical or fundamental or Bible-believing, but if anyone asked, we were Christians. To hear Catholics talk about "Evangelicals" as if they were a denomination, or different from other non-Catholic Christians, doesn't seem right. o_0

 

I don't like "evangelicals" as a term to describe all Protestants because it's just inaccurate. I do think it is fair and inoffensive to say that Episcopalians are not Evangelicals.  But I do wish there was a term we could use aside from "Christian."  That's problematic, obviously, because it leads to all the painful "She's not Christian, she's Catholic" confusion and hurt.

I wish Protestants didn't mind being called Protestants.

[poppy]

 

 

My smart alec-y answer is that you could always become a Unitarian Universalist. There are Christian UUs, just not fundamentalist ones.

What's a fundamentalist UU?

[Pawz4me]

I don't like "evangelicals" as a term to describe all Protestants because it's just inaccurate. I do think it is fair and inoffensive to say that Episcopalians are not Evangelicals.  But I do wish there was a term we could use aside from "Christian."  That's problematic, obviously, because it leads to all the painful "She's not Christian, she's Catholic" confusion and hurt.

I wish Protestants didn't mind being called Protestants.

 

I had no idea they did mind.  Why?

[MercyA]

I had no idea they did mind.  Why?

 

I'm not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, but I can't imagine calling myself a Protestant if someone asked my religion.  I don't follow Luther or Calvin, and I don't belong to any Protestant denomination.  My beliefs aren't defined by the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, but by the Bible.  Hence, I prefer the term Christian. :)

[Pawz4me]

I'm not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, but I can't imagine calling myself a Protestant if someone asked my religion.  I don't follow Luther or Calvin, and I don't belong to any Protestant denomination.  My beliefs aren't defined by the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, but by the Bible.  Hence, I prefer the term Christian. :)

 

I can certainly understand the second bolded statement.  But for those who do belong to Protestant denominations -- in general they have issues with being called Protestants?  Is it because they think the term is just too broad?  Or is it something more specific?

 

And I don't mean to be persnickety, but to me Christianity is a religion.  Anything more specific is a denomination.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

...So how can you do this? I suggest using what John W. Loftus explains as "the outsider test for faith." Essentially, it is to apply the same critical thinking skills to your own beliefs that you do when rejecting other beliefs. When applied to religion, you would start by using only objective information as legitimate defenses for the faith. For example, when you read the conversion stories of Muslims who came from a Christian faith background or culture, you would likely reject the personal testimony they share because those are opinions, not facts. You would reject the texts that the faith relies on because a text claiming to true doesn't make it so. You would reject the appeal to tradition, the idea that "everybody knows," "everybody has always known" found in your own culture because you reject that as evidence when applied to other religions... 

 

 

I tried your suggestion on your test.  This is what I find - there is no objective evidence to conclude that the only source of legitimate knowledge of religious belief is objective information. Exclusive reliance on objective information is a subjective standard.

 

So I decided I would try another method.  I would take the beliefs of religion and science seriously and apply all the possible ways of knowing things.  This includes learning about the texts and traditions of the religion.  Beyond that the history and physical evidence (courtroom level evidence not just science level evidence) from the real world.  Personal experience will also play into this because religions usually address the real problems of real people.  In the end I will follow the evidence (all the evidence not just the pre-selected categories of evidence) wherever it leads. 

 

As for brainwashing, my kids are my responsibility so they will follow me on my path.  Forgive me for bringing up a reference to scripture but I will not leave them in Egypt without me, and I will not let them stay in the dry bed of the Red Sea (to be drowned). They are going to wonder in the wilderness with me because I am responsible for them and  I love them.  I will not leave them on there own.  

 

As someone said earlier, there is no room for love in objective study.  The ability to go beyond the objective is what separates us from the animals and even the neanderthals - they only dealt with the objective observable world around them.  Humans have the amazing ability to go beyond the objective.

[redsquirrel]

What's a fundamentalist UU?

 

I dunno, but it sound like the start of a good joke.

 

What I was trying to say is that are Christian UUs. Those things seem to be able to live in harmony together. There are UU Buddhists and UU Jews, often in the same family. But I don't think if someone were a fundamentalist Christian that she or he would be comfortable adopting a UU philosophy. 

 

UUs tradition draws from many sources and many people. They do not give the bible any more or less authority than any other book. Individual UU people  might, and are free to do so, but the church as a whole is non-dogmatic.

 

UUs, especially children, are encouraged to learn about the history of different faiths and to see them in action. In my church they spend the 5th grade through 7th in a program called 'neighboring faiths'. They spend time learning about different religions, the history and the practices. They read some of the writings and discuss them. If someone is available, a guest speaker will be invited to come and talk to them and the kids are allowed to ask questions. If permitted they travel to other churches to participate in a worship service and meet the congregations. In the 8th grade, if they chose, they participate in a program called "coming of age'. They spend some time in retreats discussing and contemplating their own spiritual development. This culminates with them writing an individual statement of faith and reading it to the congregation.

 

So, if someone takes the bible as the inerrant word of god, I don't think they would approve of such things.

[Elisabet1]

I don't like "evangelicals" as a term to describe all Protestants because it's just inaccurate. I do think it is fair and inoffensive to say that Episcopalians are not Evangelicals.  But I do wish there was a term we could use aside from "Christian."  That's problematic, obviously, because it leads to all the painful "She's not Christian, she's Catholic" confusion and hurt.

I wish Protestants didn't mind being called Protestants.

Wow, I am a protestant and never had a problem being called one. Where did you get the idea that protestants object to being called protestants?

 

I think you are just talking rhetoric on the rest on it. Many Catholics believe no other religion is Christian. Likewise, some Christian denominations believe that Catholics are not really Christian. It goes all directions. I have been in a Mass where a priest said that Catholics were the only Christians and the Pope was the only way to God, which is in direct violation of the bible. Some Christians say if you are against the bible, and you do not follow Christ and what Christ has said in the bible, you are not a Christian. But likewise, other Christians do not believe in the literal translation of the bible. And my husband grew up in Catholic schools and I cannot believe the load of crap he was fed about the many non-Catholic religions.

 

One thing I do take issue with on religions is when they teach hate. There is enough hate. Any religion that teaches hate should just change their title to hate-group. That includes any religion that teaches their child that everyone else but them is going to hell.

[Aelwydd]

Honest question here - please don't be offended. How is what you are doing different than what you consider brainwashing? I assume you're teaching your children that the Biblical God and the Bible are Truth, that Jesus Christ is the only path to heaven, that non-Christian religions do not have the truth and therefore do not have salvation. If I've made an incorrect assumption, please tell me. I guess I don't see how this is any different from the many, many Christian families I know.

To me, brainwashing involves shutting down any other viewpoints. It means not admitting to any possibility of being wrong, and deliberately misrepresenting information to skew it towards one belief system, and to undermine others. It also predicates emotional support and affection upon the condition of continued belief and participation. The OP doesn't strike me as brainwashing.

[Luanne]

Teaching children the truth is not brainwashing.