Story of the World and Christianity

[faiths13]

Hello,

I have been thinking of using Story of the Word with my two youngest (almost 6 and 8). We are newish Christians (2.5 years) and so I want a Christian history. I know SOTW isn't really Christian, so I guess my question is, is it still a good history to use for us? Would love thoughts! Thank you!

[AimeeM]

It IS absolutely Christian. I think it's easy to make "secular friendly," but it's definitely Christian (and protestant; many Catholics have difficulty using the books after volume 1, without a fair amount of tweaking). Not sure where you heard that it isn't Christian. Possibly you've just noticed that it's used widely in the secular homeschooling world, too - and that's simply because it is one of the least biased texts out there, therefore it's easy enough for anyone to tweak and use :)

[Farrar]

Well, I disagree, Aimee... coming from a secular perspective, I think the first volume is pretty clearly written from a Christian perspective, but one that is trying to neutral. The second volume had just a couple of things of concern to me. The third and fourth volumes read as completely secular. I'm not sure what Catholics find offensive in SOTW3&4 when nearly all of it is secular history told from a very matter of fact perspective. I'd be curious what needs to be heavily tweaked in those books.

 

OP, like I said, I'm not coming from the same perspective as you. Lots of people find SOTW usable on both sides of things. SWB tried hard to write books that were acceptable to all sides. Of course there are quibbles. If you're looking for a really biblically based history that incorporates a lot of religious teaching and a strong perspective in general, this isn't it. If you want a history book that is based in what historians (SWB is one!) understand are the facts with some of the great stories (everything from the Bible to the Ramayana to Robin Hood) sprinkled in, then you might want to use SOTW and add in your own choice of religious curriculum to supplement it.

[Starr]

We are a Christian family that loves SOTW and the Activity Guide! I There is a lot of history to enjoy and learn. If your history materials are mainly the history of Christianity you will miss a lot. I find it's also necessary to study the Bible with your children at home or church.

[marbel]

We are a Christian family and we found SOTW perfectly fine.  No tweaking.  It's not Christian history, as in, history from a Christian worldview.  It's not about God's providential actions throughout history.  It's... history.  There are plenty of mentions of other religions but as far as I could tell (with my own biases) it seemed pretty neutral to me.  Factual.  And that is what I wanted. 

[faiths13]

Thank you for all the responses! We do Bible Study, I just want to make sure that SOTW wouldn't lead us in the wrong direction for the most part. I heard there are some inaccuracies when it comes to Christianity I think. 

[Susie in MS]

I have found that while it comes from a Christian perspective, it is not Biblically accurate when speaking of history that has to do with the Bible. I will not list any specifics and they are not overwhelming. But I have yet to find a good narrative history that speaks of Bible events with 100% accuracy. For that you will have to go to the Bible. =) 

[Farrar]

There are a few inaccuracies - any book that comes under the level of scrutiny that SOTW gets and covers this much ground is going to have a number turned up by readers and critics. But mostly what you're going to see is a difference of opinion about the interpretation of some things. If you look up threads about it, you can read what all the different sides think - different Christian groups have different perspectives on what is the Truth.

 

But keep it in perspective. SOTW is about the entire world. The questions of controversy deal with a few words in a few chapters. And, to further put it in perspective - this is a book you'll be reading aloud to very young children. You get to read and tweak anything that you feel uncomfortable with. We just skipped several whole chapters in SOTW 1 and covered the info in other ways (or decided it wasn't important enough in the grand scheme of things) and found that took care of the issue for us.

[Excelsior! Academy]

We are conservative Christians of the young earth kind and we love SOTW.  

[desertflower]

I'm a Christian. Only in the first volume, so far I think it's fine. People can want very specific accuracy. One argument I read about is whether or not Abraham worshiped many Gods before worshipping one God. Ah. I'm not worried about that. To me the main thing is he worshipped one God.

 

I love sotw; however, you may want to look into biblioplan. It has bible references included.

[happypamama]

We are a Christian family and we found SOTW perfectly fine. No tweaking. It's not Christian history, as in, history from a Christian worldview. It's not about God's providential actions throughout history. It's... history. There are plenty of mentions of other religions but as far as I could tell (with my own biases) it seemed pretty neutral to me. Factual. And that is what I wanted.

That's about what I thought as well. It's very balanced. In SOTW1 there are mentions of other religions (and some in SOTW2, IIRC, but it's been a while), because, well, some groups had other religions, and that's the way it was, but I felt that they were overall very fair and reasonable, of the "this is what we understand that they believed" variety. I have no problems with using SOTW as a Christian.

[Hobbes]

We are Christians who place a high value on knowing and following the Bible. We have had no problems with SOYW. It is well written and has required no tweaking.

 

It does require discussion. In my mind any history curriculum has to involve my discussion and encourage debate with my kids. I want my kids to know about other religions and about difficult periods of history and I prefer to be able to discuss those with them in our own time and in the context of our faith. SOTW has worked very well for that and I haven't come across anything I've had to "correct" in volumes 1-3.

[Bluegoat]

I'm Christian, I haven't had any really religiously motivated problems with it.

 

Even within Christianity, there are plenty of controversies about history.  I came across a small one today in the Biblical commentary my dd10 is using, which was written by one of the most well regarded Biblical scholars in the English speaking world, who also happens to be a bishop.

 

It's good for kids to hear different versions of these things.

 

I'm a bit surprised though to hear Catholics would have a problem with any of the books.  They don't really talk about much that i can see as being very controversial in teh reformation bits.

[katilac]

 

 

I'm a bit surprised though to hear Catholics would have a problem with any of the books.  They don't really talk about much that i can see as being very controversial in teh reformation bits.

 

I'm sure most of them aren't too fond of the "imagine you have two aunts" scenario (vol 2, chapter 34) that was in the first edition - not sure if it's in the later editions. 

 

Essentially, your Catholic aunt says she loves you, but screams at you and turns you out of her cold, sterile house when you make a mess. The Protestant aunt has a warm, loving house and smiles gently at all of your mistakes. After 3 long-ish paragraphs in this vein, there are 1 or 2 sentences saying 'this may have been how Martin Luther thought about it' - a distinction easily lost on the young children the story is intended for. 

 

We used SOTW and loved it. That particular bit always stood out to me as a contrast to most of the book. 

[El...]

We will get to Martin Luther next week, so I guess I'd better go read that ahead, so I'll know where we're going with that.

 

We are protestant evangelical old-earth Christians in what my dad cheerfully calls a diverse, ecumenical family (!!!), and I love SOTW. 

 

I think it is what you make of it as a family. As a family we have chosen to value respect for other people and truth over revisionism (within reason for maturity), and SOTW has facilitated some great conversations.  I grew up on A Beka, BJU, and The Light and the Glory (shudder) and have learned a ton as an adult.  The more history I have read, the less triumphantly arrogant I've become, or at least I'd like to think so.

 

Dd re-reads the books on her own for fun.

[Guest viceomitjust]

I find it's also necessary to study the Bible with your children at home or church.

[SnMomof7]

I didn't feel SOTW had enough of a Christian worldview for us. We eventually went with the Guerber/Miller narrative history series, and so far I'm very pleased with that decision.

[aaplank]

I attribute the reading through of SOTW to be a contributing factor of my conversion from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism. I clearly remember reading the chapter on the Council of Trent out loud to my kids and feeling a major cataclysmic shift in my faith. God does work in mysterious ways!

 

I am in no way saying that the reading of SOTW will turn people into Catholics - the irony being that it is written by a Protestant minister's wife. I do think it is a secular book that gives a thorough understanding of the religious impact on history. As a side note, my sister who is not religious loves SOTW.

[Hwin]

I haven't read all of SOTW since my son reads pretty independently, but we used Mystery of History last year and that was definitely a Protestant Worldview...I would not describe SOTW that way, though. 

[faiths13]

Jennifer Bogart, what age range would you say the Guerber is for?

[ByGrace3]

I think SOTW is wonderful and fills a major need. I recommend it often. That said, for us, it was not the right fit. We use it as a resource but not the main program. It did not have enough Biblical/church history components for what we wanted, I found a few Biblical discrepancies with our interpretation of Scripture, and found the fiction/non fiction tone a bit confusing particularly with Biblical narratives.

 

Our discrepancies were minor, but the deeper desire for a broader biblical worldview from which our history studies flow was the main reason we left it behind.

[SnMomof7]

Jennifer Bogart, what age range would you say the Guerber is for?

I plan to use it for all my children from 1st-5th as our family primary history cycle. So, my current focus is my 7-yo 2nd grader (I write her oral narrations and she illustrates them), and my 9-yo 4th grader (she writes and illustrates on her own.). My 4-yo Ker listens in, and if my eldest DD (12) wasn't in love with her own (independent) history program, I'd have her participate also.

[dhudson]

Personally, as a conservative Christian, I want our history to not have a particular worldview. I want our history to be as accurate as possible. I have found that many Christian history program make too many judgements. I want us to learn what really happened and then to use the Bible as our moral authority. I want us to learn about the right and wrong decisions the church and Christians made through out history and then have a discussion with my kids on why they were right or wrong with the Bible as our guide. I don't want the history program to do that for us, I want to teach my kids how to think and judge based on the Bible, not someone else's determination. It is one of my pet peeves that Christian history programs often tell what to think not teach us how to think for ourselves.

 

I found SOTW to be a wonderful bouncing off point. I think SWB did a great job of trying to be neutral. Then it's my job to bring the discussion to my kids.

[Tanikit]

I am a Christian and use SOTW. We also have read many of the Sonlight books (a Christian curriculum) that cover things that require a great deal of discussion with my children as they show other views on the world. What I like about homeschooling is that nothing has to be taught without discussion - explaining my point of view, asking my children what they think. We start with a very Biblical base (they started Sunday school at 18 months of age and we read a lot of different Christian books and Bible Story books and devotionals) and then are free to cover the fact that this is what we believe is the truth but that other people think otherwise - why they might, how their belief systems help/hinder them and why we believe the Bible is the truth. And then we can check everything by how it agrees or disagrees with the Bible.

 

I have been quite happy with SOTW - we are nearly finished with SOTW3 so have not dealt with SOTW4 yet.

 

 

[HelenNotOfTroy]

I am not a Christian. I think SOTW is fairly American and WASP in its interpretation of historical events. I can see Catholics having a problem with it, but that is due to the usual American view that the Protestant Reformation is an advancement. The view is very similar to what I remember from public school science, all the way through high school.

 

That said, we like it.

[Slache]

I'm a Christian. Only in the first volume, so far I think it's fine. People can want very specific accuracy. One argument I read about is whether or not Abraham worshiped many Gods before worshipping one God. Ah. I'm not worried about that. To me the main thing is he worshipped one God.

 

I love sotw; however, you may want to look into biblioplan. It has bible references included.

Joshua 24:2 indicates that he did, as well as  the culture at the time.

 

Joshua 24:2King James Version (KJV)

2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled thread. :)

[HomeAgain]

We like SOTW.

 

YMMV.  In that case, I'd suggest adding a Chronological Study Bible to your bookshelf.  It's the bible, yes, but with historical explanations of events, cultures, etc.  To me, that is Christian history.  The constant revisionist history that is pandered as "christian" is not.  Not only do I find it insulting to Christians, I find it insulting to God to presume to know exactly what the intentions were in each event and free will not being established at all.  No, thanks. For a textbook, SOTW does a decent job of explaining events to a child.  By the next round more primary sources and study material should be entering into their school area, anyway, that I don't find it as a be all, end all kind of thing.

[mommaduck]

SOTW is fairly neutral. Okay, tweak a couple of things, but you have to do that with ANY curricula (because there are always several sides to a story and I want my children to be able to understand the views of those that we both may agree with and may disagree with...it's never cut and dry). I don't want my children spoon fed; I want them to think. SOTW allows conversation on a topic. It introduces, gives basic facts, offers some fun, and the rest is conversation between parents and kids. I would NOT want a fully "Christian" history. To do so always enters bias. What KIND of Christian? Protestant? What KIND of Protestant? Catholic, Orthodox (rare find)? SOTW is generally non-offensive.

[mommaduck]

We like SOTW.

 

YMMV.  In that case, I'd suggest adding a Chronological Study Bible to your bookshelf.  It's the bible, yes, but with historical explanations of events, cultures, etc.  To me, that is Christian history.  The constant revisionist history that is pandered as "christian" is not.  Not only do I find it insulting to Christians, I find it insulting to God to presume to know exactly what the intentions were in each event and free will not being established at all.  No, thanks. For a textbook, SOTW does a decent job of explaining events to a child.  By the next round more primary sources and study material should be entering into their school area, anyway, that I don't find it as a be all, end all kind of thing.

 

Could you be more specific, please?

[HomeAgain]

Could you be more specific, please?

 

Sure.  Let's take a look at A Beka.  God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ.

 

That is not Christian.  That is taking unnecessary pain and death of many people, slapping a feel good outcome on it, and calling it reasonable.  What happened with the Trail of Tears is NOT reasonable.  That's not even an okay interpretation of God's works, nor is it backed by fact - which is what history should be based on.  I have half a dozen samples of various history guides on my computer and as soon as I see how they treat Christopher Columbus, I archive it. Look at Sonlight's core 100 and the treatment of slavery, that it was not cruel.  Um, no. 

 

 

I think it is insulting to Christians to throw together a series of events, add a band-aid of God's favor (because God must be favoring SOME people over another), and say this is what you must believe happened.  Like Christians can't think for themselves?  They can't apply what they know about God or see the good within the bad - the nuggets that make the world better?  They can't study how a person used their faith to get through trying times to make a difference, but at the same time can't show how an atheist or non-Christian lived without talking down about them?  They cannot look at how religion in the hands of the wrong people twisted God's word?

 

That is what I have an issue with - the idea that Christians are too stupid to read history as it is written, as close to how it happened as possible, without having someone else rewrite it and add their idea of God's intentions for them.  Too often it changes events, and writers will omit details they don't like. 

 

 

We use narrative history for the beginning stages, and switch to mostly primary sources by middle school: Letters of Note, Jackdaws, Read Like A Historian...and only secondary sources when necessary.  Even then, highlighting bias words in the texts is a regular occurrence here so that we see where the author is coming from.

[mommaduck]

Sure.  Let's take a look at A Beka.  God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ.

 

That is not Christian.  That is taking unnecessary pain and death of many people, slapping a feel good outcome on it, and calling it reasonable.  What happened with the Trail of Tears is NOT reasonable.  That's not even an okay interpretation of God's works, nor is it backed by fact - which is what history should be based on.  I have half a dozen samples of various history guides on my computer and as soon as I see how they treat Christopher Columbus, I archive it. Look at Sonlight's core 100 and the treatment of slavery, that it was not cruel.  Um, no. 

 

 

I think it is insulting to Christians to throw together a series of events, add a band-aid of God's favor (because God must be favoring SOME people over another), and say this is what you must believe happened.  Like Christians can't think for themselves?  They can't apply what they know about God or see the good within the bad - the nuggets that make the world better?  They can't study how a person used their faith to get through trying times to make a difference, but at the same time can't show how an atheist or non-Christian lived without talking down about them?  They cannot look at how religion in the hands of the wrong people twisted God's word?

 

That is what I have an issue with - the idea that Christians are too stupid to read history as it is written, as close to how it happened as possible, without having someone else rewrite it and add their idea of God's intentions for them.  Too often it changes events, and writers will omit details they don't like. 

 

 

We use narrative history for the beginning stages, and switch to mostly primary sources by middle school: Letters of Note, Jackdaws, Read Like A Historian...and only secondary sources when necessary.  Even then, highlighting bias words in the texts is a regular occurrence here so that we see where the author is coming from.

 

Totally agree. I had misread your post, I think. 

[TheAutumnOak]

Sure. Let's take a look at A Beka. God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ.

 

That is not Christian. That is taking unnecessary pain and death of many people, slapping a feel good outcome on it, and calling it reasonable. What happened with the Trail of Tears is NOT reasonable. That's not even an okay interpretation of God's works, nor is it backed by fact - which is what history should be based on. I have half a dozen samples of various history guides on my computer and as soon as I see how they treat Christopher Columbus, I archive it. Look at Sonlight's core 100 and the treatment of slavery, that it was not cruel. Um, no.

 

 

I think it is insulting to Christians to throw together a series of events, add a band-aid of God's favor (because God must be favoring SOME people over another), and say this is what you must believe happened. Like Christians can't think for themselves? They can't apply what they know about God or see the good within the bad - the nuggets that make the world better? They can't study how a person used their faith to get through trying times to make a difference, but at the same time can't show how an atheist or non-Christian lived without talking down about them? They cannot look at how religion in the hands of the wrong people twisted God's word?

 

That is what I have an issue with - the idea that Christians are too stupid to read history as it is written, as close to how it happened as possible, without having someone else rewrite it and add their idea of God's intentions for them. Too often it changes events, and writers will omit details they don't like.

 

 

We use narrative history for the beginning stages, and switch to mostly primary sources by middle school: Letters of Note, Jackdaws, Read Like A Historian...and only secondary sources when necessary. Even then, highlighting bias words in the texts is a regular occurrence here so that we see where the author is coming from.

I agree...It wasn't until I started homeschooling that I realized that there are people who actually believe and teach that things like slavery and The Trail of Tears wasn't all bad because people were introduced to Christ, or whatever version of Christianity that was being taught at the time...I totally agree that these are not Christian point of views...Sorry if you believe that and I am offending you, but I still say they are not Christian point of views...

 

I don't recall coming across anything like that in SOTW...I don't have years 3 and 4 yet though...

[daybreaking]

We are a conservative Christian family.  We feel that SOTW has a lot of good points, but we are concerned with the way Biblical stories and fictional stories are told in a similar fashion, making it difficult for a younger children to differentiate between truth and fiction.  My teenage son is mature and well-grounded in Biblical truth, so I allowed him to listen to the audio version.  Afterwards, I asked him his thoughts on allowing his younger sister to listen and he responded, "I wouldn't let her.  The stories are all told in the same way, so it's confusing as to which is real."

 

Another concern we had was with the way the story of Abraham was told.  Although it is true that Abraham's father served other gods, no where in the Bible does it talk about Abraham not being sure who was talking to him when God spoke to him.  I felt that conflicted with Scripture and it left me with an uneasy feeling about using SOTW as a spine.

 

We were much more comfortable using Heart of Dakota (www.heartofdakota.com) as our history spine.  I love how Carrie, the author, integrates the Bible into all areas of her curriculum and especially the history.  (Interestly, she does use SOTW 4, as she felt that volume didn't have the concerns of some of the other volumes.)  In all of my years of using Heart of Dakota's resources, I've never felt the integrity of the Bible or my beliefs compromised.

[marbel]

 

<snip>

That is what I have an issue with - the idea that Christians are too stupid to read history as it is written, as close to how it happened as possible, without having someone else rewrite it and add their idea of God's intentions for them.  Too often it changes events, and writers will omit details they don't like. 

 

 

<snip>

 

Agree. Whenever I read some variation of "God did not bless [whatever action] and so [allowed something bad to happen], in any book but the Bible, I back away.   I think but am not sure that's what turned me off The Light and the Glory.  (It's been a while, but I do have a bad memory of that book.)

 

Sometimes a storm at sea is just a storm.

 

ETA: And I do believe in a sovereign God who does make things happen for the good of his people, etc.  I just don't think humans can or should try to interpret every single event to try to figure out what God's purpose is.

 

[mommaduck]

We are a conservative Christian family.  We feel that SOTW has a lot of good points, but we are concerned with the way Biblical stories and fictional stories are told in a similar fashion, making it difficult for a younger children to differentiate between truth and fiction.  My teenage son is mature and well-grounded in Biblical truth, so I allowed him to listen to the audio version.  Afterwards, I asked him his thoughts on allowing his younger sister to listen and he responded, "I wouldn't let her.  The stories are all told in the same way, so it's confusing as to which is real."

 

Another concern we had was with the way the story of Abraham was told.  Although it is true that Abraham's father served other gods, no where in the Bible does it talk about Abraham not being sure who was talking to him when God spoke to him.  I felt that conflicted with Scripture and it left me with an uneasy feeling about using SOTW as a spine.

 

We were much more comfortable using Heart of Dakota (www.heartofdakota.com) as our history spine.  I love how Carrie, the author, integrates the Bible into all areas of her curriculum and especially the history.  (Interestly, she does use SOTW 4, as she felt that volume didn't have the concerns of some of the other volumes.)  In all of my years of using Heart of Dakota's resources, I've never felt the integrity of the Bible or my beliefs compromised.

 

His father worshiped multiple gods, in a society that worshiped multiple gods. Abram was raised in that society, by his father. Most likely, Abram was raised worshiping multiple gods. When he changed direction (conversion, called out), he was given a new name (which often happens at conversion historically and still in various faiths and branches of Christianity) to acknowledge this conversion/change/calling out.

 

What would make you believe otherwise and why would this be offensive? It is a story of conversion, what many Christians would call a foreshadowing of the New Testament in the Old. This is accurate to how Scripture describes it as well as what we know of history.

[Bluegoat]

I'm sure most of them aren't too fond of the "imagine you have two aunts" scenario (vol 2, chapter 34) that was in the first edition - not sure if it's in the later editions. 

 

Essentially, your Catholic aunt says she loves you, but screams at you and turns you out of her cold, sterile house when you make a mess. The Protestant aunt has a warm, loving house and smiles gently at all of your mistakes. After 3 long-ish paragraphs in this vein, there are 1 or 2 sentences saying 'this may have been how Martin Luther thought about it' - a distinction easily lost on the young children the story is intended for. 

 

We used SOTW and loved it. That particular bit always stood out to me as a contrast to most of the book. 

 

I think in general, there is no way to teach about religious or political controversy without making it clear that various people have different perspectives about events, or taking it for granted that kids will eventually figure it out.  Not to do so means you pretty much have to make a stand on who was actually right or wrong.

 

I don't know that there is really much doubt that any of the significant splits in the history of the Church, a lot of people felt like the others were treating them poorly.

[tm919]

I think in general, there is no way to teach about religious or political controversy without making it clear that various people have different perspectives about events, or taking it for granted that kids will eventually figure it out.  Not to do so means you pretty much have to make a stand on who was actually right or wrong.

 

I don't know that there is really much doubt that any of the significant splits in the history of the Church, a lot of people felt like the others were treating them poorly.

I wish in the audio in particular they had more than one reader, to make it clear when things are fictional or metaphorical (i.e., switch to another voice). We only use the audio version so there have definitely been some misunderstandings on that point.

[mama27]

We are a conservative Christian family.  We feel that SOTW has a lot of good points, but we are concerned with the way Biblical stories and fictional stories are told in a similar fashion, making it difficult for a younger children to differentiate between truth and fiction.  My teenage son is mature and well-grounded in Biblical truth, so I allowed him to listen to the audio version.  Afterwards, I asked him his thoughts on allowing his younger sister to listen and he responded, "I wouldn't let her.  The stories are all told in the same way, so it's confusing as to which is real."

 

Another concern we had was with the way the story of Abraham was told.  Although it is true that Abraham's father served other gods, no where in the Bible does it talk about Abraham not being sure who was talking to him when God spoke to him.  I felt that conflicted with Scripture and it left me with an uneasy feeling about using SOTW as a spine.

 

We were much more comfortable using Heart of Dakota (www.heartofdakota.com) as our history spine.  I love how Carrie, the author, integrates the Bible into all areas of her curriculum and especially the history.  (Interestly, she does use SOTW 4, as she felt that volume didn't have the concerns of some of the other volumes.)  In all of my years of using Heart of Dakota's resources, I've never felt the integrity of the Bible or my beliefs compromised.

 

 

I agree with this. Also, I'm not comfortable with my younger kids learning about other religions until they have a firm foundation of Christ first and then, all depending on their spiritual maturity, when they should learn about them. SOTW is as neutral as possible teaching about other religions to the point where "I" didn't want to use it because it makes it sound as if all religions lead to God. For us, that's not what we believe and not what I want my younger kids thinking. You could use it and skip over certain chapters (we did that for awhile). But as a new Christian I'd REALLY recommend getting a more Christian history such as Mystery of History and using that.

[Bluegoat]

I agree with this. Also, I'm not comfortable with my younger kids learning about other religions until they have a firm foundation of Christ first and then, all depending on their spiritual maturity, when they should learn about them. SOTW is as neutral as possible teaching about other religions to the point where "I" didn't want to use it because it makes it sound as if all religions lead to God. For us, that's not what we believe and not what I want my younger kids thinking. You could use it and skip over certain chapters (we did that for awhile). But as a new Christian I'd REALLY recommend getting a more Christian history such as Mystery of History and using that.

 

I'm not sure how it would be possible to study history at all, or much literature, or even the Bible, without knowing about other religions?  There are of course a great many Jews in the Bible, and also pagan Greeks - Paul himself says that philosophers of all kinds can come to knowledge of God.  I would think mentioning any of these things would tend to open very reasonable questions about what kinds of things the people believe and where they come from.

[Hobbes]

I'm not sure how it would be possible to study history at all, or much literature, or even the Bible, without knowing about other religions? There are of course a great many Jews in the Bible, and also pagan Greeks - Paul himself says that philosophers of all kinds can come to knowledge of God. I would think mentioning any of these things would tend to open very reasonable questions about what kinds of things the people believe and where they come from.

Agreed. Much of history is impossible to follow without a basic understanding of religious differences. Even reading through the Bible, which we do with our kids daily, involves discussion and age-appropriate explanation about various pagan religions (Baal, Asherah, Egyptian gods, gnosticism, etc).

 

Also, we live in a very multicultural area and my kids come across people from various religions frequently (many Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs). I'd rather my kids hear about it from me first. I've found the neutral tone in SOTW to be excellent for this... we listen to the audiobook and then discuss: "this religion believes that you need to do this to get to God/be happy/live eternally/etc. Is that what the Bible says? How is it different? Why is knowing Jesus different from this?" I have found that at 7 + 5 they are very quick to catch the differences ESPECIALLY if we have been thorough about teaching them biblical truth.

 

I'd be very hesitant about a history program that glossed over these significant historical and cultural factors.

 

Our public schools here are teaching religious/secular perspectives and sex-ed issues earlier and earlier. I would prefer to address these things in an appropriate way from a biblical standpoint before they run into them in interactions with friends and neighbors, etc. Then, at the same time, we can discuss how to respectfully share one's own beliefs with others and how to thoughtfully understand what others are trying to say.

[mama27]

As I said, for my younger children, I want them to have a firm foundation FIRST, then as they get older, they learn about other beliefs.