Does CL's Streams of Civilization really call Orthodox Christianity ...

[milovany]

a "defective form of Christianity?" I don't have the book but read that in an email tonight. It's apparently in Volume II, the Russian Orthodox section. Between this and numerous Christians going after Hank Hanegraaff, the "Bible Answer Man," for converting to the Eastern Orthodox Church, I'm weary of the vitriol. Not sure if that's the word I want for what I'm seeing/feeling. Still, weary is the right word. May God extend His love and mercy to all, I know I need it daily.

Edited May 8, 2017 by milovany

[Amira]

Looks like it.  

 

https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=81nvZ6ns7zMC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22defective+form+of+Christianity%22&source=bl&ots=PjlZg235ad&sig=zpxS_oRcj_ReR8I2HUfM7D9ppA0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRxui88d_TAhWIWxoKHcDlADUQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=%22defective%20form%20of%20Christianity%22&f=false

 

I'm sorry.  It really does get wearying.

[DawnM]

Not to derail, but I didn't know that HH is not EO.  Interesting.

 

We lived in SoCal when he did and I would listen to him on the way home from work some.  

 

Then we moved to NC and saw that he too had moved to NC.  We were quite surprised.

 

I haven't listened to him in a long time.

[chiguirre]

Hey, well, at least you're in good company. It says the same thing about the Jesuits.

[winterbaby]

Looks like that's talking about Catholicism but yeah. This is why I don't use "Christian" curriculum.

[winterbaby]

Oh wait, it says it twice. Charming.

[Amira]

I'm doing some more searching in that book.  It's quite the education.

[Amira]

Dp

Edited May 8, 2017 by Amira

[MotherGoose]

And refers to the idolatry of Roman Catholics. Nice.

[G5052]

I strongly dislike those books for that and other reasons. They have a lot of inaccurate information even beyond their attitude about any faith other than Protestant Christianity.

[gardenmom5]

I strongly dislike those books for that and other reasons. They have a lot of inaccurate information even beyond their attitude about any faith other than Protestant Christianity.

 

probably much narrower than just "protestant christianity".  even then, I'd expect they're ok with a few - and will label other's are not ok.

[winterbaby]

probably much narrower than just "protestant christianity".  even then, I'd expect they're ok with a few - and will label other's are not ok.

 

Yeah, I'm Protestant but they would probably be highly unthrilled if they knew my beliefs about the sacraments.

 

The thing that makes me scratch my head though, is that there's also a wide range of interpretation of various matters within the evangelical world, so even if someone's an evangelical why would they trust their kids' formation to materials and organizations that aren't clearly identified with one or the other of those streams. Without a relationship to a church body or creedal symbols to define their perspective, that author could be saying anything, and if you're perhaps educating a large family with many textbooks hundreds of pages long, would you even catch it?

[PrincessMommy]

Not to derail, but I didn't know that HH is not EO.  Interesting.

 

We lived in SoCal when he did and I would listen to him on the way home from work some.  

 

Then we moved to NC and saw that he too had moved to NC.  We were quite surprised.

 

I haven't listened to him in a long time.

 

Yes, he became Orthodox on Palm Sunday this year.  And the vitriol has been ugly.   Just obnoxious and sadly, very uninformed.  The stuff they're saying is so laughably idiotic.  As someone said, "We don't expect you to agree with our faith, but you can at least get its facts straight. "  Seriously...  I think it;s mostly used as click-bait to get more eyeballs to their sites. 

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I'm Protestant but they would probably be highly unthrilled if they knew my beliefs about the sacraments.

 

The thing that makes me scratch my head though, is that there's also a wide range of interpretation of various matters within the evangelical world, so even if someone's an evangelical why would they trust their kids' formation to materials and organizations that aren't clearly identified with one or the other of those streams. Without a relationship to a church body or creedal symbols to define their perspective, that author could be saying anything, and if you're perhaps educating a large family with many textbooks hundreds of pages long, would you even catch it?

 

I thin a lot of those groups have a very limited knowledge of other groups, and a narow understanding of what counts as CHristianity.  So they are just speaking out of ignorance on many things.

[ktgrok]

Don't several curriculums use that book? I want to say Sonlight maybe?

[Guest]

Don't several curriculums use that book? I want to say Sonlight maybe?

I think TOG does and I've seen it all over the boards as recommended spine when people ask. Wow. Had no idea. Glad I haven't bought it!

[Serenade]

Don't several curriculums use that book? I want to say Sonlight maybe?

Sonlight uses it for their newish high school world history and philosophy curriculum. This book has been the main reason I didn't buy it.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Serenade

[Serenade]

Don't several curriculums use that book? I want to say Sonlight maybe?

DP

Edited May 8, 2017 by Serenade

[Bluegoat]

You know, perhaps it doesn't speak well of me, but there are forms of Christianity I think are pretty much "defective."  A in, theologically and historically unsupported, not in line with Christian ethics,  not politically or liturgically organized appropriately, and  even spiritually dangerous in some cases.

 

And I wonder, if I was writing a book meant to teach kids in my tradition about these other traditions, how would I put it?  I doubt I would call them degraded, but maybe that is the idea that would be behind the words I did use.

[winterbaby]

You know, perhaps it doesn't speak well of me, but there are forms of Christianity I think are pretty much "defective."  A in, theologically and historically unsupported, not in line with Christian ethics,  not politically or liturgically organized appropriately, and  even spiritually dangerous in some cases.

 

And I wonder, if I was writing a book meant to teach kids in my tradition about these other traditions, how would I put it?  I doubt I would call them degraded, but maybe that is the idea that would be behind the words I did use.

 

Hmmm. I would (and do) speak specifically, rather than in terms of broad condemnation. What's so annoying about those phrases in the CL book isn't that the author disagrees with Orthodoxy and Catholicism - so do many, including myself - but that he reduces it to an irritable gesture, with no reasons given. Kids who are taught that other points of view are just to be brushed off are in for a nasty surprise when they meet the broader world.

 

Also I don't suppose you would merely market a book along those lines as "Christian," failing to note that it takes aim at others who consider themselves Christians as well. But, the use of "Christian" to not to actually mean "Christian" but something more specific is sadly a well-established feature of American English by now.

 

When I talk to my kid about what's false in religion I say "false." There's a certain type of insinuation in "defective" or "degraded" that I prefer not to get into. This is hard for me to articulate. Probably has to do with the fact I now worship in a tradition that was described that way by the tradition I grew up and was educated in. I don't like the suggestion of pathology for one thing, and IME people who use that language often believe that a certain aesthetic, cultural, or historical sense is what's essential to Christianity. I can explain why certain theology is false in theological terms, without pushing a tendentious pseudo-theory of how the people who believe it got to be that way.

[MaeFlowers]

I think TOG does and I've seen it all over the boards as recommended spine when people ask. Wow. Had no idea. Glad I haven't bought it!

I believe TOG uses it as an alternative spine. Not that it makes it better.

 

MFW and Veritas use it as well. I think there are others but I'm drawing a blank. I've tried to avoid it for many reasons and it seems like it is everywhere.

[Farrar]

I thin a lot of those groups have a very limited knowledge of other groups, and a narow understanding of what counts as CHristianity.  So they are just speaking out of ignorance on many things.

 

I used to think that... and I'm sure that's the case sometimes, but I've really come to believe that a lot of people are making these choices very intentionally. I think a lot of the Christian curriculum wars and certainly, by extension, the conference circuit wars, have been about controlling what type of Christians homeschooling produces. If you can make your program "the" program, then you can get everyone buying it and you can help form how people view the world and religion - at least, that's what I'm pretty sure some of them are thinking. And that includes purposefully excluding some Christians.

 

Who was it who posted the thing ages ago about contacting Ambleside about some vintage history about having these anti-Catholic passages and AO wrote her back and said, essentially, no, we didn't just use it because it's older and cheap, we meant it like that. Like, whoa.

[winterbaby]

 

 

Who was it who posted the thing ages ago about contacting Ambleside about some vintage history about having these anti-Catholic passages and AO wrote her back and said, essentially, no, we didn't just use it because it's older and cheap, we meant it like that. Like, whoa.

 

I figured out that AO wasn't for me pretty early on when I noticed they included readings presenting Oliver Cromwell as a hero. (Well that and the heavy emphasis on English history in general.)

 

[Guest]

Looks like it.  

 

https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=81nvZ6ns7zMC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22defective+form+of+Christianity%22&source=bl&ots=PjlZg235ad&sig=zpxS_oRcj_ReR8I2HUfM7D9ppA0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRxui88d_TAhWIWxoKHcDlADUQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=%22defective%20form%20of%20Christianity%22&f=false

 

I'm sorry.  It really does get wearying.

 

Thank you, Amira, for doing the Google search on this; I am not that great at knowing how to do this.  

 

I clicked on the link, and the result that came up was actually referring to the Jesuits in a section on Roman Catholic missionary work.  

 

That doesn't make it less offensive; it's just that it is not about Eastern Orthodoxy.  I didn't do a complete search of the book, so it might have come up somewhere else, but I doubt it.  Given what I read in this linked section, the authors are a) incorrect about their statements about Catholic teaching; and, b) super-focused on Western history (which has less involvement from the Orthodox for a variety of HISTORICAL reasons; and c) what small presence the Orthodox did have in the early days of America (and still, for that matter) and so not making it to the top of a "history" survey; therefore Orthodoxy is likely not covered at all.  

 

I remember looking at Streams when I was plotting our course, and rejecting it and this was before I became Orthodox (and maybe before I had even heard of it in a description longer than a paragraph).  It's exclusive Western focus and polemical statements lost me.

[milovany]

Our priest sent out pictures of the section on Russian Orthodoxy that stated "defective form of Christianity" too.  Saw them.  :)  A recent Orthodox seminary graduate and subdeacon that we know is currently writing a rebuttal. :)  It just sounds so ... ignorant.  Not that people can't believe that if they want to, but if you're writing a history curriculum, you'd think you'd write it in an objective voice. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by milovany

[poppy]

This is why I don't tell people I homeschool.  Seriously.   The open bigotry disgusts me.

[Bluegoat]

I used to think that... and I'm sure that's the case sometimes, but I've really come to believe that a lot of people are making these choices very intentionally. I think a lot of the Christian curriculum wars and certainly, by extension, the conference circuit wars, have been about controlling what type of Christians homeschooling produces. If you can make your program "the" program, then you can get everyone buying it and you can help form how people view the world and religion - at least, that's what I'm pretty sure some of them are thinking. And that includes purposefully excluding some Christians.

 

Who was it who posted the thing ages ago about contacting Ambleside about some vintage history about having these anti-Catholic passages and AO wrote her back and said, essentially, no, we didn't just use it because it's older and cheap, we meant it like that. Like, whoa.

 

Yes, I do think that is true in some cases, too.

 

Was the objection to Ambleside to Trial and Triumph?  I have a vague memory of this and my impression is that I didn't think their view was that shocking compared to other denominational curricula.  (Though, funnily, not very much like what CM would have thought.)

[Guest]

This is why I don't tell people I homeschool.  Seriously.   The open bigotry disgusts me.

 

The misinformation is what bugs me.  The straw-man argument:  "This is what I think they believe and they are wrong."  But "they" don't believe that so the writer is:  a) misinformed and b) misinforming and c) judging a phantom of his/her own creation.  

 

I don't mind reading histories that come from a particular point of view, even if I disagree with it.  But I'd like to know that the author is not tilting at windmills and is writing from an informed position.  

 

When my son was homeschooling, we read histories from at least three different sources and POVs ... it was really interesting, for one thing.  

 

It is pretty difficult to write history *without* a POV.  People can't even recount what happened in a car accident 30 seconds after it happened and be in perfect agreement about it. It's better to have multiple witnesses.  That's why I have read 5 different "surveys" of the history of the US.  It's too rich for one person to cover it all, or to see it all.  And when you drill down into a specific period, reading about, say WW2 from both/many sides is super interesting and it helps to understand how we ought to be thinking about our own time...that maybe there is more than one way of seeing what is happening at this time---which will be our grandchildren's history.

[winterbaby]

Thank you, Amira, for doing the Google search on this; I am not that great at knowing how to do this.  

 

I clicked on the link, and the result that came up was actually referring to the Jesuits in a section on Roman Catholic missionary work.  

 

That doesn't make it less offensive; it's just that it is not about Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

The part about Orthodoxy is the second result. Exact same phrase.

 

[Guest]

The part about Orthodoxy is the second result. Exact same phrase.

 

 

 

Ah, thank you!  I didn't see it.  

[unsinkable]

Ugh. I don't even know what to say.

 

I've always loved this joke though:

 

"A Franciscan and a Dominican were debating about whose order was the greater. After months of arguing, they decided to ask for an answer from God when they died. Years later, they met in heaven and decided to go to the throne of God to resolve their old disagreement. God seemed a bit puzzled about the question and told them he would reply in writing a few days later. After much deliberation, God sent the following letter:

 

My beloved children,

 

Please stop bickering about such trivial matters. Both of your orders are equally great and good in my eyes.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

God, S.J."

[AnnE-girl]

Ugh. I don't even know what to say.

 

I've always loved this joke though:

 

"A Franciscan and a Dominican were debating about whose order was the greater. After months of arguing, they decided to ask for an answer from God when they died. Years later, they met in heaven and decided to go to the throne of God to resolve their old disagreement. God seemed a bit puzzled about the question and told them he would reply in writing a few days later. After much deliberation, God sent the following letter:

 

My beloved children,

 

Please stop bickering about such trivial matters. Both of your orders are equally great and good in my eyes.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

God, S.J."

LOL

[Guest]

Yes, he became Orthodox on Palm Sunday this year. And the vitriol has been ugly. Just obnoxious and sadly, very uninformed. The stuff they're saying is so laughably idiotic. As someone said, "We don't expect you to agree with our faith, but you can at least get its facts straight. " Seriously... I think it;s mostly used as click-bait to get more eyeballs to their sites.

That's fascinating that he converted. I used to listen to him in the evenings. So interesting.

[KungFuPanda]

Don't several curriculums use that book? I want to say Sonlight maybe?

Probably. We had to bail early on Sonlight in about second grade when we got our copy of Dinosaurs and the Bible.

[ktgrok]

Ugh. I don't even know what to say.

 

I've always loved this joke though:

 

"A Franciscan and a Dominican were debating about whose order was the greater. After months of arguing, they decided to ask for an answer from God when they died. Years later, they met in heaven and decided to go to the throne of God to resolve their old disagreement. God seemed a bit puzzled about the question and told them he would reply in writing a few days later. After much deliberation, God sent the following letter:

 

My beloved children,

 

Please stop bickering about such trivial matters. Both of your orders are equally great and good in my eyes.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

God, S.J."

Ha!!!!!!

 

(for those not up on Catholic lingo, S.J. stands for the Society of Jesus, aka the Jesuit order. 

[G5052]

Sunlight uses it for their newish high school world history and philosophy curriculum. This book has been the main reason I didn't buy it.

 

Yes, Sonlight uses it for that. That's how I became familiar with it. DD is a history nut and a sensitive soul, and she kept coming to me with what she found. I finally told her just to read from Kingfisher or some other history book to cover the period they wanted and write a short summary paragraph.

 

Then she encountered it again in the local history/lit class she took for four years. The teacher skipped the worst parts, but SIGH. Thankfully it was just for background reading at home. 

[EmseB]

This is all really interesting to me.  We use a curriculum that strives really, really purposefully to be ecumenical.  Although previous to this one, we used something that was a specific brand of Christianity and I honestly don't feel like it was a huge issue to take some parts and talk about why we don't subscribe to such and such a view or whatever if the rest of the curriculum is solid.  I do understand not wanting to send your dollars somewhere that thinks you're a heretic, though.

[Bluegoat]

This is all really interesting to me.  We use a curriculum that strives really, really purposefully to be ecumenical.  Although previous to this one, we used something that was a specific brand of Christianity and I honestly don't feel like it was a huge issue to take some parts and talk about why we don't subscribe to such and such a view or whatever if the rest of the curriculum is solid.  I do understand not wanting to send your dollars somewhere that thinks you're a heretic, though.

 

Sometimes it just gets to be too much - if half the book needs modification, it may just not be a good fit.

 

But I think the bigger problem can be that the difference in viewpoint means their basic reading of the topic as a whole is flawed, or suspect.  If they believe a bunch of crazy things that anyone should know aren't correct, do you really trust their ability to teach the topic at all?