Holzmann's blog- Where might this lead for Sonlight?

[juls]

I was reading the discussion about Sonlight being banned from the Christian Home Educators of Colorado because it isn't strict enough in its young earth teaching. Specifically because it carries Usborne books. That was previously discussed here.

 

But if you continue to follow John Holzmann's blog this week, you see he is reviewing two books, Origins (Haarsma) and Beyond the Firmament (Glover), both written by evangelicals who have taken a hard look at science and the Bible.

 

I have read both of these books and others on the subject and they have really opened my mind up to the possibility that I have been misunderstanding scripture and its relationship to science. As a Christian I am looking to teach my children sound doctrine and sound science. After a summer of reading through the arguments, I am drawn to now accepting the idea of Evolutionary Creationism- a position I never would have dreamed of a few years back.

 

Holzmann seems to be moving in a similar direction as you read through his blog posts this week. But as the co-owner of Sonlight, I have to wonder if how his company would be received by the Christian homeschooling community if it actually carried books (again written by evangelicals) that countered young earth creationism? If his company took a hit for carrying Usborne books, would it be inviting trouble by carrying books by Christian authors who consider the alternatives to the young earth position? But on the other hand, shouldn't Christian companies account for diversity in Christian views?

 

Thoughts?

[Penelope]

I'd hope if he did use those books, it would be for high schoolers who are ready to discuss many different viewpoints.

 

As a Christian, I would applaud including such resources and might be more likely to use Sonlight materials because of them. I went to Christian schools as a child and growing up I got the idea that it was young earth or you didn't accept the existence of God, there is no in between. I struggled with this for a long time and would have liked to have heard additional viewpoints as a young adult (since I am, at the least, an old earth creationist now).

[Guest Lorna]

Am I correct in saying that both the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury accept evolution? (please chime in Catholics and Anglicans)

Many Christians do believe in evolution and see God's handiwork in it. The noisiest debate is the polarized one, but there are many Christians, particularly in the UK and Europe who see no undermining of their faith by believing in evolution.

You might be interested in hearing how some of the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith, the Anglican faith and even fundamentalist Christians see evolution on this BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/beyond_belief/

 

(go to the 'Listen to Previous Programmes' and scroll to 'Darwinism and Religion Jan 5')

 

I hope no one minds me putting another point of view in here. I realise that this is a Christian board mainly, but you may be interested whatever your belief.

[G5052]

and no more. Holzmann has always been a bit of a free-thinker, even going back to start of Sonlight from what I've been told. He's also a businessman and his company doesn't always reflect his personal views. He's been more on the old earth side for some time, and yet carries Apologia for the upper grades.

 

So I'd expect a mix if he decides to reflect his beliefs in the business. And yes, that will make some folks in homeschool land angry.

 

The Catholic Church teaches theistic evolution, but like anything else, there's a wide range of beliefs among those who are active. I've had to deal with this here and there in the homeschool co-ops where I teach, making sure that I understand the parents' beliefs and refer the kids to them for details.

[Mom0012]

I grew up a Christian and had never knew what Young Earth was until I started homeschooling. Is this really what most Christians believe? I honestly don't know what I believe at this point. The Young Earth view is very appealing to me, but is it really what most believe? I use SL and adding the books you talked about would not deter me from using the program. Actually, I'd love to read them.

 

Lisa

[juls]

I know the Catholic church is fine with evolution. But they had previously made a scientific/theological blunder back in the 17th centrury when they took Galileo's acceptance of a heliocentric universe (as opposed to a geocentric universe) to task.

 

Interestingly, there are still some geocentric Christians who argue for an Earth-centered universe because of the many scripture passages that refer to the rising sun and the earth being firmly fixed. They believe that the young earthers don't go far enough in applying scripture to science.

 

C.S. Lewis was also fine with evolution. I look forward to hearing the BBC program. Thanks.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

This is the first I'd heard of this. No matter what you think of the issue, I think home educators ought to be absolutely indignant about the CHEC position.

 

SWB

[Janet in Toronto]

Am I correct in saying that both the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury accept evolution? (please chime in Catholics and Anglicans)

 

The Catholic Church is completely cool with evolution. Here is a section from the catechism (emphasis added):

 

I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION

 

282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.

 

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

 

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

 

285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

 

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

 

287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone "made heaven and earth".125

 

288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God's all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127

 

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

[Harriet Vane]

Christians get into a world of hurt and trouble when they start defining non-moral issues as moral issues.

 

Moral issues are defined clearly in the Bible. You know . . . murder, lying, not worshiping God.

 

The Bible says God created everything by the words of his mouth. Beyond that it's not real specific, and we are left to sort through the evidence at hand to learn about God and his ways. If belief in a young earth was a moral issue, God would have defined it that way in the Bible as He did so many other things.

 

As such, I think it is totally inappropriate for an organization to elevate this issue to the level that it has. Yes, the debate has implications for our understanding of God, but NO, it's not a moral issue. There is no explicit directive from God in the Bible about this topic. CHEC is way out of line.

[jonesloonybin]

This is the first I'd heard of this. No matter what you think of the issue, I think home educators ought to be absolutely indignant about the CHEC position.

 

SWB

 

:iagree:

 

I have to agree. To me, this is the main point.

[Michelle in AL]

I think it's false logic to think that all denominations are young earth. Evangelicals most likely are, but there are many that aren't, United Methodists included. This is one issue of division that can only reflect poorly on the universal church, and the Colorado conference just emphasized this division and has disrespected the rights of Christian families to make their own choices. Seems a little scary to me when one body tries to dictate what others should teach.

 

If the Colorado conference is wishing to serve only one group of Christians then that is their choice and right I guess.

[KristenS]

Michelle is right. :) I'm a United Methodist, and I do happen to lean toward a young earth philosophy, but I'm the only person in my congregation that does, to my knowledge. The church doesn't teach it one way or another ... or at least, I've not encountered the teaching ... it's left up to individuals in Bible study to figure it out for themselves. (Which generally means it gets left up to the schools, but that's another issue.)

[Alessandra]

As an Anglican, I've known both liberal and deeply conservative Anglicans, but I've never encountered a young-earther -- and I have friends in most mainline denominations, as well as Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends. In fact, the only place I meet young earth believers is in the homeschool community. It saddens me when I see that some people use the word "Christian" to exclude so many - the majority, in fact -- of actual Christians.

 

ETA

Thanks for posting the links!

Edited January 29, 2009 by Alessandra

[OnTheBrink]

Christians get into a world of hurt and trouble when they start defining non-moral issues as moral issues.

 

Moral issues are defined clearly in the Bible. You know . . . murder, lying, not worshiping God.

 

The Bible says God created everything by the words of his mouth. Beyond that it's not real specific, and we are left to sort through the evidence at hand to learn about God and his ways. If belief in a young earth was a moral issue, God would have defined it that way in the Bible as He did so many other things.

 

As such, I think it is totally inappropriate for an organization to elevate this issue to the level that it has. Yes, the debate has implications for our understanding of God, but NO, it's not a moral issue. There is no explicit directive from God in the Bible about this topic. CHEC is way out of line.

 

:iagree:

[msjones]

I've been a Christian for a long time and the first I'd heard of Young Earth Creationism was 2 years ago at a homeschool co-op. I was stunned.

 

I'd be MUCH more likely to purchase Sonlight science if they included evolutionary-creation materials. I hope they will.

 

And thanks for the link to Holzmann's blog. I plan to check it out!

[DB in NJ]

This is the first I'd heard of this. No matter what you think of the issue, I think home educators ought to be absolutely indignant about the CHEC position.

 

SWB

 

Funny, this was my first -- and only -- thought in response to the op.

[MIch elle]

to me as an Episcopalian and former Roman Catholic. :D

 

Yes, Episcopalians, Anglicans & Roman Catholics believe in evolution.

 

I've also never heard of young/old earth creationism until I began homeschooling.

[Sojourner]

This is the first I'd heard of this. No matter what you think of the issue, I think home educators ought to be absolutely indignant about the CHEC position.

 

SWB

 

This is what bothered me the most. Why not let parents decide what to teach or expose their children to and spend or not spend their educational dollars on.

[Mandy in TN]

Moral issues are defined clearly in the Bible. You know . . . murder, lying, not worshiping God.

 

The Bible says God created everything by the words of his mouth. Beyond that it's not real specific, and we are left to sort through the evidence at hand to learn about God and his ways. If belief in a young earth was a moral issue, God would have defined it that way in the Bible as He did so many other things.

 

As such, I think it is totally inappropriate for an organization to elevate this issue to the level that it has. Yes, the debate has implications for our understanding of God, but NO, it's not a moral issue. There is no explicit directive from God in the Bible about this topic. CHEC is way out of line.

 

As an old Earth person, I know of no tenet of faith that says I must believe in a young Earth. It is more than a little irksome that CHEC would attempt to imply otherwise.

 

Mandy

[chaik76]

I've been a Christian for a long time and the first I'd heard of Young Earth Creationism was 2 years ago at a homeschool co-op. I was stunned.

 

I'd be MUCH more likely to purchase Sonlight science if they included evolutionary-creation materials. I hope they will.

 

And thanks for the link to Holzmann's blog. I plan to check it out!

I do own a lot of SL materials...but I would be ecstatic if there were more homeschool science materials out there for people who believe in evolution. There are so few it makes it so difficult to teach science accurately.

[Erica in PA]

This is the first I'd heard of this. No matter what you think of the issue, I think home educators ought to be absolutely indignant about the CHEC position.

 

SWB

 

I respect you greatly, SWB, but I honestly don't feel indignant about the CHEC position. I don't agree that they needed to take the action they did, but I think they're entitled to make those decisions as an organization. Actually, it's John Holzmann's tone on his blog regarding this matter that I find off-putting. He is calling for open-mindedness and understanding among Christians, but displaying very little of those himself.

[Tenaj]

I respect you greatly, SWB, but I honestly don't feel indignant about the CHEC position. I don't agree that they needed to take the action they did, but I think they're entitled to make those decisions as an organization. Actually, it's John Holzmann's tone on his blog regarding this matter that I find off-putting. He is calling for open-mindedness and understanding among Christians, but displaying very little of those himself.

 

:iagree:

[Mari]

to me as an Episcopalian and former Roman Catholic. :D Yes, Episcopalians, Anglicans & Roman Catholics believe in evolution. I've also never heard of young/old earth creationism until I began homeschooling.

 

...if this is a true statement about Catholics. This may be a spin off so forgive me, but can I hear from other Catholics about this? I'm Catholic but I always felt it was silly to take a side on the issue. So I'm sitting here scratching my head over the debate. I always believed God created the world and everything in it, period. It's not for us to question how he did it, just know and have faith that he did. And where does intelligent design fit in with all this? Is that the same as creationism, evolution or a mixture of both?

 

I confess, it has been difficult lately researching science curricula since many in the homeschool market has made this a big deal. Honestly, it's confusing!!! I'm drawn to Sonlight Science because it seems to give both sides by using the Usborne books and extensive notes in their instructor guides. Since there is a debate, I like the idea of understanding where each is coming from.

[Colleen]

This is the first I'd heard of this. No matter what you think of the issue, I think home educators ought to be absolutely indignant about the CHEC position.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[Joanne]

Hm.

 

I'm finding it hard to respond with clarity in emotion. I think Sonlight is an excellent curriculum that's a match for many families.

 

However, I have always found Mr. Holzmann's perspective, words and "tone" are like nails on a chalkboard. Similarly, however, is the exclusiveness found in some conservative circles about what Christians should believe regarding non salvational issues.

[Donna T.]

 

Holzmann seems to be moving in a similar direction as you read through his blog posts this week. But as the co-owner of Sonlight, I have to wonder if how his company would be received by the Christian homeschooling community if it actually carried books (again written by evangelicals) that countered young earth creationism? If his company took a hit for carrying Usborne books, would it be inviting trouble by carrying books by Christian authors who consider the alternatives to the young earth position? But on the other hand, shouldn't Christian companies account for diversity in Christian views?

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm not sure if Holzmann is moving in the direction, so to speak. From what I've read of his writings (his musings), he's already there. And, from hanging out on the SL Boards for several years, it seems to me that most Christian SL users have already accepted an old-earth/evolutionary model. So, I'm not sure if it will mean much of anything really. Christians who are offended by his old-earth leanings are probably already passing over SL Science. I have one friend who returned a whole core because of old earth teaching in their history materials. I think a lot of SL users pride themselves in being "open-minded" and "able to consider diverse theories". So, I just don't think this is a big deal as far as what it may change for the company. I doubt it will decrease their customer base much, if any.

[Blessedfamily]

Hm.

 

I'm finding it hard to respond with clarity in emotion. I think Sonlight is an excellent curriculum that's a match for many families.

 

However, I have always found Mr. Holzmann's perspective, words and "tone" are like nails on a chalkboard. Similarly, however, is the exclusiveness found in some conservative circles about what Christians should believe regarding non salvational issues.

 

A blog can be a negative when you are part-founder in a big company, unless you're very careful. It's too easy to say the wrong thing, or be misunderstood. I'm not saying that's what happened, but I would stick to the basics of my company's principles.

[Jenny in Atl]

John used to hang out over on the Yahoo Sonlight Secular board, and for a while he was an interesting poster... seeming to value those of us who used SL even though we were not Christian or evangelical. Overtime I think he lost interest or something. He has often gotten into trouble for posting or speaking out. I do agree that this is a hard thing to do when you are part owner of a large successful company, especially one with a "mission" or "ideology".

[HRAAB]

 

Yes, Episcopalians, Anglicans & Roman Catholics believe in evolution.

 

I wouldn't say Roman Catholics believe in evolution nor that the Catholic Church teaches evolution. I would say they are free to believe in evolution as long as they recognize that God alone started the creation process and keeps the world in existence. They are also free to believe in intelligent design, young earth, etc. Science alone cannot explain the meaning of our existence, and since science takes its origin from man, is limited. Scientific truth cannot contradict God's truth.

 

I'm Catholic and am not anymore obligated to believe in evolution than I am obligated to believe in a young earth.

 

Janet

[Carol in Cal.]

This is the first I'd heard of this. No matter what you think of the issue, I think home educators ought to be absolutely indignant about the CHEC position.

 

SWB

 

Here are my responses to this issue raised on another elist. The original writer, to whom I was responding, gave a very cogent and respective defence of CHEC's views. She basically said that Sonlight had signed an agreement annually in advance of the CHEC convention, agreeing not to bring any of their books that promote any POV other than young earth creationism. Basically, that finally CHEC had had enough and banned them, and is now not discussing it publicly so it makes CHEC's side not be told.

 

Here is the first of my two emails:

 

Well, although I am a young earth Lutheran, I still think that kids should see the current teaching of science at the point at which their parents feel that it is right to expose them to it. Otherwise they are not equipped to deal with questions and comments from others. The absolute pervasiveness of evolutionary views is quite startling to me, and I have thought long and hard about how best to deal with it with my daughter.

 

I took a gradual approach, and started with Creation, of course. She has heard bits and pieces about evolution here and there, but this year, at 12, is the first time that I have asked her to learn the theory thoroughly. I feel that she is now old enough and grounded enough to be able to study and learn it without endangering her faith. I have made it clear to her that I don't accept it myself, but that it is just a model, with some limited usefulness in helping to imagine how God created the appearance of age of the earth, and what happened to that appearance at the time of the Fall. That the model is what most, but not all, scientists view as correct, and that it is important to understand it thoroughly but not to take it too seriously.

 

I really, really have a hard time with Sonlight, of all vendors, being excluded from a Christian homeschooling conference. They are uniquely vulnerable to rules like the CHEC rule in that they mostly sell complete packages. I think that CHEC should have understood that and made an exception specifically for Sonlight, maybe with some annotation or a sign to the effect that some materials in this booth contain non-young earth creation views, although the vendor does not endorse that view but sparingly uses secular materials of high quality while teaching that they are not correct in every particular. I do respect the way that CHEC tries to set rules that glorify God, but I also think that there should be some recognition that a company like Sonlight is generally conservatively Christian and does glorify God in their writing and teaching, and that they are in a unique situation and should be available, with suitable disclaimers, to the CHEC public. Sonlight is a wonderful Christian resource to homeschoolers. I hate to see them be excluded.

 

I suspect that people come to conferences like that specifically to see what is out there available to fairly conservative Christian homschoolers, and Sonlight certainly fits the bill. I can't help wondering whether something similar happened last year, unbeknowst to me, to prevent Rainbow Science from participating in the CHEA conference. I hoped to see their materials up close and personal, and to compare them with Apologia, and was very disappointed that they were not available. I hope that there was no similar problem.

 

If I were working at Sonlight, I would probably rent a large suite at the conference site, and make leaflets available to attendees. I think that CHEC should at least be willing to allow such leafletting to their guests, again with suitable disclaimers.

 

Anyway, JMO.

 

Carol

 

Who is feeling sad on Sonlight's behalf today, even though she is too independent to actually use their programs, even though she really, really likes them.

[juls]

Mari-

 

All Christians believe that God created the world, that's not in question. The question is how exactly did that play out. Answering this question can and does influence how we teach our children and what materials we use. This is why, as a homeschooler, I needed to spend time working through this.

 

I was very familiar with the materials from ICR and had been using Apologia science for years. I then read a book about Intelligent Design and moved on to the Origins book and Beyond the Firmament. My final read was The Language of God. This journey left me in a new place, but kept the integrity of scripture in tact for me (Beyond the Firmament was a big help with this). I am now comfortable reading Genesis as a literal account given to a Ancient Near Eastern Hebrew audience. I am also now comfortable with evolutionary science. I am not an "evolutionist" though. That would implies a philosophy. I do not believe that the scientific process of our origins necessitates a humanistic, Godless worldview.

 

I do think that figuring these things out for ourselves is important, and I realize that people will arrive in different places on this issue but it is a worthwhile to evaluate resources that offer differing opinions. For a long while, I never quite knew how to sort through the issues myself. I just had a vague feeling that I should. It took me a bit of reading but I'm glad I invested the time and now have more clarity about my science choices.

[Carol in Cal.]

And here is the second of my two emails:

[ QUOTE]

 

No, I absolutely don't think that they should have misrepresented themselves.

 

But I wonder what their side of it is.

 

I wonder, do their materials take a Creationist POV and alert parents to skip certain sections of the secular science reference books that are included in some of their packages, or to explain them in a certain way?

 

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but for me that would go to the issue of whether they really misrepresented themselves or not.

 

I am struggling a little bit here because I am not, personally, a Sonlight user, so I am not familiar enough with their materials to know how they handle the evolution issue.

 

I do know, by reputation, that they use some history materials that they think are not completely right, and that they annotate their instructor guides to help parents wade through that material properly with their older children. Do they do the same with science? I honestly don't know. I am grateful to Sonlight, via a purchase of an old used set, for having exposed me to a Christian science author named Tiner, many of whose other books I have now purchased; some of them from a Creation Science table at the CHEA conference last April. Far more often than not, Sonlight is on the right side of things, IMV.

 

I do hate to see them excluded from a Christian conference, for the reasons that I said before.

 

It is so hard, isn't it.

 

Anyway, I did appreciate the way that you presented the material supporting the CHEC decision. You were so thoughtful and non inflammatory. Light rather than heat. I hope to be the same.

 

Best regards,

Carol

[Susan Wise Bauer]

I respect you greatly, SWB, but I honestly don't feel indignant about the CHEC position. I don't agree that they needed to take the action they did, but I think they're entitled to make those decisions as an organization. Actually, it's John Holzmann's tone on his blog regarding this matter that I find off-putting. He is calling for open-mindedness and understanding among Christians, but displaying very little of those himself.

 

Well, you may be right. I had a less-than-wonderful experience with CHEC which has undoubtedly colored my POV.

 

I guess what disturbs me is that many of these state conventions are the only chance home educators get to actually eyeball materials. When useful materials are excluded because of a position which many home educators find untenable, the whole community suffers. And when the state convention is sponsored by a state organization that home educators pay dues to (I'm not sure this is the case at CHEC but it is in many areas), the convention should be careful about excluding vendors over issues on which people of good will disagree.

 

SWB

[Colleen]

I'm not sure if it will mean much of anything really...I just don't think this is a big deal as far as what it may change for the company. I doubt it will decrease their customer base much, if any.

 

Agreed. If anything, it might increase their customer base.

[Erica in PA]

Well, you may be right. I had a less-than-wonderful experience with CHEC which has undoubtedly colored my POV.

 

I guess what disturbs me is that many of these state conventions are the only chance home educators get to actually eyeball materials. When useful materials are excluded because of a position which many home educators find untenable, the whole community suffers. And when the state convention is sponsored by a state organization that home educators pay dues to (I'm not sure this is the case at CHEC but it is in many areas), the convention should be careful about excluding vendors over issues on which people of good will disagree.

 

SWB

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of those points, Susan. I think it would be wiser for them to allow various viewpoints to be represented at their convention. At the same time, I'm not personally outraged by their decision either. This organization is free to have the rules they choose, and people are free to be part of it or not. I think that people can find other places and opportunities to check out whatever homeschooling materials they are interested in, other than at this one convention, so I'm too worried about that aspect of it.

 

I think it's also worthwhile to point out that we have only heard from one party at this point, as far as I am aware... only John Holzmann himself. I would be interested to hear how CHEC might explain the situation as well. But even if it were exactly as it's been presented, it would be something I would disagree with, but not be up in arms over.

 

Anyway, it's not really a case where I think that I am *right*-- I'm just sharing the perspective that I personally am not outraged by this decision, as many here are.

[GWOB]

Christians get into a world of hurt and trouble when they start defining non-moral issues as moral issues.

 

Moral issues are defined clearly in the Bible. You know . . . murder, lying, not worshiping God.

 

The Bible says God created everything by the words of his mouth. Beyond that it's not real specific, and we are left to sort through the evidence at hand to learn about God and his ways. If belief in a young earth was a moral issue, God would have defined it that way in the Bible as He did so many other things.

 

As such, I think it is totally inappropriate for an organization to elevate this issue to the level that it has. Yes, the debate has implications for our understanding of God, but NO, it's not a moral issue. There is no explicit directive from God in the Bible about this topic. CHEC is way out of line.

 

Thank you! This has been percolating in my head for some time, but you expressed exactly what I've been thinking better than I could have.

 

I grew up in a very, very strict Southern Baptist house. It was literal 6-day creation or you weren't really a Christian. I was told I didn't have enough faith because I entertained the possibility that God maybe, just maybe took more than 6 days. Could he have created the Earth in six days? Sure, he is God. Did he? I don't know and quite honestly, I don't care. I don't think that believing in a young earth is necessary for my salvation.

 

I really hope Sonlight does not lose its standing in the Christian homeschooling community. It is a wonderful curriculum that teaches Christianity. Who cares what brand of Christianity it is? Jesus is Jesus. Plain and simple.

[camibami]

I am outraged, simply because their group's name, Christian Home Educators of Colorado, is obviously misleading. One's status as a Christian does not hang on a literal 7 day, 6,000 years ago Creation- it just *doesn't*. They need to change their name to "Young Earth Believing Christian Home Educators of Colorado".

 

Because you know what? New to hsing people go to this group, Christians, and are immediately off-put by the garbage billed as Christian that is extra-Biblical. All the Vision Forum multi-generational-extra-Biblical-no-girls-to-college stuff. The young-earth-and-only-our-way stuff. WHich is totally fine to have at these things, but not to the exclusion of *EVERYTHING* else more mainstream and likely to appeal to the new, non-ultra-fundamentalist hs'er. Those new Methodists who had problems with Johnny's teacher and have decided they would like to hs? Those people are now running for the hills after visiting CHEC's conference, because they see nothing that resembles them, or their beliefs.

 

If that many people genuinely want an ultra-conservative hs conference, go for it. But change your organization's name now that you are peddling this stuff at the exclusion of anything else. Because that isn't "Christian", its "your particular denomination Christian" and should be named as such.

[Erica in PA]

I am outraged, simply because their group's name, Christian Home Educators of Colorado, is obviously misleading. One's status as a Christian does not hang on a literal 7 day, 6,000 years ago Creation- it just *doesn't*. They need to change their name to "Young Earth Believing Christian Home Educators of Colorado".

 

 

 

I disagree that limiting materials at a convention to particular content equates with saying that one's status as a Christian hangs on a literal 7 day, 6000 years ago Creation. If a group believes that a certain teaching is harmful, i.e. evolution, I see nothing wrong with their excluding that teaching from their event. It's not the same as saying "You can't be a Christian and believe this."

 

I frankly think there is a huge amount of overreaction over this situation. If there were materials that I could not get at a particular homeschool convention, I would recognize that I have a different perspective on that issue, and get them elsewhere.

[abbeyej]

...

I disagree that limiting materials at a convention to particular content equates with saying that one's status as a Christian hangs on a literal 7 day, 6000 years ago Creation. If a group believes that a certain teaching is harmful, i.e. evolution, I see nothing wrong with their excluding that teaching from their event. It's not the same as saying "You can't be a Christian and believe this."....

 

Hm. That's exactly how I interpreted it, and I doubt I'm in the minority there.

 

Or, at the most generous, they're indicating that anything but a completely literal interpretation of Genesis (which is problematic anyway because of conflicting accounts within the book itself) is a sign of a sub-par Christian, one with who is, at best, well-meaning but mislead.

[VanessaS]

:lurk5: I find this discussion absolutely fascinating.

 

I just got here this summer after 10 years in Europe and am a bit shocked to see that this is actually such a hot topic here. :confused: Forgive my Roman Catholic insensitivity to these new-fangled beliefs but isn't this a case of reducing the Bible to a history book? Whatever happened to studying theology and the metaphysical?

 

What I've seen in my immediate neighborhood is that the more moderate Christians (i.e. evolution-believing) are starting to retreat to the secular homeschooling groups to escape this. I'm lucky enough to be living in a heavily-Catholic area, so I at least have some options.

 

Anyway, I think that the linking of history and the Bible is a very interesting approach with merit but replacing one with the other isn't.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I am outraged, simply because their group's name, Christian Home Educators of Colorado, is obviously misleading. One's status as a Christian does not hang on a literal 7 day, 6,000 years ago Creation- it just *doesn't*. They need to change their name to "Young Earth Believing Christian Home Educators of Colorado".

 

 

:iagree:

 

To call oneself a statewide Christian organization and exclude the views of a large percentage of the Christians in the state is inappropriate. Something similar is happening in IL with our statewide Christian organization. Viewpoints other than what is mentioned above are not welcome.

[Colleen]

I disagree that limiting materials at a convention to particular content equates with saying that one's status as a Christian hangs on a literal 7 day, 6000 years ago Creation. If a group believes that a certain teaching is harmful, i.e. evolution, I see nothing wrong with their excluding that teaching from their event. It's not the same as saying "You can't be a Christian and believe this."

 

It's not? Well, they're sure doing a good imitation of saying just that.

[Erica in PA]

Hm. That's exactly how I interpreted it, and I doubt I'm in the minority there.

 

Or, at the most generous, they're indicating that anything but a completely literal interpretation of Genesis (which is problematic anyway because of conflicting accounts within the book itself) is a sign of a sub-par Christian, one with who is, at best, well-meaning but mislead.

 

Yes, I think you are right, you are in the majority who has posted here. I realize that I am in the minority, though I would guess that there may be at least a few who view this the way I do, but are not posting. I personally think that some people are reading too much into the decision. I think they are setting parameters for their convention, not for the definition of what it means to be a Christian, or a "good" Christian. I think there's a bit of defensiveness coming into play here, as well. I just don't interpret it that way at all.

 

I've thought about posting analogous situations to support my line of thinking... situations where a group sets parameters *for their event,* without making a broader judgment about a group of people, but I don't think it would be productive in terms of this conversation.

 

Just to make it clear, as I said before, I do not agree with CHEC's action. I think it would be better to allow all types of curriculum companies to come in, and let people make their own choices. But I do think that people are overreacting and overreaching in their interpretation of what that means. And I don't think it's HORRIBLE that they've chosen what they have, even though I'd have chosen something different if I'd been in their place.

 

 

Erica

[Jumping In Puddles]

I wouldn't say Roman Catholics believe in evolution nor that the Catholic Church teaches evolution. I would say they are free to believe in evolution as long as they recognize that God alone started the creation process and keeps the world in existence. They are also free to believe in intelligent design, young earth, etc. Science alone cannot explain the meaning of our existence, and since science takes its origin from man, is limited. Scientific truth cannot contradict God's truth.

 

I'm Catholic and am not anymore obligated to believe in evolution than I am obligated to believe in a young earth.

 

Janet

 

I would agree with this. I do recall that Pope John Paul II said that he accepts the theory of evolution although only God creates the human soul.

 

Almost all Catholics I know (including myself :) ) support the theory of evolution, except one who believes in intelligent design.

 

I am no Catholic scholar, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[chai]

:iagree:

 

To call oneself a statewide Christian organization and exclude the views of a large percentage of the Christians in the state is inappropriate. Something similar is happening in IL with our statewide Christian organization. Viewpoints other than what is mentioned above are not welcome.

 

 

I absolutely agree. I recently moved to Colorado and looked into joining CHEC. There is no other state-wide homeschooling organization here, so it would be nice to go to their conferences and other events. However, I will never join this group or go to any of their events because of their exclusivist actions toward many other Christian (and secular) homeschoolers. Their reaction toward Sonlight is typical. They do not welcome anyone outside of their strict beliefs to any of their events.

 

I would rather go to a conference that has all points of view available for me to research. I don't need other Christians telling me what is appropriate for my homeschool and beliefs.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

I'm totally with you Janet on this.

I teach catechism to 5th graders, and it just happens that this subject falls into my 'year'.

The official materials we got are very clear on this. We do not teach evolution or creation. We teach that, for a science question, go to a scientific person. For a religious question, go to the Bible. Science will tell you how but is generally unable to tell you why. The Bible will tell you why, but generally not the how.

Once the kids are clear on this concept, and only when they all get it, do we move on to Genesis.

 

I wouldn't say Roman Catholics believe in evolution nor that the Catholic Church teaches evolution. I would say they are free to believe in evolution as long as they recognize that God alone started the creation process and keeps the world in existence. They are also free to believe in intelligent design, young earth, etc. Science alone cannot explain the meaning of our existence, and since science takes its origin from man, is limited. Scientific truth cannot contradict God's truth.

 

I'm Catholic and am not anymore obligated to believe in evolution than I am obligated to believe in a young earth.

 

Janet

[Jill- OK]

...I get what you're saying, Erica.

 

This reminds me of the conversations about hs groups that have a statement of faith; they aren't necessarily saying they think you're 'below' them if you don't believe the same way...they just want a unified mindset.

 

And...they have the right to do that. Just as this organization has the right to choose not to offer certain materials at their convention.

 

I think it's odd, personally, and it doesn't go along with what I consider to be an important tenet of Christianity and homeschooling--learning to think for oneself and not making certainties out of things that are murky, biblically--but my argument against CHEC's decision would be solely on that account.

 

Not all Christians believe the same things about creation, just as not all homeschoolers believe that only homeschooling, always, no matter what, is the best choice. If they had decided not to allow vendors who market to afterschoolers, or those who decide to homeschool year by year, I'd disagree just as heartily, and think it was just as shortsighted/narrow.

 

But they're still free to believe what they believe, and choose not to offer certain books/curricula that don't support those beliefs. ::Shrug:: And while I might not share that belief, or have the same narrowness about many of my beliefs...I still want the option to have them, lol, and so I have to afford others that same freedom, even if I don't agree. (As long as they aren't breaking any laws by their discrimination, of course.)

 

Non-denominational/secular groups are growing in number, and I think that this kind of thing will push that forward, giving more people more options. Not necessarily a bad thing. Just because CHEC exists doesn't mean they're obligated to serve all homeschoolers, or even all Christian ones.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Jill, OK
grammar error

[HRAAB]

I would agree with this. I do recall that Pope John Paul II said that he accepts the theory of evolution although only God creates the human soul.

 

Almost all Catholics I know (including myself :) ) support the theory of evolution, except one who believes in intelligent design.

 

I am no Catholic scholar, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I have buried somewhere John Paul II's statement on evolution. I remember that well because there was a lot of discussion over it. Without searching for his exact words, I think he said something along the lines of, "the theory of evolution has enough scientific research behind it that it can't be ignored and needs to be seriously considered." Whether or not he accepted evolution as fact, I don't remember him saying.

 

As for me, it's just simply not a big issue. I'm not very knowledgeable about the whole subject, and usually find myself totally lost when evolution is discussed here I'm very comfortable with God starting the whole process from nothing. How it all happened, is not at the top of my list of worries. My salvation doesn't depend on whether or not it was a literal 6 day creation. As a Christian, my salvation does have everything to do with the Second Person of Blessed Trinity becoming man, His suffering and death on the cross, and His resurrection. Now that is at the top of my list of things to worry and think about. :001_smile:

 

I have a bil, however, for whom it is of the utmost important that the Genesis story is literally true. It is a battle he's fighting. For him, if Genesis isn't true, then the rest of Scripture could be false. I understand that this is a huge issue for him. I disagree and we don't discuss it. Keeps the family happier that way.

 

Back to the OP, I'm very uncomfortable with the way Sonlight is being treated. I've seen similar, although smaller issues, happen in our local group, and the result has been divisiveness in the homeschooling community. I wonder sometimes if we as homeschoolers have more to fear from oursevles, than we have to fear from the government???

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

I'm totally with you Janet on this.

I teach catechism to 5th graders, and it just happens that this subject falls into my 'year'.

The official materials we got are very clear on this. We do not teach evolution or creation. We teach that, for a science question, go to a scientific person. For a religious question, go to the Bible. Science will tell you how but is generally unable to tell you why. The Bible will tell you why, but generally not the how.

Once the kids are clear on this concept, and only when they all get it, do we move on to Genesis.

 

That's a very concise answer, and I'm going save it for my girls. Thanks.

 

Janet

[Colleen]

I posted below that I don't understand Erica's perspective, but having read her most recent post, and this one from Jill, it's clearer to me. And the more I think about it, the more I think you two are right. The fact remains that CHEC has a right to operate however they want to operate. I do happent to think that they're sending a message as to what they consider "Christian enough", but that's their right. Imo their making a bad name for themselves and for Christianity in general, but the fact that I disagree certainly doesn't mean that my choice should be imposed upon them any more than theirs should be imposed on me.