There are plenty of great possibilities: To raise emotionally, spiritually and mentally mature adults. As a therapist I particularly like this one. To prepare them with the needed skills and tools to grow into all that God would have them. To help foster the giftedness God has put in them so that they can use it fully as adults. On and on this list can go. I doubt there is one 'right' answer for our vision of parenting our kids.
However, as we talked I remembered something I had read in a book for divorcee's entering into blended families. It went something like this:
The goal of parenting is to teach our children how to live in Christian community.I like this because it seems to summarize nearly all of my smaller goals I have already listed. In order to be a healthy part of a community it is necessary to develop into an emotionally, spiritually and mentally mature adult. Not only that, but it would require gaining the relational skills needed for interacting in meaningful relationships with others.
What would it be like for my family to function as a micro-community wherein they learned how to deal with relational hurts, confront and forgive others, humbly receive instruction and care, and function within an economy of grace and truth rather than shame and hiding?
Paul speaks often on how we are to relate within the church, with the church being the organic body of Jesus in and among us. Is it possible to teach my kids how to be a part of that body from a young age?
With this goal in mind, I can foster a home environment wherein there are 'many parts, but one body'. I can help my kids experience what it is to be unified and different, gifted in diverse and complementary ways, dynamically connected for the good of those we love as well as the world at large. This moves way past teaching my kids to obey and do right. Hopefully, this helps my kids grow into 'Jesus with skin on' by experiencing Christ in and among us right at home.
I love the idea here.
ReplyDeleteThe gifts and talents of our children should be fostered in such away where they are celebrated as individuals but belong to the community that is "family."
But I have to ask...
How will you respond to an inquisitive child with an eagerness to assess the microscopic details of life through a logical lens? If a child desires answers from science instead of religion, will you allow such a child to be himself? Or will you place a box around such a mind to protect the values of your religion?
A vision in parenting should include the personality and strengths of the child, even if such strengths oppose the ideals we as parents value most. After all "truth" as pertaining to any belief system is relative.
Hey David, thanks for your comments and your writing at large, you serve me well by spurring me on towards fleshing out my thinking.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question (as briefly as I can), I will say this: I will respond to my child's inquisitiveness with gladness.
This is based on two areas which I believe we disagree on. First, I think I may hold a different presupposition with what faith entails than you, in that I believe it is made up of both knowledge and experience. Knowledge without experience is empty, wherein experience without knowledge is flailing. It's interesting to me that theology use to be referred to as the 'queen of the sciences'. I don't believe faith and science are dichotomous, whereas I do understand how theology (the science of faith) can often be in tension with the other sciences if it is without experience.
Thus, I think it is proper to seek understanding of God scientifically (i.e. theologically through systemic and rational thinking), but I believe this is incomplete if left on its own. Much in the same way that knowing the way in which physical touch expresses affection to my wife is incomplete until I seek to touch her in that way. James said 'Faith without works is dead', and I believe this is partially what he was getting at.
I remember when I first read Brian Greene's understanding of string theory. I was blown away. You mean to say that there are possibly 11 dimensions and we only somewhat understand 4? I love the mystery of this! Rather than distinguish my belief in God, it enhanced it, expanded the very fabric of it. It helped me flesh out what it would mean for God to be omnipresent. My faith is rooted in the rational understanding of God as he expresses himself in Scripture, but it grows and flowers in the experiential mystery of life.
I can only hope my kids are as inquisitive and eager as you.
The second presupposition that I think we disagree on is that truth is relative, primarily because this is in itself an absolute rather than relevant statement. However, that another reply that I don't have time for ;)
Seriously though, thanks for challenging me. It took me three times to write this out in order to get my thoughts in order (and I imagine they are still pretty jumbled). Let me know if I'm unclear on any area.
Thanks for your kind words. I enjoy the search for the elusive creature I like to call "Absolute Truth." I'll let you (and the rest of the world) know if I ever find this mythical beast.
DeleteBefore responding, I must place into perspective the ideas of knowledge and experience. In actuality, knowledge cannot be gained without experience. But for the sake of conversation, we will assume that knowledge is ideas/facts that can only be attained by reading a book. And experience is something that is gained by observing the world by actions taken in it. (Since this is what I am assuming you mean by these terms.) In other words, knowledge speaks to understanding the world through the experiences of others, rather than first hand "experience."
I agree that faith is made up of knowledge and experience, but if we were to place knowledge and experience on a scale, there would be a definitive misalignment towards experience on a rudimentary foundation of knowledge.
Most people of faith have a presupposition concerning the nature of reality, as depicted by their forebears. The basis for faith for all religious people begins by trust in the "knowledge" that was given to them by others. The fellowship of religion is a sustaining force for the religious-minded. The sense of belonging has power over people as much as the feeling of rejection (not belonging).
How many school-shooters feel like they belong to the community receiving their vindication?
Likewise, how hard is it for a person to leave/betray a community that provides a sense of purpose and belonging?
Acceptance and rejection are powerful motivators for people to act, and it shapes the way people think. We yearn for connectedness. Humans have evolved to belong to a social construct. The need to belong is at the core of our biological mechanisms.
Our children will yearn for our approval. Every time one of my children performs an action, intended to please me, I have to remind myself of this fact. And it brings a question to my mind.
Do I want them to be biased by my understanding of reality, or would I rather them draw their own conclusions? A more blunt way to phrase this question is: Do I want to shape my children in my image, or would I rather allow their own personality traits thrive in the perspective of their choosing?
The power to do either is in my hands. I choose to let them be the masters of their own fates. If any (or all) of my children become preachers rather than scientists, this is their decision to make. Above all, I want their happiness.
I wasn’t happy with any of the ten or so religions that I studied, and none of them answered any of my basic questions. And none of them had a literal parallel to the nature of our physical universe.
I might add that it was the search for understanding God through the eyes of science that led to the death of my faith. I started off my college career as a theology major. I was going to be a missionary/preacher. So be careful with Pandora’s box. It can be more detrimental to your perception than you can fathom.
Finally, truth, as pertaining to a belief system, is relative. This is “true” since, if any person has Absolute Truth, it is not known to be absolute. If it was known, then Truth could be shared in such a way as to be irrefutable. Since no accepted “truth” is without reproach, we can only conclude that believed truths are relative.
For example, I believe the above statement to be Absolute Truth, but you do not. Thus, even my Absolute Truth is only truth, relative to my perspective. Whether it is universally true cannot be determined. Thus, even the notion of the existence of Absolute Truth is in question.
For me, this question was the pathway to agnosticism.
Great topic and one that I want to discuss. I love the concept of the dual-citizenship that St. Paul describes and being "in the world but not of the world". The family unit is the first teacher and the strongest living example of the church and her vocations. Man I could talk and listen to others talk about this for days.
ReplyDelete