Evangelical Indoctrination of Children

quote:

---

Is this story from Steve Palmer how it starts for most evangelicals?

---

I hope it does not start this way for "most," but there is certainly an undercurrent that goes along with what Palmer says. This is especially true in the more emotionally-based groups (charismatics, Pentecostals, etc.)In the less emotionally-based Evangelical groups (e.g. Baptists, Presbyterians) there is less of the approach that Palmer describes. There is concern that an emotional, fear-based approach may lead to a view of salvation only as a "fire escape" (avoidance of hell); there may be no real understanding of one's sin and spiritual need, and God's provision for that need through the sacrifice of His Son, thus no true salvation. Reputable children's ministries such as Child Evangelism Fellowship try to avoid the sort of emotional pressure that Palmer describes.This sort of emotional approach is a problem for adults, too, and has caused harm in church history. Charles Finney used such an approach, working people into an emotional fervor. Many people came forward in the "altar calls" which he invented, but few were truly "converted." They tended to become resistant to the Christian message after the emotion wore off.

quote:

---

The two evangelical respondents both rejected "scare them to Jesus" approaches, so a fear of hell instilled during childhood is not the only way to create confirmed creationists who reject scientific theories for unscientific reasons.

---

What?? Why do you imply that evangelicals (including myself) are "creationists" who "reject scientific theories for unscientific reasons?" This implication is unwarranted and is demonstrably false. Francis Collins is a well-known counter-example to your implication.

quote:

---

Let us grant for the sake of discussion that the approach described by Steve Palmer is uncommon. What is it that produces adults who feel a loving God is consistent with condemning most of the population of the Earth to an eternity of suffering in hell.

---

I think your quote in the OP captured the reason pretty well: It's not that we like these ideas. But we have established the source and statements as true, so must try to incorporate these ideas into our theology, uncomfortable though it may be. I may not like quantum mechanics. But once I have convinced myself that the experiments and data are correct, I must try to incorporate QM into my view of the physical world, uncomfortable though it may be. At some point, we must allow our likes, dislikes, and aesthetic notions to be overruled by truth and reality, both in science and in theology.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As I've said before, you name it, the Bible has been used to justify it.

---

Yes, but this is not unique to the Bible. Science has also been twisted to support crazy ideas. There are still flat earthers, geocentrists, and all sorts who try to support their views with "science." You and I recognize these as misinterpretations of the data, but how does a non-scientist recognize this? About all he can do is to ask whether these are fringe or mainstream views, and assume that the fringe views are probably wrong.Likewise, the non-Christian or non-theologian can ask whether or not certain interpretations are orthodox or heterodox, and can assume that the heterodox views are probably misinterpretations of the Bible.

quote:

---

So claims that the Bible unequivocally condemns most of humanity to hell gives us much more accurate information about the claimant than the Bible. 1st Timothy 4:9 says, "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the savior of all men, especially those who believe." And 1st John 2:2 says, "Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

---

You make a valid point. There have been some Christians who have held to "universalism" but this is an unorthodox view. One who held to a version of universalism was George MacDonald, the fantasy writer whose writings strongly influenced C.S. Lewis.

quote:

---

That God condemns most of humanity to hell isn't what the Bible unequivocally and inarguably says, it's just what evangelicals want to believe, and nothing can talk them out of it. This thread asks whether it's something in childhood that causes this.

---

Again, it's not that we want to believe it; it's that we feel that a proper interpretation of Scripture compels us to do so. Your OP quotes support this tension.Perhaps you are asking if there is any sort of psychological need for children to believe in hell? I don't believe so, but it could be an interesting question. Or perhaps you are asking why orthodox Christianity feels compelled to interpret Scripture this way, whether or not there is something naive or childish driving this interpretation? Again, I don't believe so, but this could also be an interesting question.

quote:

---

Not only will religious sects argue endlessly about which beliefs are orthodox and which aren't, many will simply define orthodox as what most people believe, others as what they or their group believes.

---

Yes, just as "orthodox" science could be defined as the mainstream concensus. In both science and theology, it is helpful to identify the orthodox position. Orthodox Christianity is much easier to identify than orthodox science, since there are a number of broadly accepted Christian creeds which one can refer to.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, it's not that we want to believe it; it's that we feel that a proper interpretation of Scripture compels us to do so. Your OP quotes support this tension.

---

I guess this is the whole question of this thread in a nutshell. How can your certainty about an equivocal Biblical interpretation override your compassion for your fellow human beings? Our suspicion is that you don't actually have that compassion.

---

I don't believe "equivocal" is a good word to describe any interpretation which reflects orthodox Christianity.

quote:

---

Good people in good conscience treat other people shabbily every day. The only way this can happen is if these other people have become dehumanized in the eyes of their tormentors. This is how slavery happened. This is how the Holocaust happened.

​

The thesis of this thread is that evangelicals use childhood as a period of indoctrination whereby they dehumanize in the child's eyes all those who believe differently from themselves.

---

The indoctrination that I remember as a child was the frequent reminder that God wants me to obey my parents, help others in need, be truthful and honest, etc. What I remember is the exact opposite of dehumanization. But I can't speak for how other Christian groups may train children.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In the less emotionally-based Evangelical groups

---

Hold it just a second.

​

They aren't "less emotionally-based." They're differently emotionally-based. Rather than using outright scare tactics, they use other emotional techniques such as peer pressure, social isolation, leveraging of parental authority, etc.

---

Some Evangelical groups put more emphasis on emotion, others put more emphasis on the intellect, and some put more emphasis on the will. In a theological sense, all three aspects are necessary for conversion or for living the Christian life.

quote:

---

The entire concept of a "children's ministry" is nothing but emotional manipulation.

---

Absolutely not, in my experience (see Message 28). Do you have any evidence for your bald assertion?Edited by kbertsche, : added ref to msg 28

quote:

---

Which Christianity is orthodox?

---

Good question, but I thought I already answered it. I believe it is defined by the statements in the broadly-accepted creeds (e.g. Apostles', Nicene, Chalcedonian, etc.).

quote:

---

Evangelical Christianity will not concede that the Bible is equivocal on this particular belief (and on others), and I contend that such beliefs tell us more about the person holding them than about what the Bible says.

​

The question is, what makes evangelicals this way?

---

I believe it's primarily a matter of biblical interpretation. If someone could demonstrate a responsible, alternative interpretation which was consistent with all relevant biblical data, there would be a possibility of convincing people to change their views. To be accepted, the new interpretation should be superior to the old in some way (e.g. provide explanations for things that the old one can't). Then there is the secondary issue of church history; Christians are reluctant to deviate from historical interpretations.

quote:

---

The Bible's contradictory stance on many, many points means no such interpretation is possible. Which interpretation one accepts is an individual decision.

---

You seem to believe that biblical interpretation is purely subjective, with no objective data or principles. Not so.If one approaches the Bible with the belief that it is the Word of God (as theologians do), one will try to fit the biblical data together. Things may not fit perfectly and may leave some tensions; this is where a new interpretation has a chance to displace it.

quote:

---

Science uses something called (to make it sound fancy) "methodological Naturalism". This simply means that we use the approach of science to learn about things that can be observed*. If something tinkers with something "inside nature" it might be observable. Then science could comment on it.

---

Yes. The scientific study of nature can only deal with naturalistic processes and methods. A miracle could only be scientifically detected if it were to leave evidence that is different from the evidence produced by natural processes.

quote:

---

There has never been any way suggested of learning about anything that beats this approach. If we can't compare a suggestion to reality (observe something) then we have no other way of knowing if it is correct or not. NONE.

---

No, your words go too far. I agree that science is the best way of learning about the functioning of nature, but you seem to be saying that science is the best way of learning about anything. This is false. Suppose, for example, that we wish to learn the meaning of a literary work. We do this through literary analysis, not through science.

quote:

---

As I've already explained, all you evangelicals do the same thing, just as you're doing now. Any evangelical you disagree with you accuse of not being a true evangelical. Were Becky here she'd be telling you that it is you who is not the true evangelical. My, my, who to believe?

​

It's nice that you agree that those Bible Camp tactics are poor form, but as to who's the true evangelical, well, why don't you request the other evangelicals here to post that they agree with you that those Bible Camps are a distortion of what evangelicalism truly represents. It wouldn't be definitive, but it would bolster your cause. Of course, I only suggest this because I doubt you'll find many agree with you.

---

I would view Pentecostals as a branch of Protestant Christianity. Whether or not they should be viewed as Evangelicals is a harder question, and I'm not sure it is very relevant.But I would agree with Ochaye that Pentecostalism and "Jesus Camp" represent a fringe group and are NOT representative of mainstream Evangelicalism. I stated similar things earlier in this thread; see Message 5 and Message 38.

quote:

---

Pentecostalism fringe???
This is the Wiki entry for the Assemblies of God, a *SUBSET* of Pentecostals:

---

Yes, apparently the Assemblies of God are considered a Pentecostal group, though they are quite mild or moderate compared to many other Pentecostal groups. And they are also considered to be Evangelicals, though we could quibble as to whether or not they are "mainstream" Evangelicals.

quote:

---

I wouldn't call the Pentecostals a fringe group. Like Ochaye you seem to be trying to discredit, to delegitimize, Christian groups you disagree with.

---

Yes, I agree that my wording of Message 178 was too broad. The Assemblies of God should probably not be called "fringe." However, they do have some unusual doctrinal distinctives that separate them from most other Evangelicals. Perhaps I should have said that "extreme Pentecostalism" is a fringe group. (Here I am thinking of the groups that handle live snakes and other such extreme behavior.)As I mentioned in Message 5 and Message 38, Pentecostal and charismatic groups are much more emotionally-based than other evangelicals, and I believe it is this emotional emphasis which leads to the problems with children that are noted in this thread.Here is how Elmer T. Clark described charismatic and Pentecostal sects in his The Small Sects in America (Abingdon, 1965):

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Assemblies of God should probably not be called "fringe." However, they do have some unusual doctrinal distinctives that separate them from most other Evangelicals.

---

Perhaps they do, but what is being questioned is who is the arbiter of such things? All Christians claim to be "true Christians," the whole "no true Scotsman" theory.

---

And you asked again in Message 195:

quote:

---

Which still leaves the question, who arbitrates such things?

---

Who arbitrates such things in science? All scientists and pseudo-scientists claim to be "true scientists," just like the "no true Scotsman" theory.In Christianity we have some creeds which have been accepted by both Catholics and Protestants; these creeds act as "arbiters" of fundamental theological questions. Catholics also have a Pope and Magesterium to arbitrate disputes.Science has none of these things, so one could argue that the problem is more acute in science than in theology.

quote:

---

And your criteria for technically competent in what is generally regarded as an exceptionally subjective field?

---

Can you present evidence that theology is "generally regarded" as "exceptionally subjective?"

quote:

---

First, there has been no empirical evidence for "the existence and attributes of a god or gods" although there have been millennia of dialog on the subject.

​

Second, there are some 4,000 world religions (of which Christianity is the largest), and there are some 38,000 subdivisions, sects, or denominations of Christianity.

​

And this isn't subjective? Theology is the virtual definition of subjectivity!

---

Why do you treat "empirical" as the opposite of "subjective?"From dictionary.com: You are trying to make a case that theology is non-empirical, but this does not make the case that it is subjective. Empiricism and objectivity are different concepts.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Can you present evidence that theology is "generally regarded" as "exceptionally subjective?"

---

Can one present evidence that the sky is 'generally regarded' as an 'exceptional' shade of blue?

---

Perhaps, and perhaps not. But if no evidence can be presented, it should not be claimed here. Especially if some of us do not regard the sky in this way, and would view such "bare assertions" as "needling, hectoring and goading."