I have been teaching for 21 years - pretty much exclusively in the upper elementary. A few turns of fate this year sent me to the other end of the elementary spectrum. I am now a 2nd grade teacher. It has been a blast, but every once in a while my "newness" to this age group comes shining through.
For example, today I was going over fiction and non-fiction.... when I forgot I was teaching second graders.
___________________
Me:So, for example I took my son to see The Hobbit this weekend and since it contained magic rings, and wizards, and elves, and trolls... that would make it fiction.
Student:Except for the elves... that part could be non-fiction.
Me:The elves could be non-fiction??
Student (looking at me incredulously):Well, yeah.... if they are NORTH POLE ELVES!
Me:.......... ...... ...... yeeeesssss.... I obviously..... had movie/hobbit elves on the brain......
One of the most self serving doctrines that man has ever created is "Total Depravity". It is the idea that man is born into a state in which he cannot do anything that is good. Goodness only comes when one has crossed over into Christianity. This doctrine was popularized by a 16th century preacher named John Calvin, and it is the cornerstone doctrine of many Christians today.
Last week, a local Pastor wrote an article for the Salt Lake Tribune extoling the virtues of Total Depravity. His motivation was an advertising campaign that was launched by Athiests in New York. Ads were placed in the subways that stated, "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?"
As a Christian, I believe that the fascination most of my fellow believers have with Calvin's doctrine is driven by a desire to control. Total depravity gives the user a trump card (in their mind) whereby they can be better than everyone else around them... without, in fact, being better.
This is why many Christians react to campaigns like the Athiests in New York created. The ad spotlights goodness, rather than doctrine, and puts the Christian and the Athiest on an even playing field. The Christian does not like to lose their trump card, so they loudly insist that everyone play by their rules.
I can quote scripture with the best of them, and I know that many Christians reading this are pulling out their favorite scriptures to justify their pet postition. I already know them, so put away your Gideons. As with most "scriptural" positions, an easy scriptural rebuttal can be made.
Rather than scripture fencing, I would like to look at fruit (what actions result from positions) John Calvin is held in high esteem by many Christians. Yet he did not really do anything worth emulating. He created doctrines that gave Christians power over people... little else. Cities where Calvin's doctrines reigned were oppressive. Calvin had a man arrested for disagreeing with him. Convicted of heresy, Michael Severetus was burned at the stake. Calvin thought that was a bit extreme... he would have preferred a mere beheading.
Could any of us picture Ghandi calling for somone's death for holding a different position? Of course not! He was too GOOD a man for us to even imagine such a thing.
To me, that is where Total Depravity falls apart. It renders words like good, bad, right and wrong completely meaningless. Instead, it simply seeks to elevate a particular people group.
I do not believe the teachings of Jesus line up with a doctrine that causes us to render human goodness meaningless.
Tea Leaf Reading: A form of divination or fortune-telling method that interprets patterns in tea leaves.
Once or twice a month, I get an email or a comment on my blog from an enthusiastic Christian who wants to point out the error of my ways. Sometimes it is done gracefully, but more often than not it is proclaimed by someone who has become overly frustrated because I have the audacity to hold a view of God that is different than theirs. If this were the 16th century, some commentators would probably have me burned at the stake - as John Calvin did Michael Servetus. Since present laws and culture will not permit that, they must resign themselves to caustic comments and emails.
The latest comment on one of my Truth Project (a DVD series by Focus on the Family) blogs finished off by warning me not to comment further, lest there be eternal consequences. Interesting theology... but I actually want to focus on the beginning of his comment. He said:
"I am simply amazed at how on earth you got to be on the top of Googles searches regarding the Truth Project but it simply goes to show me how powerful the enemy is and how important things like the Truth Project really are. Your views are not only wrong they are a terrifying example of why the project exists in the first place."
His interpretation of what has placed my articles at the top of Google searches is very typical of how some Christians read random events. He doesn't like what I have written, so he interprets that this blog's high placement in Google searches must be the work of Satan.
However, one could just as easily say that Focus on the Family is spreading a poor interpretation of God though their Truth Project seminars, and God was getting a little tired of the misrepresentation; so He bumped a nobody blogger to the top of Google's list to try to get the word out that Focus on the Family has gone way off the path.
Of course, either view is just Tea Leaf Reading... looking at a random happening and assigning an outside meaning to it. Not too different from thinking that fluffy white cloud bears a striking resemblance to Scooby-Doo.
At least it would be, if you take Hell out of the equation....
That is the view of many in Christendom.
They would not necessarily state it that way, but that is the practical up-shot. That is why I believe large sections of Christendom are being pushed to the back of the bus as its people become increasingly viewed as backward and irrelevant.
I was following various blog links and I came across a pastor who was bemoaning the "worldliness" of the church. He was upset that a local pastor had used almost exactly the same 4 points about bolstering marriages that he had heard a "secular" therapist use. To him, this was evidence that the Church is being over-run by secularists and Christian congregations are in danger of going to Hell.
*Sigh*........
I went to one of his links and I read a post where the author went on and on about how wrong headed non-calvanists were. He said:
Now, that all said, I know this post has a tone of simple disdain. I know it because I cannot avoid it – I really try to have patience for the non-calvinist, but the truth is that they don’t really have any patience for the Calvinist under any circumstance, and they as a group don’t really listen.
The 95 posters that followed (I must admit a little blogger jealousy there) kinda "Rah-Rah'd" his statement... occasionally expressing some level of concern (or satisfaction) for all of the folks who were on their way to Hell because their doctrine was a mess or non-existent.
Besides the bully-ishness of many of the commentators, what struck me most was how utterly pointless their Christianity becomes if Hell is taken out of the equation. Underneath all of their rhetoric was not a desire to follow someone who was worth following, but rather a desire to get out of Hell. The blogger and his commentators adhere to this version of Christianity, not because it is good, but because they are afraid to do otherwise. Christianity, in their view, is getting yourself lined up correctly with God... so you don't go to Hell.
What a hopeless present and eternity that amounts to (for either destination) if that is really all this life is about.
But just to clarify....
I don't believe any of that. Jesus is worthy and I dedicate myself to his way.... without any worry or threat.
The following article was printed in Youth Specialties a few years back. Many Christians thought Bart's views were heresy, so the article was pulled. The Journal of Student Ministries hosted it for a while, but they seem to have dropped it as well. All that to say, I would link if it were out there, but since it doesn't seem to be, I am going to paste it here.
It may or may not be heretical, but I am in complete agreement with Bart.
______________________________
The Limits of God’s Grace
Written by Bart Campolo
A few years ago, after being politely asked to depart early from yet another speaking engagement for giving the wrong answer to a question about the limits of God’s mercy, I decided it wasn’t fair to keep sneaking up on unsuspecting Evangelicals.
Strange as it seems to me, I know all too well that to proclaim a God compassionate enough to seek the rescue of every one of his children—and powerful enough to pull it off—is a dangerous scandal to such folks. In a very real way, they don’t even hope for universal salvation. After all, without the fear of their unsaved loved ones’ eternal damnation, how would they motivate one another for outreach and missionary service?
And yet, almost everywhere I go, I meet people—especially young people—who are not motivated at all by such fear. On the contrary, these people are utterly horrified by the notion of a Heavenly Father who essentially says to his children, “I love you, but if for any reason you fail to accept that fact before your mortal body expires, I will kill and torture you for all eternity.” Especially if that same Heavenly Father holds in hand all the reasons the children do or don’t accept in the first place.
These are the people who ask me the questions that used to lead to my early departures, and who write me letters and emails like this one:
Dear Bart,
This might be kind of weird, but I have a question for you.
I lived and worked among the poor with Mission Year in the inner-city of Atlanta last year. When you came to visit my team, you told a story about how when you first started working in rough neighborhoods, you got to know a girl who was gang-raped as a nine-year-old and—after her Sunday School teacher told her God must have allowed it for a reason— rejected God forever. Because you believed God was indeed in control, and because you believed that girl’s lack of faith doomed her to eternal damnation, you decided that God must be a ‘cruel bastard.’ You sort of said the words inside my head out loud, words I had wanted to say for a long time.
Anyway, after putting this off for almost a year, I want to know how you reconciled that. How did you make it from, “God is a cruel bastard” back to “I can trust him”? I can’t seem to make that leap. Sometimes I begin to really trust him, but as soon as I think about my past abuse and those I know and love who are bound for Hell, it just doesn’t add up. I want to know the God you know—who apparently allows for horrible things in this world to happen, yet remains pure and holy and trustworthy and faithful and loving.
I don’t know if any of this makes sense to you, but as I was wrestling with it again today I was reminded of you and hoped you might be of some help.
Sarah
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for writing to me. Over the past few years, I have become convinced that yours is actually the single most important question in the world. As Rabbi Harold Kushner observes, “Virtually every meaningful conversation I’ve had with people about God has either started with that question or gotten around to it before long.” While I am sure my answer will not be as eloquent as his, I will do my best.
First of all, while I certainly believe my most cherished ideas about God are supported by the Bible (what Christian says otherwise?), I must admit they did not originate there. On the contrary, most of these ideas were formed during that difficult time I described to you, when I was suddenly disillusioned by the suffering and injustice I discovered in the inner-city—I suddenly did not trust the Bible at all. At that point, for the first time, I realized that people’s lives don’t depend on whether or not they believe in God, but rather on what kind of God they believe in. I also realized, for better or worse, that the only evidence I could rely on was that which I saw for myself.
What I saw then, and still see now, is a world filled with dazzling goodness and horrific evil, love and hate, beauty and ugliness, life and death. In the face of such clear dualities, it seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, that there are but a handful of spiritual possibilities:
* There are no spiritual forces. The material universe is all. Our lives bear no larger meaning, and those who hope for more hope in vain. In this case, considering that nine year-old rape victim, I despair.
* There is only one spiritual force at work in the universe, encompassing both good and evil. This world is precisely as this force wills it to be, and everything—including the rapes of children— happens according to its plan. In this case, again, I despair.
* There are two diametrically opposing spiritual forces at work in the universe, one entirely good and loving and the other entirely evil. Satan (or whatever one chooses to call that evil force) is most powerful and therefore will utterly triumph in the end. The suffering of that poor little girl is but a foretaste of the complete suffering that is to come for us all. In this case, of course, I despair.
* There are two opposing spiritual forces at work in the universe, one entirely good and loving and the other entirely evil. God (or whatever one chooses to call that good and loving force) is most powerful and therefore will utterly triumph in the end. The suffering of that poor little girl—evil’s doing—will somehow be redeemed, and she herself will be healed as part of the complete redemption and absolute healing that is to come for all of us. In this case—and in this case alone—I rejoice and gladly pledge my allegiance to this good and loving God.
I cannot prove or disprove any of these possibilities, of course, based on the evidence of my experience. What I know with certainty, however, is the one that makes me want to go on living, the one I choose for my own sake, the one I deem worthy of my allegiance.
I may be wrong in this matter, but I am not in doubt. If indeed faith is being sure of what we hope for, then truly I am a man of faith, for I absolutely know what I hope to be true: that God is completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving, that God is doing everything possible to overcome evil (which is evidently a long and difficult task), and that God will utterly triumph in the end, despite any and all indications to the contrary.
This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.
This first article of faith was the starting point of my journey back to Jesus, and it remains the foundation of my faith. I came to trust the Bible again, of course, but only because it so clearly bears witness to the God of love I had already chosen to believe in. I especially follow the teachings of Jesus because those teachings—and his life, death, and resurrection—seem to me the best expression of the ultimate truth of God, which we Christians call grace. Indeed, these days I trust Jesus even when I don’t understand him, because I have become so convinced that he knows what he’s talking about, that he is who he says he is, and that he alone fully grasps that which I can only hope is true.
Unfortunately for me, God may be very different from what I hope, in which case I may be in big trouble come Judgment Day. Perhaps, as many believe, the truth is that God created and predestined some people for salvation and others for damnation, according to God’s will. Perhaps such caprice only seems unloving to us because we don’t understand. Perhaps, as many believe, all who die without confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior go to Hell to suffer forever. Most important of all, perhaps God’s sovereignty is such that although God could indeed prevent little girls from being raped, God is no less just or merciful when they are raped, and those children and we who love them should uncritically give God our thanks and praise in any case.
My response is simple: I refuse to believe any of that. For me to do otherwise would be to despair.
Some might say I would be wise to swallow my misgivings about such stuff, remain orthodox, and thereby secure my place with God in eternity. But that is precisely my point: If those things are true, then God might as well send me to Hell. For better or worse, I simply am not interested in any God but a completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving One who is powerful enough to utterly triumph over evil. Such a God may not exist, but I will die seeking such a God, and I will pledge my allegiance to no other possibility because, quite frankly, anything less is not worthy of my worship.
Please, don’t get me wrong. I am well aware that I don’t get to decide who God is. What I do get to decide, however, is to whom I pledge my allegiance. I am a free agent, after all, and I have standards for my God, the first of which is this: I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am. If Mahatma Gandhi and my young friend who got gang-raped are going to Hell because they failed to believe the right stuff, then I suppose I am too, for the same reason. John Calvin—or Jerry Falwell for that matter—may well be right after all, but if they are I would rather cling to my glorious hope than accept their bitter truth just to save my own skin.
You can figure out the rest. I don’t hate God because I don’t believe God is fully in control of this world yet. Heck, God is not fully in control of me yet, even when I want God to be—so how could I possibly believe that God is making all the bad stuff happen out there in the streets? I don’t hate God because I believe God is always doing the best God can within the limits of human freedom, which even God cannot escape.
On that last point, consider for a moment the essential relationship between human freedom and love, and then consider the essential identity between love and God. If God is love and made us for love in God’s image, then God had no choice but to make us free, to leave us free, and to win us over to his Kingdom as free agents (which, evidently, is a long and difficult task). So God did, I believe, and so God will.
I don’t hate God because, although I suppose God kmows everything that can be known at any given point in time, I don’t suppose God knows or controls everything that is going to happen. I also don’t hate God because in more than 20 years on the street, I have seen too much of evil (and too much of my own, moving-in-the-right-direction but-still-pretty-doggone-sinful nature). I don’t hate God because it seems to me that this world is a battleground between good and evil, not a puppet show with just one person pulling all the strings. I don’t hate God because the God I have chosen to believe in isn’t hateable, and because I refuse to believe in the kind of God that is.
Now here is the good news: I may be entirely wrong, but even in my darkest hours, my God of love hasn’t stopped speaking to me. On the contrary, I hear God’s voice in places I never did before, always saying the same things, one way or another: I am with you. I’m sorry about all the pain. It hurts me, too, especially when my little ones suffer. I have always loved you, and I always will. Do the best you can, but don’t worry. Everything will be all right in the end. Trust me.
And I do. And I hope you will, too, sooner than later.
Your friend,
Bart
Of course, to believe in God the way I do is to change all the rules of ministry—especially of youth ministry. I still do my best to convince young people to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, but not because I’m afraid God will damn them to Hell if they don’t. On the contrary, I want the kids I love to follow Jesus because I genuinely believe following Jesus is the best kind of life. Eternity aside, I want them to be transformed by the Gospel right here and right now, for their sakes and for the sakes of all the lost and broken people out there who need them to start living as Jesus’ disciples. After all, the sooner we all start following Jesus by feeding the poor and freeing the oppressed, the sooner God’s will shall be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
Most of all, however, I evangelize people because, having discovered that they are the beloved children of my beloved God, I don’t want them to suffer one minute longer than they have to without knowing that most wonderful fact of life.
And I stay in the inner city, in spite of all the suffering and injustice I see here every day, because I can. No longer do I blame God for what is beyond his control or hate God for so much pain his little ones endure. Even in the midst of such ugliness, I can stay here because I am full of faith. I may not be sure of what I know anymore, but I am absolutely certain of what I hope for, and most of the time I manage to live in that direction.
I stay here for one more reason, of course: In places like this, nobody asks you to leave early because you can’t find the limits of God’s grace.
Yael did a great post this week on how we interpret what each other says. 1+1=2 is true, so long as you are in a base 10 number system. Someone in a base 2 would see an error; to someone in base 2 the answer is 10. This can lead to all kinds of communication difficulties, particularly if we feel there is only one base to start from.
Joe has written a blog response to "and I am the liar!?" where he takes me to task. I am going to paste it here and put my responses within in red (and italics for Brook). Perhaps we simply work out our math in different bases; perhaps there is more to it than that. You decide. :) ____________________________________
So I never knew that disagreeing with someone was the cardinal sin. Well, that's not true, I did. I just didn't expect it from this guy. You may remember the Santa Claus discussion. Well, apparently because we didn't agree with Mr. Hackman's Musings we're uptight enough that a "piece of coal up our butt would lead to a diamond in two weeks." I think he's calling me a liar, too because I didn't agree with him. He says,
"What always amazes me about these kind of folks is THIS is the kind of issue they focus? It's friggin Santa for cryin out loud. Not world hunger or inner city gang violence! To me, it so petty. Not that they do not want to do Santa, but that they want to argue about it!" I am not sure where I call him a liar here, but I guess it is fair to say that I do that overall.
Now, is that an honest representation of this blog? 522 blog posts last year and one on Santa. But I'm focusing on "THIS." That's intellectual dishonesty at its finest. I don't think I ever implied that I was commenting on previous postings on his blog. I think it was clear that I was focusing on this topic and that my statement referred to anyone who made Santa a big issue (in fact I feel a little silly that I am still in an argument about Santa Claus) Nothing shows his true colors more than this:
Next, I am being accused of lying to my daughter and holding back from her the true meaning of Christmas... blah, blah, blah. (Emphasis Mine)
I asked him how he would deal with my five year old's question. What is dishonest here? I answered your daughter's question, but that was not good enough for you. You came back with :"There's an obvious difference between the Fiction and actively telling your kids an untruth. I agree that it's not my job to tell your kids or anyone else for that matter. My problem is that you are purposely hiding part of the Christmas story from your children in that you are telling them that Santa--not God-- has provided for them." In addition, I provided the entire discussion for context. I think my "true colors" there was completely fair.
Then he gives this beauty:
Mike- As I look back over the conversation, and some of their subsequent comments, I realize some of the core problem. They were not content to see it their way, while I saw it mine. They wanted me to talk them into my way of thinking, confident that I could not. That was never my point, I did not want them to see it my way; I wanted them to see that "I" saw it my way.
I've got to say I think that is a lie there. I never cared if he saw it my way. I never cared if he could "prove" his way to me, I was asking questions about his way and I thought he could ask questions about my way. Evidently, unless we all agree with Mr. Hackman we're just wrong. Unless we're all in with him, then we're all out with anything that is right in the world. Unless, I agree that Santa is A-OK for my kids too, then I can't be doing anything about world hunger or anything else. Perhaps this is an example of speaking different math, but I do not see any point in the conversation that I am implying that he NEEDS to do Santa with his kids. However, he and others kept coming back in the conversation trying to get me to see all of the problems with the way I do Christmas with my kids (eg. you are purposely hiding... etc)
What I appreciate most about this exchange with Mr. Hackman and the subsequent post at his site where he questions my honesty proves that fighten' fundy mind set is on both sides of all issues. Unless, I saw this issue his way, I was attacking him and his views. I was being dishonest and wanting to punch sinners in the nose. I don't feel that the way I used that phrase was saying you want to punch sinners in the nose. I was making a comparison to your apparent vacillation between wanting to put-down what someone practices and calling them a liar, while couching it in polite and gracious sounding phrases. To me that is "like" someone who uses the hate the sin but love the sinner phrase. You are not saying what you feel. I think you are doing it in this response. I was guilty of double speak. All I needed to do was agree with him and I would be absolved of all these sins. Again, I in NO WAY thinks he needs to give up his no Santa stance. Perhaps someone can show me otherwise, but this seems to be the focus of his contention, yet I don't feel I ever did it. I stated in a later comment that I was fine with a no-Santa policy, I just couldn't understand a need to argue the point.
So here it is: Mr. Hackman, you can feel free to tell your children that Santa, the Easter Bunny, The Tooth Ferry, and any other fictitious character is real. I honestly do not care. (I disagree, and you may not concur, but I think you do care. I think you care a fair amount about this issue.) I have real life friends that I respect that do all of that. I cannot agree with all of your conclusions but I do respect your right to hold them. If you find that to be double speak, I'm sorry about that. I really am. If your children and my children were ever to meet I would instruct my children to not mention Santa being fake. I am sorry that you believe that because I do not have a love for Santa that I do love poetry, music, or daydreams. I do love warm cocoa and a blazing fire and snuggling.(Where do I make this implication?)
I would ask the next time you call me a liar, at least have the decency to tell me you're saying that about me.(I think it is fair to say that I should have let you know about the post, and for that I apologize.)
And, I would suggest that you check your whole analogy as it seems you've made some pretty broad assumptions about my wife and me based on the fact that we don't agree with you about Santa. I think there are people who are overall digital or analog. But you are right, a more complete analogy would be to say that people may be issue specific as well. There may be areas of your life where you are analog, but on this one you are digital. I understand that. I just don't believe you are as ok with me having a Santa as I am with you not having a Santa. You have said that I feel you are wrong because you do not believe in accordance with my stance. I don't think I ever said any such thing. My contention has been how you respond to people who do not share your stance.You should have just told me that you didn't want to discuss it, that all you wanted was someone to say, "Well Gee, Andrew OK. Thanks." There are some people that email me or respond to things here and that is all I say. I thought you wanted to be part of a discussion. A discussion doesn't mean we agree, it just means we don't attack each other over disagreeing. We don't write blog posts where we call each other "those people." Yes, I'll be sending this in an email to you as well. Happy New Year. __________________________________________________
See, this is what going off on a rant can bring ya. I now know not to discuss religion, politics,.... and Santa Claus! :)
Sometimes you have to just laugh at what goes down in your community... otherwise ya might weep! I am a Christian, but there is often NO ONE who can get under my skin more than a brother in Christ.
I made the mistake of discussing Santa Claus on a Christian web page. For those of you who do not know the Evangelical community very well, discussing Santa Claus is like discussing religion or politics in everyday settings. A fight is bound to ensue.
I thought the guy was really wondering how others address the issue of Santa with their young children. He asked how other people handle it. It seemed like an honest question. I told him how it worked for us.
Next, I am being accused of lying to my daughter and holding back from her the true meaning of Christmas... blah, blah, blah.
I tried to remain reasonable, but I finally got pissed and went off on a rant. Probably shouldn't have done that, but there it is.
Anyway, here is the discussion with some off topic stuff deleted. My stuff is in red.
_____________________________________________
The Issue of Santa Claus
OK, Becky C suggested in this thread (feel free to weigh in on that one too) that it would be interesting to discuss the issue of Santa Claus. So today's question is, "What do you tell your kids about Santa Claus? Why?" I'll start the discussion with our house. (Which I normally hate doing because I have found in the past that it kills comment discussion). We don't talk about him until we have to do so. We don't hide the fact from our kids that we are the one's who buy them the gifts or whoever they are from. When Kendra was 3 we took her to my brothers work where he was dressed up as Santa so she could get her picture taken. She recognized my brother. The next year she debunked us by asking my wife why we never told her Santa was fake. This year she made the little neighbor boy cry by telling him that Santa wasn't real. We had to explain to her that some parents chose to allow their children to believe in Santa. She looked my wife dead in the eye and said,"Why would their parents want to lie to them?" Kaidance recently looked at me and said, "Dad, I just don't believe in Santa Claus." Now, our kids watch cartoons with Santa in them, and we've been working on them about keeping quiet when dealing with other kids. So we don't teach for Santa and we don't teach against Santa. When asked directly, I feel it would be disingenuous to lie to my children so I tell them that God provides for us (or other people) to get them gifts. That's how we handle it, how about you?
Posted on December 26, 2007
Comments
I wrote this on my blog last year:
I always knew the day would come. Another milestone has passed in my daughter's life.
People debate when to tell their kids about Santa Claus. I knew the time would present itself, and today was the day. This time when she asked, I didn't evade. I told her it was time to see behind the wrappings of the gift her mother and I had given her.
And I do believe it is a gift a parent can give to their child. There are few years when the veil between imagination and reality is so thin. Santa, reindeer, elves.... I think there is a singular opportunity for blissful joy which can rarely be captured outside of a wonderful fairy tale during those early years.
A love for Santa is a love of poetry, music, daydreams. It is warm cocoa and a blazing fire. It is snuggling under the covers to keep warm on a cold morning.
I told Kathryn her mother and I had given those stories to her during those years as a gift for her to enjoy. Now it is a gift we want to give to Jacob as well. Children are so excited to know things and they have a desire to let others know that they know. I encouraged Kathryn to not take that gift from anyone.
I loved watching the thrill on Kathryn's face when she and Jacob spoke to Santa at the North Pole over a webcam this year. I am grateful for the memories of my brother Matt dressing up as Santa for her and giving her a special Christmas Eve.
I believe in Santa Claus. I know someday when Kathryn has little ones beneath her Christmas tree, she will believe in him too.
Andrew, Thanks for the thoughts. I appreciate your sharing. I'm curious how you would handle my daughters question regarding the apparent dishonesty of it. Essentially she asked me why is it OK for a parent to lie but kids cannot? She's five or I'd ask her to post it here herself. :)
I've got a no BS clause with my kids. So if they want to know anything I'll be honest with them. So they've all asked and I've told them. And they went down the list: Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Kirk Cameron. They all know they're not real.
This no BS clause also got interesting when James (5) really wanted to know all the details about Sodom and Gomorrah. We had the whole "talk" that day.
So Stuart, how did that go? What exactly did you tell him? You can teach us, that way when the topic arises in our house we will be prepared with a good answer! You can't just leave it at " We had a whole talk that day" and not tell us how you answered! My curiosity is up!lol :-)
I guess we just have different perspectives. I think some people are digital and some are analog. Digital folks are in or out, on or off. There is no in between. Some of us are analog. Things level out differently under different circumstances. Everyone is going to have a line. I had a friend I worked with at a ministry who would not watch any fiction. It didn't happen, and was therefore not true, since it was not true it is a lie. He would not partake of a lie. That is his line, but not mine.
I don't think parents are lying to their children. They are living a story. They are participants in the play. I realize that other folks would not see it that way, and that is fine. I think it is rude when someone spoils the story for someone else. How much better can a fiction be than if, for a while, you think it is so?
There's an obvious difference between the Fiction and actively telling your kids an untruth. I agree that it's not my job to tell your kids or anyone else for that matter. My problem is that you are purposely hiding part of the Christmas story from your children in that you are telling them that Santa--not God-- has provided for them. Having said that, let me say I totally respect your right to do it the way you want and I am sure there are other Godly parents who tell their children that their is a Santa but as of this moment, I cannot see a compelling reason to actively lie to my children. This was confirmed by my daughter who came to the conclusion on her own that it was lieing. BTW, if you're saying I'm too in or out you need to get out on in BLOG world more often, I can think of at least 4 BLOG's that accuse me of the exact opposite without thinking hard. :) Oh, and I love fiction. If you want to buy me some books you can see my wishlist at Amazon by searching joemartino9[at]yahoo[dot]com. You can even sign the card from Santa! :)
I think it is a parents prerogative to teach or not to teach it. We try to teach our daughter it is not her job to inform someone of the truth but she struggles with it and we still have to remind her! my kids enjoy watching the Christmas shows. I think it is like any other TV show, you can enjoy the beautiful poetry and creativity behind the story without believing it to be true. I think some parents teach Santa more because it is an enjoyment for them! Some I think teach it for selfish reasons. I have little neighbor boys who think their presents are determined from Santa based on how well they behave. Personally I think that is wrong to teach a kid that! My biggest problem with teaching Santa Claus is it takes away from what Christmas is really about. Plus I hate it that we teach Santa has all the attributes that Jesus has. It seems wrong to me whether it is just for fun or not. An amazing story played out the night Jesus was born that changed man kind forever! That in itself is a beautiful story that is true. Why do we have to juice it up more? Why do we have to make Christmas any more creative than that?
Joe - You make my point about an "in or out" view. You said I "you are purposely hiding part of the Christmas story from your children in that you are telling them that Santa--not God-- has provided for them." This is simply not so. They know the entire Christmas story... including the part that it did not occur on the 25th, rather it was put there to incorporate the holidays of foreign religions.
"but as of this moment, I cannot see a compelling reason to actively lie to my children." I think whether or not to go down this road depends on your views, and your child's views. IF your kids would view this as a hurtful lie, I wouldn't go down that road either. My daughter shrugged. She thought it was a fun ride, and likes to participate now with Jake. Our respective apples have not fallen too far from our trees.
I think the larger issue in this is having pride in the "right" view. George Carlin does a bit in his routine about someone who yells at the speeder passing him on the highway, but the @%!* who is going too slow ahead of him. HE is going the "right" speed.
It would be easy to see the person who views fiction as a lie too harsh, while a parent who encourages Santa is a liar (or as Elf would say "sitting on a throne of lies") - comfortable that you have the balanced view.
My commentary above was not meant as a critique of your stance, but rather that I understand that this is a black and white issue for you, and that you really can't see it any other way. Families need to be as respective of your views as you need to be of theirs.
Andrew, Here's my point. If my kids think Santa got them the gift they are not thinking that Jesus provided them. I personally can't get around that one. To me this is definitely an issue of liberty. What about others out there. It would seem that Andrew and I agree that everyone needs to respect everyone else's view yet we handle Santa differently. (Which by the way Andrew I don't tell my kids he doesn't exist, I just don't tell them that he does). What about the rest of you?
Well it started with him reading through one of his bible story books and asking about why God destroyed S&G. I gave him a simple answer and he wanted details. I'd answer them. Then he'd have more. So we eventually went all through the sex talk and homosexuality. He had ton's of questions.
I was just honest about everything. No sugar coating it. I kept the answers simple and some he pursued me for more details, then I'd give them to him. We've tried to keep no conversation taboo around here. Though it's not like I bring them up, just through the curious mind of a 5 year old - questions get asked.
And I end each conversation with - "You know this stays between you and me (and mommy), do not tell your bother or sister or any other kids. Our honesty is a privilege."
I don't know if that answers your question or not.
Well, since I wanted to know what others think, I guess I better chime in here :). My soup is about to boil, so if I don't get back to the other thread now (assuming there is anything more to comment on), I'll have to later :).
Neither my husband nor I grew up believing in Santa Claus. Both our parents expected us to write thank-you notes to our actual gift givers. My mother-in-law believed in Santa until she was 8 or 9...when she found the doll box in the garage the next summer and realized her parents had bought it and that Santa hadn't, she was just devastated. When she confronted her mother, she flippantly replied that she (my MIL) was too old to believe in Santa and surely someone at school should have told her that by now. Of course, a lot of kids had, but she had vehemently proclaimed Santa's existence "because [her] mommy said so," so she ended up feeling like a complete fool. She determined then and there she would never lie to her kids.
My parents wouldn't even use wrapping paper or gift tags with Santa; I don't go to that extreme. I don't buy them intentionally, but if they are in a multi-pack, we use them...more for our own kids than for other peoples, just because it can be a touchy topic.
I am the director of a Sparks (K-2nd grade) AWANA club in our church, so at Christmas time, I try to steer my topics VERY carefully. If asked outright, I will tell a child they need to talk to their parents about what they believe about Santa Claus. I tell them the Christmas story and why we celebrate Christmas every year. I just try to leave Santa out of it. I have a little girl in Sparks this year, so I remind her every week that she isn't to tell any of the kids that there isn't a Santa if they start talking about him. She seems to have handled it OK for this year. A young-20's unsaved guy that has been visiting our church was talking to her about two weeks ago and asked what she asked Santa to bring her. She wasn't sure if he knew there wasn't a Santa, so she carefully answered that she had told her mommy what she wanted, since she isn't able to write well enough to write her own list. Later, the girl that invited him to church was talking to Jadyn and Jadyn sweetly asked her to let Todd know there is no such thing as Santa, as he is "old enough he really should know." Christine had the best laugh...and said she'd let Todd know that Jadyn doesn't believe in Santa.
I appreciate Erica's comment, "An amazing story played out the night Jesus was born that changed man kind forever! That in itself is a beautiful story that is true. Why do we have to juice it up more? Why do we have to make Christmas any more creative than that?" That, in essence, is where my heart is at.
So, if my kids see a Santa in the store and want to talk to him, I would let them (though it's not likely. Jadyn freaks out at Chuck E. Cheese when the giant mouse tries to talk to her...for whatever reason, she is afraid he will try to steal her shirt???). They know where their gifts come from, and that Jesus is the ultimate gift of Christmas. Taya isn't big on "dressed up" critters either; my husband wants to go to Disney, but I'm afraid how they both would respond!
We don't do the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. either.
"I appreciate Erica's comment, "An amazing story played out the night Jesus was born that changed man kind forever! That in itself is a beautiful story that is true. Why do we have to juice it up more? Why do we have to make Christmas any more creative than that?" That, in essence, is where my heart is at."
Not to be argumentative (ok, maybe I am), but EVERYTHING outside of reading a Luke (why not Matthew?) story on the 25th, or any other random day for that matter, is making it more creative. Why do Christmas cookies? Cause it is fun! Why decorate a tree? Cause it is fun! Why sing Frosty the Snowman? Cause it is fun! Why staple lights to the house? Cause it is fun!
However, when it comes to a Santa story... all of a sudden Jesus (followers?) has insecurity issues?
God has pleasures at his right hand (where Jesus sits.. coincidence?) yet everyone wants to make him a Scrooge or a child who is going to throw a cosmic temper tantrum if his name isn't said enough times Christmas Eve. I'm sorry that I am on a rant here (ala Dennis Miller), but I grew up in a Christian community that felt Santa borrowed his red outfit from the Devil. You switch two letters and you get Satan from Santa (clever eh?). I listened for years, ad nauseum, to endless pious proclamations about the dangers of lying to your children and how that would harm their future trust in Christ. This was just one more high horse that we could jump on and further distance ourselves from our community. That made us happy though cause it just showed how separate and chosen we were! God protect the poor soul who says, "Happy Holidays" to the follower of Christ determined to protect the sanctity of Christmas!
Really, if adding to the "story" is a problem, go the route of the Jehovah's Witness and ditch the presents, the tree, the lights, the carols, the dinner, the cookies, the decorations, the family gathering....ditch the WHOLE thing. I can respect that. But don't cherry pick your traditions and then act like you are being spiritually faithful to Jesus because you have the right moral ground on Santa Claus.
Andrew, That was kind of harsh don't you think? No one has disrespected you here. If you feel that way, let me know. Everybody draws this line differently and until that last post it had been rather cordial, right? I realize that some of that might have been a reaction to your experience but in my opinion it was a little over the top.
I guess I just can't stand when someone says they "respect your opinion" or "respect your right to say what you want" then proceeds to list all the reasons they think what you do is a bad idea. I can HONESTLY say that it does not matter to me that he wants to do a Santa-less Christmas. However, he cannot in honesty say that he respects anything of what I am doing and then use descriptive phrases like "actively telling your kids an untruth - My problem is that you are purposely hiding part of the Christmas story from your children - you are telling them that Santa--not God-- has provided for them -. It is this same kind of Christian double speak (saying things that sound loving, but are filled with contempt) that lead to wonder phrases like "Hate the sin, but love the sinner". Just admit that you want to punch the sinner in the nose! Then maybe once you are in an honest place, you can deal with your anger and hate issues.
There was a time in my Christianity when I was right. I was Charasmantic... Full Gospel... how much more right could you be than that?
Then life happens.
At this point you can do one of three things:
Hunker down and refuse to hear anything but the thoughts within your own group (you may listen to other arguments, but you know from the beginning you are right. So you, at most, only tolerate the deluded around you).
Abandon your faith. Having found a chink in your armor, you throw away everything in a resentful rage.
Eat some humble pie. Discover you are not half as smart as you think you are and learn to hold ideas with open hands.
Having grown up being right, I learned little about other people's ideas of God. So, in my latter years, I am having to play catch-up.
I have discovered that my thoughts this past decade line-up with a lot of things within something called "The Emergent Church" movement. Since I visit the blogs of a lot of these folks, I also come into contact with the blogs of many of their detractors. It seems (and here I say "seems" with heavy emphasis) that a lot of folks who cling to Calvanism take issue with the Emergent Church.
I always knew Calvanists were into predestination/election (the idea that God chose who would go to Heaven and who would go to Hell before anyone did anything), but I never really gave it much thought. However, I got into a discussion with a gentleman on his blog recently and it clarified for me how troubled I am with that idea. I commented on a post where he was stating his belief in predestination. I will post my comment and our brief conversation, then comment some more.
_____________
Andrew7:56 PM I could never put full stock in to election... This post confirmed that opinion. I grant that there is scripture that could lead one to that conclusion, but only if you ignore a heckalot of other scripture. I am not sure how it will pan out, but I am pretty confident God was not saying... "and you will be saved, and you too, but not you, hmmm how bout' you, you, and you, mmm not you, and not that one either..." If true, we are ruled by a psycho!
SB9:01 PM I'd like to see you defend that biblicaly. God elects people alright. It's all over the bible.
Andrew10:28 PM Is there a single scripture I could produce that you would not refute? You obviously believe wholeheartedly in election. The most you and I could do is play biblical ping-pong for the observers and each side would go away with the same view they previously held. Been in those conversations before?
Let me rather ask a question. Though my description of the thought line of a God of election above was absurd, is your view much different? Is that how you see God?
I have committed about 10 books of scripture to memory. I say this not as a boast, but to make a point. One of the unforeseen outcomes is that I started to see scripture by themes rather than statements. For example… I could remove all the scripture where God states that he loves man, yet, when I read the rest of scripture I would still come to that conclusion…. God loves us.
I don’t get that when it comes to election. Remove those verses and there would be nothing about the rest of scripture that would point in that direction. So for me, it leaves it suspect. There is scripture to defend and refute election. There is scripture to defend and refute grace vs. works. Pre, post, mid-trib? Whom shall I believe? The theologian who argues his point better? The one who produces the longest list of verses?
I honestly don’t have a big opinion about election. It is one of those scriptural oddities that seems to run contrary to other scripture ... yet there it is. To me, it is what happens when the eternal is explained in temporal language… it doesn’t quite fit. It can’t. In the same way a three dimensional being could never accurately describe himself in words to a world of two dimensions. I honestly think when people asked Jesus, “What is the Kingdom of God like?”, he had to think for a second. He must have thought, how do I put this, when they have absolutely NO frame of reference? Well, guys… ya see….. it's kind of like….. a mustard seed….
What concerns me is why people so doggedly want to defend election? Why? What is the motivation? To have a point of argument? To be more right than someone else? If one wants to lean toward election, I can’t totally dismiss them because it is a scriptural point… but why can there be no allowance for another view?
God chose the metaphor of a Father. He thought that was one of the best ways to describe himself to us. To buy into election, as people tend to interpret it, I would need to be comfortable with a God who is pro-choice – one who can toss his child in the trash can on a whim.
SB 9:47 PM God would never toss his child....for someone to be his child he has to recieve Christ. The one's who get "tossed" aren't his kids. Other than that, I'd just say to you to use scripture as your standard, not make up your own ideas...
_____________
It bothers me when people respond, but don't really address my points. To me, it shows they don't know how to listen; they only know how to monologue. Being right requires monologue, not dialogue. To the absolutist, dialogue is tantamount to compromise.
Part of me wanted to respond back, but I am trying not to fall into the trap of needing to be right. Anyone who knows me knows I luuuv to be right, so it is something God is chipping away at. But if one needs a scriptural reference for my belief I will give one... well, two... and we could go on.
First, God is no respecter of persons. When I get to something in scripture I don't understand, I cling to the character of God. Does predestination sync with how God presents himself?
He desires all men to be saved. God would have to be a complete bi-polar or schizophrenic if he both desired a person's salvation, offered a way of salvation, but then put that person outside salvation's reach.
Again, if the concept of election/predestination mattered at all Jesus would have taught it, Paul would have taught it, Peter would have taught it..... not cryptically mention it, TAUGHT it.
I know scripture mentions it, I don't deny it. It is the conclusion of Calvinists I find unsupportable. If their view is accurate, then I will pass on Heaven. Their view makes God into as big a jerk as any I have met on this planet; as big a jerk as me....
.... and I need to worship someone greater than myself.
I always knew the day would come. Another milestone has passed in my daughter's life.
People debate when to tell their kids about Santa Claus. I knew the time would present itself, and today was the day. This time when she asked, I didn't evade. I told her it was time to see behind the wrappings of the gift her mother and I had given her.
And I do believe it is a gift a parent can give to their child. There are few years when the veil between imagination and reality is so thin. Santa, reindeer, elves.... I think there is a singular opportunity for blissful joy which can rarely be captured outside of a wonderful fairy tale during those early years.
A love for Santa is a love of poetry, music, daydreams. It is warm cocoa and a blazing fire. It is snuggling under the covers to keep warm on a cold morning.
I told Kathryn her mother and I had given those stories to her during those years as a gift for her to enjoy. Now it is a gift we want to give to Jacob as well. Children are so excited to know things and they have a desire to let others know that they know. I encouraged Kathryn to not take that gift from anyone.
I loved watching the thrill on Kathryn's face when she and Jacob spoke to Santa at the North Pole over a webcam this year. I am grateful for the memories of my brother Matt dressing up as Santa for her and giving her a special Christmas Eve.
I believe in Santa Claus. I know someday when Kathryn has little ones beneath her Christmas tree, she will believe in him again too.
Andrew,
That was kind of harsh don't you think? No one has disrespected you here. If you feel that way, let me know. Everybody draws this line differently and until that last post it had been rather cordial, right? I realize that some of that might have been a reaction to your experience but in my opinion it was a little over the top.