This is a further entry in the ongoing blog conversation with the Dryden brother of our sister Ruth preferred by all with taste, David. Here’s the premise.
Previously in the conversation: Stevie Wonder is one of my favourite musicians and among other songs, he wrote, produced and sang the track called Evil on his Music of My Mind album. It’s a decent tune and is a suitable connection to what my brother wrote about in his last entry on the conversation. He talked a bit about the concept of being British as well, which was good but it was his approach and outline on what evil is all about that was particularly outstanding. So I suggest you take your time to have a read of what he has to write on the subject.
Before the main set of questions that David set for me, there was a follow-up question that David had in response to my engagement with the issue of a Christian perspective on the law:
It seems that your depiction of guiding principles for Christians is more about values rather than law. Is that correct? In light of that, Christianity is not for the courtroom and legislation that covers breaches of law and human punishments. Is that a correct conclusion?
Values rather than laws, eh? And here’s a potentially incendiary statement – Christianity is not for the courtroom and the breaches of law and human punishments. Potentially incendiary in the sense of triggering reactions of various extremes. I am of the impression that the explanation of the law by Jesus in Matthew 5-7 was about the law. Reaffirming that legal approach to life in the areas that I mentioned about murder, adultery, oaths, etc. Does Christianity have in itself a stand-out collection of laws with punishments entailed? Not without reference to the laws that God gave the nation of Israel. Christianity has much to say about how laws are shaped and the values are heavily influential in the shaping of those laws. I am stating that in as much as values are important to Christianity rather than law per se, it does not suggest that Christianity is not for the courtroom and legislation. That’s my answer at this time, but I do welcome further questions on the matter to bring about different aspects of the issue that are being explored.
And now for the main set of questions that my brother asked me to answer.
Q – What things have you been raised to hold as true or trustworthy (whether by our parents or not) that you now see as very different?
What a fascinating question. Fascinating in that it gets me to really think about what I held to be true and how that has changed. Here’s a few that spring to mind.
Sabbath observance is a prerequisite for salvation.
It was implied growing up as I understood and received it that essential to salvation was sabbath observance. It was in the name of the denomination and there was something implicit about it. As though those who didn’t observe the seventh day could not be saved. That is not a position I hold to be true at all these days.
Affiliation to the denomination is essential to faith.
Linked to the previous point, there was something about the church that referred to being a part of a denomination. Certainly in my experience, it was implied that being a part of another denomination was to depart from being a part of the true church because Jesus clearly came to establish this particular denomination. Whether that was something they consciously expressed, it was a ‘truth’ that was heavily implied in the attitudes of the organisation. That is not a position I hold to be true at all these days.
Trust the bulwarks of society – media, government, education etc.
I’m aware of a reading of history that sees the 1950s and 1960s as a time in countries like America and Britain where respect for authority figures and establishment began to be seriously undermined. You could argue that the Enlightenment project as a whole had a lot to do with that, but that period of history was a time with the rise of satire and a push for liberalisation of social norms that brought about great questions about the role of institutes, figures and establishments. It may have been the case in that period of history, but in my formative years of the 1980s and early 1990s I grew up with a great degree of deference to institutes, figures and establishments. It was wrong to question my elders. It was wrong to think that the government could be evil or set out to do wickedness. It was wrong to doubt the validity of what was being spread through the media and education sources. Even the specific church upbringing didn’t encourage questions and disputes because unity was about agreement without deliberation. Whether the Bible said it or not, as long as it was uttered by the authority figures and doctrinal statements that had to be good enough.
Keep all questioning to yourself or you’re a trouble-maker. Accept the status quo and all will go well with you. Trust the system, trust the process, trust the figures – they know best, they know what they’re doing, they’ve been here a while and you don’t have a clue, so just stick to them and do not stray to the left or to the right.
Something that I especially noted about our Mum was that she just didn’t fit and accept the status quo despite all the instruction that society would give to comply and submit to them. I was used to asking the question ‘why’ a lot, but nothing to disrupt or seek to upset all the structures that had been built over so much time. That was the case for at least the first 29 years of my life. I certainly retain the importance of honouring and respecting elders and not ditching everything or behaving with cynicism. Yet the overweening sense of depending on those sources of the status quo that was seen as the true way to live is not a position I hold to be true at all these days.
Success is defined by going through the cultural hoops – getting a ‘good’ education, getting a well-paid job, getting a family, owning property, driving, saving up for retirement and then working to reach retirement
Once more linked to the previous point. I was very much conditioned to see as true a certain path to success. A lot of my behaviours, actions and decisions were based on that model as if that would fit me. It was something that affected my marriage and other relationships and particularly clouded and dogged my sense of self-worth. I am fairly certain if I were to hold onto that way of looking at life I would be depressed and suicidal well before now. I am not saying that the conditioning is wrong for everyone. I am saying that it was certainly a position that’s been unhealthy for me and it is not a position I hold to be true at all these days.
Q – Schools are, more or less, indoctrination camps for the religion of the state. What steps have you taken or can be taken to protect the mind of your children? Would you homeschool?
I’ll address the homeschool question first. I think I was fairly explicit in my response to a question about school previously, but for the sake of this part of the conversation I will say explicitly, one of the biggest mistakes I’ve made in life is not committing to homeschooling my children. It was something I should have done when my firstborn was of age to start state school. It was something I was thinking before she was even born. I talked about it with my wife around that time, but I didn’t push myself to really explore how to make that a reality. I never pushed it. Instead, I went the route of getting the job and my wife getting a job and us looking to survive that way whilst entrusting our daughters to the state education system.
I don’t have any animosity or bitterness toward the state education system. There are people who really want to give children the best education they know and see the best way to do that through the state education system. I don’t live in great regret about my daughters going through the state education system, I don’t think they turn around and give me the look that wonders why I let them go through that. I’m even sure they’ve had a number of positive, life-affirming and truly constructive experiences in the system. They’ve certainly jumped the hoops to be accepted by mainstream society in that aspect. But I would homeschool if I could and if anyone preferred their child to be homeschooled and I could support that effort, I’d certainly do it because there’s just so much more to education and the development of children than the current system allows.
Steps I’ve taken to protect the mind of children.
The first step was to acknowledge, along with my wife, that as their parents, we are primarily responsible for how the worldviews of our children are shaped. It’s not social media, peer influence, educational inputs – we are. And how we do that is by example and by conversation.
In their formative years that would be about what they observed about our lives as we took them with us wherever we went. That would also be about the kind of issues that were important to us that we worked on and that we talked about.
To the extent that we can protect the minds of our children, it’s about how we equip them to think. There’s the element of challenging and shaping the way our children think in terms of having an idea of the good. Cultivating that in our children in terms of how they think is about behaviours and activities that we affirm and that we disapprove of not just for them for each other.
From that business about the idea of the good, there’s also the thing about critical thinking. The ability not to be gullible and accept everything that’s given to you, but to question it in the light of the idea of the good. I cannot stop my children from thinking about things in certain ways, part of the privilege of the parenting I have is to see how they develop their own thinking on things as they get older and give them the freedom to reach their own conclusions without the sense that they must only think how we think on things.
Steps to take to protect the mind of children.
The first thing on this score is to be aware of your own thinking. No point in a cup with holes in the bottom instructing another cup how not to leak. Having children has been great for me to see just how flawed some of my thinking has been and just how rooted some of my attitudes are and how they are unhelpful for me, let alone for other people. There are few things more harmful to children than seeing their carers be hypocrites. The incongruity can set up all kinds of issues for the children as well as build significant blockages in the relationship. And that will do tremendous damage to the thinking as far as the children are concerned.
Something I’ve mentioned earlier that is essential in protecting the thinking is making a big deal of right-thinking – what it looks like, how it’s developed, its benefits and how to treasure it. Making a big deal of that and celebrating that whenever it’s expressed can work wonders.
There is a challenge in parenting as a whole that affects the protection of the thinking of children. The challenge is the degree of control we want to exert in the development of the children. There’s the more liberal style that doesn’t want to interfere at all and looks to encourage as much freedom as possible as though a no-limits approach is the best way to help growth. Then there’s the strict style that exercises as much control on what’s taken and what’s being done with what’s being taken as much as possible as though the overly-paternalistic approach is the best way to help growth.
This setup usually leads to someone thinking that I’m going to promote finding a balance between the two. Nope, it’s not about the balance, it’s about the wise application of either approach and others where the child is concerned. Honestly, my tendency is to veer to a more liberal approach to my children, which is why I’m glad for wisdom to remind me that if I let my children take in any old thing and expect them to have the tools to digest it, then I will reap a harvest of confusion.
Q – Can a worldview with logical contradictions be true? Explain your answer.
A shrug of the shoulders is the response I can give at this stage. On the surface, it would appear that a worldview with logical contradictions cannot be true. Those are surface responses to the question, though. I don’t know if a worldview needs to be rid of logical contradictions to still be true. There’s also the issue of the role a logical contradiction plays in the importance of the worldview.
That’s my best effort at addressing your questions my brother, as ever I welcome critique or follow-up on that. As you do that, here are some questions, I’d be honoured if you answered:
Q – “Schools are, more or less, indoctrination camps for the religion of the state.” What is the religion of the state? How should children be brought up as opposed to this indoctrination?
Q – What are some of the best things that you recall learning from the time you spent at home with your parents and siblings?
Q – If you were shaping a curriculum for learning how to live what would be some of the subject areas or issues you would want to have covered and why? (The learners are in their twenties.)
What a wonderful privilege to engage in this conversation with you. Thanks for your time.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
C. L. J. Dryden
Life With CD 
One thought on “ADBC: 15 – Changes and the Children”