Like Button

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Protect or Shelter?

Like some of my other entries, this is going to be more of a question than a position. (Hmmm, maybe if I were more opinionated I'd get a bigger readership? Naw!) In a recent exchange (about home schooling), the idea was offered that good parents should keep their kids from bad teaching. I'm not responding directly to that here. I'm simply taking the notion, expanding it to its natural place, and asking questions.

It is abundantly clear -- no one that I know disputes it, including me -- that parents need to shelter their children from certain things. No 3-year-old needs to see a brutally murdered body. Young children don't need to see sexual activities. We know that if developing little minds hear a constant barrage of expletives, they will assume it to be normal and use it regularly themselves. All of this is a given. What I'm wondering, however, is at what point "protected" changes to "sheltered"? At what point does "good parenting" become "bad parenting" in that the parents, in their efforts to protect the child, have failed to teach him or her to think and evaluate and understand? There is, of course, the concept of age-appropriate (although "age-appropriate" is better defined as "maturity-appropriate"). But at what point is it that our efforts to protect our children become damaging?

The notion expressed in the exchange I mentioned was that parents wanted to keep their children from being told things that "they [the parents] found offensive" or were "counter to their belief". Again, please be aware up front that I am not addressing that exchange. I am addressing the question I've asked in the previous paragraph using the exchange as an example. Now, we know that regardless of our vigilance and hard work, unless we sequester our children in a tower away from newspapers, books, TV, and all outside communication, at some point they will come into contact with offensive positions that are counter to our beliefs. It is simply unavoidable. Even if you locked them in that sealed tower, at some point they would have to enter the world and be subjected to all manner of offensive, false beliefs and ideas. The question, then, is how to deal with it.

When my boys were young, I started preparing them. I told them (for instance), "Son, at some point someone is going to tell you that God didn't create the universe. They will give you other ideas. And they won't be 'crazy people'. They will be people who seem rational and trustworthy. You need to know how to deal with it." As they grew, we'd discuss varying ideas. When they got to be high schoolers, I would actually "joust" with them. I would present to them a false idea, defended as well as anyone who actually held the idea could defend it. We would "debate" the notion in a friendly, controlled environment where they could learn to analyze and evaluate ideas, recognize falsehood, and defend the truth. Before we finished the "match", either they would have figured out what was wrong with the idea I offered or I would have helped them through the reasoning process to the truth. My idea was that I was raising young "knights" who were, at this stage, "squires" in need of training. As such, I subjected them to all manner of offensive, false beliefs and ideas for the purpose of training them to recognize it.

You see, we all have a variety of beliefs. Some of them are true; some are not. Some of what you believe and some of what I believe right now is wrong ... and we don't know it. And there is a large body of beliefs out there that is wrong ... and we do know it. The trick is to tell which is which, and the most difficult part is to tell when we are holding positions that are wrong. It seems to me that if all we are ever offered is our parents' perspective of what is true (and we parents, if we are good and honest, believe we are always giving our kids what is true), how will they learn to 1) evaluate whether or not their parents were 100% accurate (no parent is 100% accurate) and 2) evaluate whether or not the ideas they are offered outside of the home are accurate?

When it comes to kids, there is "protected" and there is "sheltered". One is good and one is bad. One is vital and one is fatal. How do we draw that line? Are we doing our kids a favor by blocking all ideas that are opposed to our beliefs? I realize that monitoring what our kids are told, discussing it with them, and teaching them to handle this stuff is a lot of time and work. Isn't it what they need? Or am I mistaken? Do kids need just the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God?

6 comments:

Jim Jordan said...

Great thoughts, Stan. As part of our teaching , we need to prepare our kids for those challenges. I loved the idea of debating them taking the world's view.

will said...

Yes, teaching your kids to think critically and actually evaluate ideas is a necessary practice.

I would raise a related issue, though. Many ideas are conveyed in dishonest ways. Not so much because your kids are being told lies (though that, of course, occurs), but because techniques are used that overwhelm rationale processes. Say, for example, video, music, etc. permit a person to absorb ideas and underlying assumptions uncritically. That this is true is strongly supported by the fact that business choose marketing techniques. These are aware that purchasing decisions are made for reasons often far removed from the rational. The same is true about ideas.

You're quite correct about the need to teach critical thinking skills, but these are not necessarily cognitive abilities of young children - and at what point is exposure to manipulative tactics something from which it is appropriate to protect them?

Stan said...

will,

The non-cognitive messages we (not just our kids) are given are certainly a problem ... and not just for our kids. These are the some of the things that we need to teach our kids (and ourselves) to recognize and evaluate. I have a friend who told his kids, "If you want to listen to any particular music, the rule is that you and I need to sit down and listen to it together and discuss it and then we can determine whether or not you'll be listening to it in the future." He taught his kids to examine the music they heard rather than merely absorb it. It actually worked.

You ask the same question I do. When is it appropriate and when is it not? I wrote this post as a question because I don't have the answers.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

While I disagree with your 'protect' vs 'shelter' dualism; you raise a valid point. However I believe that the proper Biblical words are 'arm', 'train' 'equip', etc. We need to be teaching our children (in a 24/7 way, see posts under German homeschooling) the law of God; the patterns and precepts of Scripture. We need to be combining memorization and study of Scripture with specific defenses against specific attacks.
Do we arm our children against fornication by pretending it doesn't exist?? No. Scripture teaches clearly that we arm them by teaching about the sin of fornication (Proverbs), illustrating Gods wonderful gift of sex in marriage via our relationships with our own spouses and Scriptural example (Song), and by providing them with wives/husbands (I Cor 7).
Do we equip our children against postmodernism by avoiding french films? No. We teach clearly that Truth exists (I am the way...), that Gods Word is truth (Psalm 19, II Tim 2), that Satan is the father of lies (ref?). Watch the french film together (as part of your homeschooling program :) and stop it frequently, pointing out the bizarre contradictions.
It is not a question of how much of the world to let them see, but of how much of Gods truth you oppose it with. Counteract the subtle lies with the shining sword.

Stan said...

von, I agree with most of what you wrote ... except that I would recommend skipping the French film. I mean, seriously, what's the point of such mindlessness. (Humor, my friend, just humor.)

(And I am not going to ask about your use of the phrase "providing them with wives/husbands.")

The Schaubing Blogk said...

(And I am not going to ask about your use of the phrase "providing them with wives/husbands.")

If you read my blogs at all, you probably don't need to.