parenting and your worldview

You’ve no doubt wondered how you got to thinking about the world in the way that you do. Turns out your worldview is not really as ‘yours’ as you might like to believe. No need to be alarmed though – it’s not really supposed to be yours. At least not in the way we’ve imagined.
The influence of our parents shapes most of how we look at life (the big questions of meaning and meta-physics, moral codes, social norms). Brain researchers like Dr. Ian Wishaw (one of my professors and a leading brain researcher in Canada) will tell you that most of the neural pathways in your brain are established by the time you reach about 4 or 5 years old (right about the time when language acquisition reaches it ‘boiling point’). Inevitably then the core of our worldview has already been established before we are even aware of us needing or wanting to have one. Sure a child cannot express all of the metaphysical concepts that are expected out of an adult but the foundational neural triggers are already in place to guide the individual toward a specific point of view. Knowing this can help us immensely as parents.
As a reasonable parent, I might be worried that my influence might unduly sway my children toward a particular perspective without the advantages of critical thought on the part of my children. There is a school of thought that advocates critical ‘free’ thinking as a means of allowing children to choose either a religious or an irreligious perspective. The use of the word free is hardly honest when we look at the science. We just are not free thinkers – able to think of anything we wish – we are indelibly constrained by the physical capacity and the environmental influence of our given context. We are not free to reason any which way we want to. But here is what is possible. It is possible for parents to give their children critical thinking skills that actively challenge the perspectives that they have received through parental influence and those they might encounter in various arenas of life.
Ryan’s post here serves to debunk some of the prevailing logic in some of the atheist camps that suggests that free thinking will inevitably lead to an irreligious worldview. Ryan aptly points out how biased the illusion of free thinking really is but he also makes a great point about the need for parents to accept the choices our children make even when they are not the ones we would have preferred. What he doesn’t point out (but I am almost convinced he would agree with) is that every worldview must make a step of faith. Faith is not just relegated to a belief in God. It takes just as much faith to figure we came from some random accident. This should not surprise us since we know that so much of what we receive as worldview as children has to be accepted outright since it is hardly testable by a preadolescent brain. We put faith in our parents and accept their influence. Dale McGowan gets that part of the story right in his latest video on Parenting Beyond Belief. You should watch his video so I have included it here…

I think McGowan gets it in many ways but I do not agree with his parenting strategy around influencing ideological (and ultimately religious) views. His tactic is to frame every conviction he espouses with a caveat that it is merely his opinion and that it should be evaluated against other perspectives on the matter. He banks on the phenomenon of reaction that is typical (and well documented) in the adolescent years where the child will shape their own convictions against those handed to them by their parents. I feel sorry for him. It seems he needs to apologize to his kids for holding a conviction – convictions that I am sure have been found to be very practically useful in his own life. What he has done in my view is devalue even if ever so slightly his own views so that influence that he claims for himself is lost. What will happen when his kids meet someone who is not willing to caveat their convictions in the same way?. Enter Television Evangelist…
I think McGowan is right to suggest that as parents we anticipate the reactive stage and I really like the idea of encouraging our children to encounter other worldviews early on. I also think it is imperative to create the space for our children to make ideological mistakes-to espouse ideological perspectives that are less than accurate. What the child should be aware of early on is that any perspective they choose to hold will meet with a challenge. But instead of a caveat on my beliefs I want to create an atmosphere where my children are already at an early age willing and able to challenge me on my convictions and I can challenge theirs. I said to a friend of mine recently that I want my kids to be exposed to the big questions of life first of all in their own home. What I mean is that there is no way that some pot-shotting atheist philosophy prof ought to be able to gain the upper hand on my child when they enter university. There should be no way that my child should become entranced by the magical spells of the word/faith brand of religion. If my child chooses to accept any of those options I want to know that they have fought hard critically to dispute and rebuff and actively engage the claims of these perspectives. Oh and by the way I expect no less should they choose to follow convictions similar to mine.
I have no qualms telling my kids what I believe because they are my convictions. I also show them that from time to time I am able to admit that I have gotten it wrong when a better argument has been presented. I don’t have to apologize for by opinions or denounce them as trivial since they are my own. I feel good about what I believe and still will come to believe. I have a really hard time with arrogant people who claim to have found ‘the truth’ and refuse to consider the relevant arguments against the position they have taken. I think it is possible to hold convictions strongly while still being humble enough to admit that you are wrong. I hope that is what my kids will see in me. I hope they are willing push and challenge and fight for every inch of ideological ground they gain. “I think that as parents, we do have an obligation to teach our children to think carefully and critically and to honour the choices they make.” (Ryan) The key here is in the last part of the statement. Ideological perspectives are irrelevant if they do not affect action. And conviction should match the willingness to act on those perspectives.
For now though, I am willing to run around the house in my underwear and play my music too loud cause after all they are going to rebel anyways right?

Trust and...

these are more entries to Post Secret

you can find a link to the site on the left but be forewarned the images and ideas expressed are not tame. None the less I think this site provides an interesting commentary on the shape of our world.

New Web Site to check out - BIG THINK

For those of you interested in this - I've posted this video to some of Steven Pinkers thoughts. This type of thought was pretty common in my philosophy class last semester and I think it is worth contending with (that's different than endorsing - ok). It's a more condensed version of some of the stuff that Ryan posted on here
here is the link http://www.bigthink.com/faith-beliefs/1132

deviance

In my class on Deviance and Social Control we talked about how difficult it is to really nail down a good definition of deviance.

There are a few basic takes on this…

There's the absolutist approach – this defines deviance as something that is somehow intrinsically or inherently wrong. That is, there is something about the action itself that makes it wrong. This definition would, as you can imagine, be pretty rigid and inflexible. You might say that me wearing a speedo is always wrong but you'd be hard pressed to keep that perspective with regards to my personal/romantic dress code in my own home.

There's the Statistical deviation approach – which suggest that behaviours that are statistically rare are deviant. Almost no one holds to this view. There are many things that are statistically rare but are hardly deviant. The fact that I can imitate Nacho Libre's famous love song might be rare but it is hardly deviant.

There's the Harmfulness approach – which suggests that if a certain action is harmful in some way it must be deviant. This seems like a decent approach but we know that there are plenty of things that aren't really harmful that are still considered deviant. The fact that I can regurgitate the meal I just ate and show it to you may be deviant but it isn't especially harmful to me or you. I can pick my nose and it hurts no one unless I have just cut my nails and make my nose bleed…you get the point…

The normative approach suggests that culture sets the guidelines for what is right and wrong. The question is here who controls culture.

This approach is similar to the constructionist approach that says that deviance is a social construction whose purpose is to control society in some significant way. Deviance is defined in a struggle between the powerful and those who comply. This is kind of like when I was a youth pastor on a weekend retreat. When I entered the cabin for night what I said was the law. If someone wanted to fart my recourse was to give them the Human Blanket (deviant in itself from some points of view). If I wanted to fart – I did. I got to say what was what.

The reactive approach is almost opposite of the absolutist approach and prides itself on being the most objective and unbiased. This one basically contends that something is deviant only because and when it elicits a reaction especially a negative one. There is nothing intrinsically deviant in and of itself – just as a result of a negative response to some action or condition. This view would say that there is nothing wrong with me leaving my socks on the floor around the house – it is only my wife's strong and negative reaction that makes it such. Try explaining that to Char…

So then the question comes – how do you define deviance?

Funny thing is that Christianity has been preoccupied with sin for millennia. We have made it a huge part of our theological enterprise. Of course we all are most comfortable with the way we define deviance for ourselves but the Christian perspective suggests that not only can our own ideas not be reliable in determining what is right and wrong but there is something that transcends all these approaches and claims the authority to create standards of deviance. I remember debating at length as a boy whether certain things were wrong in certain situations and not in others or whether there was this absolute standard that made things right or wrong.

What’s wrong with kids these days?

Adult: Young people are living at home well into their twenties and beyond.
Youth: What you trying to get rid of us.
Adult: Aren't you tied a little too close to Mama's apron strings, still latched on to the parental teat?
Youth: Uh, there's another viable option?
A: Well you have a degree don't you?
Y: Worth only a third as much as yours since there are 3 times as many of us graduating with the same thing.
A: You just aren't trying hard enough. I mean no one ever handed me a job out of thin air – I had to work for it – it takes effort.
Y: I can get a job all right – just not one that makes you think I am an adult.
A: Well you do look silly with that stupid uniform from Taco Bell. I mean for a university grad shouldn't you be chasing your career. Instead you show up late for work – 'call in sick' and expect to stay employed.
Y: I haven't decided what I want to do with my life yet
A: Typical – adrift – aimless…
Y: Or maybe the economic and social landscape is changing so quickly that it is just that much tougher to make sense of the chaos left in the wake of fortune grabbing baby-boomers like you.
A: Well maybe things wouldn't be so confusing if you didn't spend so much time getting high and getting laid.
Y: Right. When you did that stuff in the 60's it was freedom. Now it's immoral.
A: That was different. We had a legitimate revolution to fight against the repressive status quo. Every generation has had its war.
Y: We just want peace.
A: If you even knew how to spell it - let alone use it in a sentence.
Y: Come on don't be a "h8r".
A: See what I mean, honestly,
Y: Well right me off if you like. Truth is I'm looking for a few kind souls who can help me find a life with a deeper meaning than the pursuit of a pay check or severance package. I mean the idea of adulthood you have created doesn't even catch my attention. You work your ass off to achieve as much upward mobility as possible, hoarding as much as possible for your self. Busyness has given you ulcers, and heart disease both physically and emotionally. Three wives later and a life mortgaged to foreclosure you keep telling yourself that it will all be worth it when you retire. Exactly, when you have Alzheimer's and two strokes – tell me that your all inclusive cruise to the Bahamas is really all its cracked up to be. So you can look at my faults and write me off. You can call me names or create these elaborate stereotypes of what kind of generation I am. Supported by stats you can tell me I more wicked and wasteful. Maybe you think that if you insult or accuse me enough I might just get pissed off enough to care. And if I cared maybe you could get through to me. Is that what you think? Well you're wrong. If life is what you've shown it to be – if growing up means I gotta live like you. I don't want it - I am not interested. So why should I care that I am not measuring up to an idea of life I am not even interested in. Now please could you leave me alone I need to take this call on my new iPhone.
A: You have one of those?
Y: Yes
A: I can't seem to get mine set up properly.
Y: Have you tried that new downloadable utility from Apple?
A: I’ve heard about it but I can’t seem to get to it with my service provider.
Y: Here let me look at that…

secrets and humanity...

WARNING: the contents of this post might push a few boundaries that you may not be prepared to cross.
Tonight, I watched this interview here highlighting Frank Warren's website and subsequent books called POSTSECRET which can be found here.
Frank has invited people to send him thier deepest, darkest, wildest, secrets on a postcard. He recieves a thousand or so each week and posts only 20 on his blog site. If you go there you will see this...

or this...

and even this..

but like I said - there is stuff on his sight that you might find disturbing. And I suppose I have to admit here to at least some level of voyeristic inclination into other people's thoughts and realities. But I am far more intrigued and motivated by what this sight has to say about the human condition. The premise of having a place where the things you choose or dare not say are openly displayed but not quite revealed makes this idea something unique in the its approach to human social, emotional, and mental well being.
A post card is a very small place to encapsulate any idea and as is suggested in the interview it often, I suppose, leaves much more uncovered than it reveals.
Tomorrow, morning I will chew on this as I go for my walk. I'll be thinking about confession, trust, privacy vs. transperancy, and a whole lot more I suspect...

Jesus was sinless right?

Sermon on Sunday made me think…
It’s interesting that we always talk about Jesus being the sinless atonement for our sins. I’m just wondering how we measure that statement. Sometimes it feels like we have to do a bunch of wiggling to make that idea true. Lets’ look at a couple ideas…
According to whose standards is/was Jesus sinless:
Measured against the religious laws of the day as up held by the Pharisees Jesus could not have been sinless. We often look at Jesus’ trail as evidence that the Pharisees did not have anything on Jesus. Truth is they had a lot on Jesus – otherwise Jesus would not have been a threat to them. Jesus broke the rules of cleanliness, working on the Sabbath. He contravened the prescriptions against association with women and other undesirables. He allow a harlot to perform an intrinsically provocative act. What the Pharisees did not have on Jesus was something to put him to death.
Now of course we easily dismiss the Pharisaic laws because of their own hypocrisy. But we should not dismiss them so easily. After all, their laws were the laws of the religious context that Jesus lived in. And let’s not forget that many of those same laws have been upheld over the years in the church. Working on Sunday, rules about association have al been a part of the church’s historical perspective. So why does Jesus get to break the rules and still be called sinless. None of the rest of us could get away with it. Is it because the fact that he was God that he gets to operate by his own set of laws or regulations? If that is true then how are we supposed know which laws are supposed to be followed?
But then there is that time at the temple. Did Jesus have a good reason for being angry? You bet! But the fact was that he was angry. And his anger affected other people.
He makes wine and drinks it also –
So how do we account for all that?
Jesus needs to be sinless in order for his death and resurrection to mean anything at all. But Jesus would not have and been considered sinless back in his day – shoot he wouldn’t get a clean grade in our more ‘enlightened’ age. So how does he do it?
I think that the deal is that Jesus is living a principled life. It’s not that he chose a new set of standards to live by. He made his actions match the principles that guided the intention of the laws. So in places where the laws matched his principles he followed them. Where they did not he chose other actions which seemingly broke the convention.
This makes me think that it is important to continually evaluate things we call sin to see if they match the principles that God has set up for human life…

this is pretty sweet

watch out for the bird at the end - especially since the last post!

up to three months for kissing...

Richard Richard
Most of us probably laughed off this seemingly innocuous little scene. But there are a few angles that sorta catch me on this:
-Gere is obviously well 'lubricated'. Should we dismiss improper conduct for so reasons of voilitional inhibition?
-How do we honor/tolerate the cultural sensibilities of other cultures?
-What is the role of the media in 'spreading' the sensational transgressions of our (or other) cultures? (I mean have you noticed the prominence of 'entertainment news' shows)
But the most intriguing to me is...
-Should we be bothered at the acceptance of a more publically vulgar society?

What is our responsibility to people who choose not to follow or are ignorant of Jesus?

I recently lead a roundtable discussion with youth workers on the issue of ‘reaching non-churched teens’. The discussion was lively. I was struck by a few thoughts from the various perspectives that were represented.
Ideas about how pluralism changes our perspective on ‘reaching’:::
We have been conditioned to see Christianity as something to be defended. We are in defence mode. So our approach with non-followers of Jesus is to convince them of the truth of the gospel while defending it from the places where its exclusive claims come in conflict with other religious perspectives. Apologetics while important as a technique to define and refine doctrine and theology is limited in its ability to provide the vehicle for people to ‘get to Christ’. Instead I would suggest that our defensive attitude has been harmful in exasperating the smorgasbord approach to religion prevalent in North America. This classic approach is played out on front door steps between Christians and Mormons. But when we teach our children that Christianity needs primarily to be defended in the face of other religious perspectives we handcuff our children. Their faith perspective is only maintained as long as they have the resources to know and defend truth. When those run out they are liable not only to stop trying to convince others but to lose their own faith position.
We must realize that truth does not so much need to be defended as to be proved. Through our lives. That is to say that if we believe following Jesus to be the best way to live our lives better prove it. Take marriage for instance: what would societies response be to the church if when they looked at the church they saw that not only were we able to get married and stay married but that we experienced the best marriages on the planet?
That would not only be appealing but would provide a convincing argument about how and why marriage should be the way it is.
Ideas about how moralism affects ‘reaching’…
I feel like so much of our focus in trying to ‘convert’ people is to change their morals. It seems like the primary thing for us. If our primary objective is to change people’s behaviour aren’t we missing the point of the miraculous power of the gospel and reducing it to little more than a glorified self help project or group therapy experience. Time after time we notice how Jesus encounters with people rarely demanded action on their part but that when they encountered his redemptive work in their lives they were compelled to change their behaviour. Behaviour modification seems to be a natural consequence for most people who encountered Jesus. Perhaps when we focus on changing other people’s behaviour we focus on the wrong thing. Plus behaviour modification is often so self serving. We want people to change to be more like us so that we are validated in our own convictions and lifestyle. Perhaps considering our duty or responsibility to serve the people around us should be our primary focus. As mini-Christs we should ask the question: how can I serve this person so that they experience the unmerited redemption of Christ in their lives.