Zrim,
One of the interesting aspects to the prevailing notions of parochial education, as seen in this discussion, is the idea that children and adults are somehow in different categories with regard to their respective spiritual states. Grounded in the understanding that they are in impressionable developmental stages it is not further more carefully considered that a distinction must be made between creational and spiritual development. Rather, the differences are collapsed and it is assumed that there is a direct correspondence between creational and spiritual status. The upshot is that children must be hedged in while adults are free to roam in and out of sacred and secular venues with nary a worry.
First, there is no such thing by secular, if by secular you mean something that isn’t dependent upon and reflective of some faith system or religion. Adults are free to roam in and out of venues that are informed and controlled by various faiths.
Second, I would suggest that the way you make the distinction between creational and spiritual development is gnostic. You are suggesting that children can be put in a climate where they are taught to think in an adversarial way to Biblical Christianity and yet they will not be affected in their spiritual development. This makes me think that the only way I will understand your backward perspective is if I spend some time standing on my head.
The idea that what you are calling creational development is isolated and separated from spiritual development is just one more example of the constant dualism’s that we find in the R2kt virus system. Because there is a dualism between creational and spiritual development it is possible to saturate your children in a creational pagan school setting without there be any effect on your children’s spiritual developoment. Dualism. Gnosticism.
But according to this logic, the older convert, say in high school, college or beyond, should drop out of his/her secular educational environs until he/she is declared “satisfactorily grounded in the faith” (whatever that might entail).
Actually, if they are not grounded in the faith that might not be a bad idea unless they have the capacity to learn what is not true and what is true at the same time. I have personally known some people who became converted in post-graduate studies and were able to do that.
But nobody ever actually seems to demand this of older converts; they only demand it of physically younger believers. Not only that, but this seems to suggest that by virtue of an older age alone sinners are somehow less vulnerable to the effects and influences of sin.
You cite that nobody demands this of older converts and yet you frequently observe what a mess the current Church is. Could there be a correspondence between those two statements?
So, I think this observation of yours, bounces off of somebody who thinks it would be a good idea for older converts to somehow get grounded in their faith as quickly as possible. Another thing that needs to be said here is that given the way that God designs life, our foundation of truth is to be laid when we are young. If we don’t get it when we are young, the nature of life makes it difficult to get it later.
Evidently, the ages of 18 and/or 21 must be the point at which this vulnerability is significantly lessened. Does that really make sense, especially when plenty of fully grown and schooled-up believers clearly can get so much wrong while younger ones can be observed quietly remaining faithful? But I just can’t bring myself to admit that my physical age hedges me in…isn’t that Jesus’ job? I know it drawls howls around here to suggest that catechesis with dad every night buries the influences of either sacred or secular educators every day, but something tells me that at root in much of this child/adult divide is more a modern idea that youth are to be handled with kid gloves because they are so very different. This over against a Christian notion that sin is an equal opportunity affliction and cares very little for creational walls built to keep it out and righteousness in.
Your quip about Jesus’ job indicates that you seem to think that Jesus works apart from means. Sure it is Jesus’ job and the way he often does his job his by parents being faithful to the vows they made when they brought their children to Baptism.
Second, I would say that most home schoolers don’t suddenly set their children free at 18 or 21 the way you are suggesting. Home school parents practice what might be called incremental exposure. Home school parents put their children in situations that are appropriate to their age all along the way. They then debrief and train. In such a way when the children get to 18 or 21 the children have been trained. Even then though, when they attend the pagan universities there will be phone calls home asking parents about what they learned in this or that class. Indeed, with my oldest daughter I had to attend a class to politely inform the professor he was getting the puritans wrong in some pretty significant ways. He received my correction. Said he would look into my points and later came back to my daughter and told her, “your father was right.” So, Zrim, the training doesn’t stop at 18 or 21 and it doesn’t even stop while they are in school.
You really are constructing straw men.
