My grandson is almost seven months old. He lives with his mum and dad in Liverpool. On the notice board in my office I have a big photo of him. He’s laughing all over his face… wearing his first Liverpool kit. No wonder he’s happy.
Does dressing him in a Liverpool kit mean that he is being brainwashed or indoctrinated by narrow-minded parents and grandparents? Well, if one line of argument is right, we should probably all be in court for ‘shaping’ the little lad and not allowing him to grow up and make up his own mind.
One of the bizarre things clergy often get told is that parents want their baby baptised, but that they don’t want the child to be brought up in the life of the Church because ‘we want him/her to make his/her own mind up’. Apparently, this applies to religion, but not to any other aspect of a child’s life. So, we can play a particular type of music, provide any nurture framework shaped by any worldview or set of values, dress the kiddies according to our taste and… and pretend that this is all neutral territory and value-free in any ‘indoctrination’ sense. But, when it comes to shaping a child’s world view (which issues in practice and habit), anything is OK provided it isn’t religious.
How have we got to a position where some people think (uncritically assume?) that there is some ‘neutral’ ground – which they occupy – over against the ‘loaded’ ground occupied by, for example, religious people?
There is no neutral, value-free territory. Every child is brought up according to some world view or value framework which is often not argued for.
What has brought this to mind is the rather odd view I heard on the radio this afternoon in the context of the latest fostering controversy. It was to the effect that people are free to believe whatever they want, provided they don’t do anything with it. In other words, ‘belief’ is a private opinion which can only be acted upon if it conforms to someone else’s assumed norms.
So, if you ‘believe’ that living according to the precepts of Jesus Christ is good or essential, you are supposed to keep your ‘belief’ in the realms of opinion. But, if you ‘believe’ that no negative judgement should ever be made about any other practice or lifestyle, that is a ‘belief’ that can be given free rein. Is that not weird?
This is the real question behind some of the noisy debates occupying both airwaves and the digital world. Who decides what is ‘neutral’? And when did ‘belief’ get reduced to mere private opinion when inconvenient to those who consider themselves to be ‘neutral’?
These aren’t the only questions, but it seems to me that they are the ones most ignored.
Nick Baines's Blog 
March 2, 2011 at 12:06 am
I think people are easily fooled (or fool themselves?) into confusing reality or objective truth, and the interpretations and perceptions they have about it. Raising a child based only on what is scientifically provable would be, in my opinion, cruel: love, after all, cannot be proven to exist, and yet without it children do not thrive. So I think any attempt to claim we raise children based only on objective reality, leaving them to do the interpretation for themselves, is nonsense.
But a lot of people have been told to believe one thing or another, sometimes in order to make them behave a certain way, sometimes because people don’t really know what else to say, and then not had access to much (any?) appropriate support when their experiences don’t match what they’ve been taught. I can see why people mistrust the interpretations of religious institutions and I have a lot of time for anyone trying to protect a child from similar experiences. I’ve been told that if I don’t believe in God I’m going to hell. I’ve been told that Jesus can heal all my physical problems and if I am in pain then I must have done something wrong. I’ve been told that if I donate enough money to one church or another it will be a sign that I’m “chosen” for everlasting life. Thankfully I can recognise such nonsense when I see it, but there do seem to be a lot of people taken in by such approaches and I can see why people are uneasy.
March 2, 2011 at 4:42 am
So, are these parents just seeking a show for their parents or grandparents? They don’t seem to be versed in their own faith enough to realize that baptism is a sacramental promise to bring up the child in the faith and not merely a blessing.
Maybe a simple blessing of the child is in order.
March 2, 2011 at 6:34 am
What you are describing in your post (though you are chary of speaking explicitly here) is the bitter fruit “fostered” (!) on Britain by “New Labour”, a political cabal far removed from the Labour Party of Clement Atlee – who was certainly no Christian but who understood that Christianity and Christian family life were foundational to Britain.
“New Labour”, hosted by their genial onetime-Anglican leader Tony Blair, did not start the rot but they certainly accelerated it, not least through the Sexual Orientations Regulations (2007) and a host of other measures designed to coerce and re-educate the lumpen population. One of the ironies of the slew of cases of Christians losing their jobs or homes because they have fallen foul of the New Gay Religion is that so many of them are African Pentecostals; but gay trumps black today.
Although homosexuals are only a very small part of the population at large, they have had a disproportionately large influence on New Labour, through “Lord” Peter Mandelson (in many ways Blair’s mentor), “Lord” Chris Smith, and the ex-Reverend Chris Bryant MP. This alliance between atheists and liberal or former Christians is one of the striking features of Labour, who have set out to remake Britain in their own distorted image. Along the way they are cheered on by people like the Reverend Giles Fraser with his platform on the BBC and in St Paul’s, now campaigning for “gay marriage”.
Do you wonder why fewer and fewer serious Christians can take the Church of England seriously, when its “Establishment” figures are cheerleaders for liberal post-Christianity?
March 2, 2011 at 9:13 am
Surely it’s not that belief doesn’t show itself in practice. It’s that some of the practice that comes from belief is illegal/immoral. I might believe all kinds of things about people of different races, but to practice discrimination is illegal. The problem is when people want their beliefs enshrined in law.
March 2, 2011 at 9:17 am
I think you are touching on two separate issues.
One is the idea that children can make their minds up about something no-one ever talks to them about, which is patent nonsense. It’s nothing more than an “I don’t believe it, I’d rather they didn’t so I won’t tell them about it, but if they should believe in it later in life I could just about live with it”.
These parents are passing on precisely the beliefs they have and they kid themselves that they providing a belief-free zone.
The fostering issue is different, because I think what society is coming to is to say, quite clearly, we cannot stop you from having some repulsive beliefs in the name of religion but to us, they are now so repulsive and their psychological consequences for other people are known to be so serious that we cannot allow you to act on those beliefs. Or rather, you can live them for yourself but you cannot make others conform to them too.
We’re just not yet honest about admitting that this is what we’re saying. That the gay issue is going the same way slavery went, or apartheid, where it’s not ok any longer to want to treat little black children differently and tell them that God made them differently for a reason, however much your reading of the bible supports that view.
Of course, the religious mirror argument is “it’s ok to be gay as long as you don’t act on it”.
It’s the same stupid, not totally honest argument. We either accept or tolerate something or we don’t.
In the case of fostering, we will eventually get to the stage where we can clearly say that we do not actually tolerate some beliefs any longer.
Christianity’s answer could be not to allow itself to be defined by those beliefs alone. Because, really, when you pick it apart, no-one is disallowing the public expression of any single Christian tenet other than the minority occupation of claiming that what makes us Christian is to discriminate against gay people. The rest is smokescreen.
March 2, 2011 at 9:28 am
We all find our own path to God, no matter what our parents do 🙂
March 2, 2011 at 10:06 am
#5: “We’re just not yet honest about admitting that this is what we’re saying. That the gay issue is going the same way slavery went, or apartheid, where it’s not ok any longer to want to treat little black children differently and tell them that God made them differently for a reason, however much your reading of the bible supports that view.”
What a ludicrous comment. Are you not aware that it is *black Christians who have fallen foul of atheist New Labour’s Britain? Whenever have “little black children” been treated “differently” under English law?
And do you seriously think 4-10 year olds are “gay”?
March 2, 2011 at 10:08 am
#5: “In the case of fostering, we will eventually get to the stage where we can clearly say that we do not actually tolerate some beliefs any longer.”
It’s called Gleichschaltung. Still quite a bit of re-education needed.
March 2, 2011 at 10:34 am
I’d draw the line at making a child wear a Liverpool strip!
March 2, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“It’s called Gleichschaltung.”
Godwins law strikes again!
March 2, 2011 at 3:44 pm
We wear Liverpool shirts freely, voluntarily and proudly – they are a token of the grace offered to us 😆
March 2, 2011 at 5:01 pm
[…] See the rest here: Just keep it to yourself « Nick Baines's Blog […]
March 2, 2011 at 5:01 pm
[…] Visit link: Just keep it to yourself « Nick Baines's Blog […]
March 2, 2011 at 5:14 pm
A few of my friends have had kids in the last couple of years, none of them are in the slightest bit religious, but because of pressure from their parents they have had their children baptised. I think this is what you are seeing. I expect they are embarrassed to admit that they have done it out of a sense of duty or tradition but beyond that it means little to them.
As for the couple in the news story they would have been treated the same if they had been a non christian couple who expressed similar views, but not using their religion as an excuse. The only difference would be that the tabloid press and members of the church would not be so quick to run to their defence!
It is terrible to imagine what it must be like for a a young gay person to be put in a situation where they are made to feel the way they are is somehow shameful and sinful.
If you cant get your head around that then imagine being made to live your life as if you were gay; maybe that will give you some idea of what they go through.
March 2, 2011 at 5:18 pm
#10: Godwin’s Law was only ever in force in the Progressive Republic of Andelusia.
As a way of shutting down debate without thinking, it only works among timid people of no confidence, and for bigots unable to debate.
But I’m glad you know what Gleichschaltung means now.
March 2, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Kathryn: “I can see why people mistrust the interpretations of religious institutions and I have a lot of time for anyone trying to protect a child from similar experiences.”
I don’t buy this point of view. Plenty of people are sold the line that certain makes of car are ‘safe’ which is patent nonsense, are persuaded that buying or failing to buy certain products will make a significant difference to their state of being, which is also nonsense. How many are swayed, altogether, by such marketing ploys? If they have any sense at all, they recognise that something doesn’t ring quite true, that maybe the wool is being pulled over their eyes and they proceed with caution [hopefully] and come to their own conclusions and decisions, based on statistics or other sources of information plus their own observations. They might still have to learn the hard way. Lots of people use computers for nefarious practices but it doesn’t stop the rest of us using them for lawful and peaceable ones.
The fact that there are weird or dangerous people in any group, the fact that misleading lies are pedalled by one or another in any of them, can’t entail the decision to abandon all of them [or protect our children from all of them].. otherwise we would have to protect our children from e.g. ‘females’ ‘mothers’ ‘writers’ ‘teachers’ and a whole lot of other groups which are largely beneficial.
Where would I go and not meet with nonsense or dishonesty or foolishness? We can’t legislate for it, unfortunately, or avoid it by any other means than discernment, or learn about it by any other means than experience. If hard lessons learnt were a reason for avoidance we should certainly warn our children against loving one another …… and definitely from supporting Liverpool.
March 2, 2011 at 7:07 pm
I’ve seen people put right off the church by over-zealous religiosity in their parents, so you need to be careful. I’m Methodist, my wife is Muslim; the elder of the girls stayed with a Penetecostal aunt for a couple of years after their mother fled from Sierra Leone to Britain, and the younger had Islam forced upon her by her father when she wanted to be like her sister and go to church. They were disgusted when they came here and saw our one-hour services; they expected church to go on all day.
They weren’t exactly malleable, so when they finally came, after being caught up in the fighting, we let them make up their own minds. The elder goes to an African-style Pentecostal church; she dislikes the fundamentalism, but she’s with her own people. The younger believes in God, but hasn’t made up her mind which religion to follow him in. Seems fair enough to me.
March 3, 2011 at 8:25 am
dearsoeur
yes, but if the headmaster of a school tells you proudly that he has no anti-bullying policy because in his school bullying doesn’t happen, you would be wise not to send your child there.
You’re right, there are dangerous and silly people in every organisation and among every grouping of people.
But that’s not the same as joining a group that makes it a matter of policy to support something that is actively harmful to you.
March 3, 2011 at 10:33 am
Erika: I understand what you are saying but I think my answer to you would be that we have choices of schools and ways of improving or changing things through the various channels available. One bad experience doesn’t mean that you have to give up on organised schooling altogether, or mistrust all schools, though you might. I have friends who have chosen to self-educate as a result of their experiences.
The same goes for churches. There are plenty to choose from after all. I think my parents, if they were still around, would be horrified at the idea of ‘shopping around’ for a church but I have relocated a good deal and have learned, the hard way, how important it is.
On the subject of children … here’s a link to make everyone laugh. The caption says that Dad is tearing up a job rejection.
March 3, 2011 at 12:44 pm
dearsouer,
LOVE the clip, thank you!
Not everyone lives in towns where you can just pop to another church next door.
And when the governing bodies for all schools declares that bullying isn’t important and that the bullied have only themselves to blame, you’d be better off opting for home education than searching for the few schools that have an anti-bullying policy and implement it rigorously.
Yes, we can opt to try and make our local school better. Yes, we can grit our teeth and stay in a school with an abusive ethos.
But I would never blame anyone for opting for home education instead. We’re not all cut out for fighting.
Going back to churches, because unlike education, religion is not compulsory: It’s also one thing to have been brought up within a church and try desperately to find a way of being able to stay but quite another to look at churches from the outside and wonder whether to give them a try.
March 3, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I’m very dubious about the quality of home education; the data I’ve seen suggest that home-schooled kids often get no education worth mentioning. But I’ve taught in a lot of schools, and many of them do little or nothing about bullying, so it may be worth trying as a last resort. The real solution is to force schools to take the issue seriously.
March 3, 2011 at 10:08 pm
dearsoeur,
“The fact that there are weird or dangerous people in any group, the fact that misleading lies are pedalled by one or another in any of them, can’t entail the decision to abandon all of them [or protect our children from all of them].. otherwise we would have to protect our children from e.g. ‘females’ ‘mothers’ ‘writers’ ‘teachers’ and a whole lot of other groups which are largely beneficial.”
Absolutely — just because some religious institutions can get things wrong some of the time doesn’t mean all of them should be avoided at all costs. But I do think that caution is required, and that parents saying they want their children to “choose for themselves” are exercising caution, though I don’t think that abdicating responsibility in that way is always a coherent or useful response. At the same time, I don’t want to see a shift to a situation where one is considered something of a social outcast if one chooses not to attend church. Is raising one’s children within any particular religious framework because it is the default option more or less irresponsible than pretending it is possible to raise them without passing on any values?
I think there’s plenty of evidence that advertising and peer pressure work very well in some situations. Certainly I own many things I do not, strictly speaking, need, and though I do some research over some purchases I do not have the time or energy to take such pains with everything I buy. Certainly I have known many people who claim no belief but are involved in churches or other religious institutions because their family or friends expect it of them. This is a conundrum: should I be happy because, by their involvement, they may eventually come to believe? I definitely wish to extend a warm welcome to those who are uncertain, or the whole thing just becomes a sort of clique. But I do have some concern that people whose beliefs are entirely cynical but who remain involved in religion through peer pressure may contribute to the very problem of religion seeming hypocritical and flimsy. We cannot stop people being dishonest with themselves and others in order to belong, but we can remove much of the incentive for such behaviour by making everyone welcome, no strings attached.
Ultimately we do not buy beliefs, but live them out as best we can. While the choice to belong to a group of people (maybe a local church) is often seen as similar to a choice about buying a car or a house (“What can I get out of this, for what I put in? Is this right for me?”), maybe the question we should be asking is “What can I bring to this situation?” or “What does God ask of me in this situation?”. I think a commitment to belong to a community should be seen in a similar light. If parents seek to bring their child to baptism and feel they have nothing further to offer, what does that say about how the Church represents God in the world? Can we mend it by chastising the parents, or should we be asking what it is that they need?
I’d love to know the answers if clergy faced with such parents said “I don’t want to exert any pressure, but I’m curious: What would need to change here to make you happy to bring your child to church?” Baptism is a commitment, and that needs to be taken seriously and made clear, but the concerns of parents are real and should also be taken seriously. I think it could be a very fruitful dialogue.
Or maybe it would just put even more people off.
March 4, 2011 at 10:06 am
Hi Nick, as an avid West Ham fan, I wondered wether you was wearing your Liverpool shirt with pride when we turned you over 3-1 😉 You even had Gerrard, Carragher et al in the side.
March 4, 2011 at 10:12 am
Clement, I am embarrassed. Onward and upward… (And I hope West Ham stay up.)
March 4, 2011 at 10:47 am
Kathryn: “I have known many people who claim no belief but are involved in churches or other religious institutions because their family or friends expect it of them. This is a conundrum: should I be happy because, by their involvement, they may eventually come to believe?”
An anecdote. Some years ago my mother-in-law, concerned because she had noticed that I wasn’t currently attending a church, asked “why?”
Me: I suppose because there’s lots of things I have trouble believing in.
Her: Like what?
Me: Well, like ‘God’ for instance.
Her: [ruffled] Dear oh dear, you shouldn’t let that worry you. I’ve never believed in God but it’s never stopped me going to church.
At the time her answer struck me as so funny I couldn’t take it seriously. Now, she is approaching her 80th birthday, after a lifetime of involvement in the life of her parish, and we’re having trouble finding a venue large enough to accommodate all the people who will want to be there. There is no doubt that she has shone a light into lots of people’s lives.
On an intellectual level I probably still wouldn’t see eye to eye with her conception of ‘God’ and I’m certain she wouldn’t think much of mine. Perhaps we would share an understanding of what it means for His kingdom to come on earth though.
March 15, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I’ve blogged my thoughts on this:
http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-which-i-disagree-with-bishop-nick.html
April 10, 2011 at 2:54 pm
[…] Bishop Nick Baines pointing out the incredible silliness of anyone who thinks you can raise children ‘neutrally’. […]