Morality in the Schools
I have frequently "debated" and discussed with non-Christian family members about the foundations for morality. The relativistic foundation that is, in my opinion dictated, by secularism was a major pushing point that directed me away from Atheism. I believe in "blacks and whites" in regards to morality.
Recently I went to the first Parent-Teacher conference. It was an interesting experience and one part that particularly interested me was when the teacher briefly discussed some social issues in the classroom. She mentioned that there was a fair amount of "clique-like" behavior amongst the girls in my daughters class and she made it a point to note than Kelsey really didn't play much of a role in it - to her credit (the teacher said). Perhaps full of pride, I told the teacher that I took a very hard line with my kids when I hear that sort of talk ("so and so is MY best friend, not yours!" or "I'm not your friend anymore, I'm so and so's friend now!"). I simply won't stand for it and I have made it a distinct point to nip that behavior in the bud - bringing out the big guns of Christ's teachings to my kids. Despite all of my parental failings (and believe me there are many) perhaps this aspect has proven succesful.
After I had told the teacher about my hardline approach on this issue, she mentioned that they also have lessons about "respect" and such. It occurred to me that in some homes this will be the only form of formal moral instuction kids will get...yes they might get discipline at home, but as far as a structured lesson on the basis of morality, for many I suspect, the schools are the only place. It also occurred to me that while the teacher talked - albeit briefly - about the "curriculum" of "respect instruction" that she really could not use the word "love."
Noted theologian and comdeian George Carlin makes fun of the notion of "an invisible man in the sky sending down commandments" (my paraphrase), but frankly I find the alternative (the government sending down commandments?) much less palatable. Thank God for the Church and her absolutes.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
first, mere morality doesn't redeem us. Christ does. second, there are numerous examples in scripture where morality (ie, a social rule/convention/law) was overturned for the sake of something greater.
seems to me the pharisees argued for black and white moral absolutism and were so often angered by Christ's preaching and acting out a higher way of life.
also, how does mercy interact with morality? if it is always the black-and-white case that XYZ moral law is wrong, and should be punished accordingly... then where does mercy/grace fit in? does God, in giving and offering grace, subvert black-and-white morality in terms of punishments?
if there IS an absolute to strive towards... it is not morality... it is holiness. holiness transcends morality.
holiness has first and foremost a relational context that gives behavior its context of a life in and with God. mere 'morality' can't. even the word itself... comes from the latin 'more'... which means a social convention or norm. its context is society... not God.
that's not to say that i'm a relativist. i think holiness leads someone towards being a relationist.
ie, raping a child is ALWAYS wrong... period... but not because of some abstract social norm/rule. but because a relationship is destroyed.
drinking scoth can be good AND bad... depending on its relational context. ie, paul (in Romans) speaking of eating meat offered to idols. the point is not the meat, OR the idols... the point is the relational context. are you eating meat in the presence of a weaker brother, and harming the relationship you have?
holiness gives you so many wonderful paths to go down. and allows for subversive mercy to win the day when the law would merely kill.
before you go crazy, knowing we've had this discussion in the past.. i'm not saying that certain behavior cannot ALWAYS be wrong. it can. but holiness gives a deeper context as to why.
)( s
I think we define morality differently. I would say that morality is not constrained to social constructs. So, would you be happier if I stopped using that dreaded word morality and used "holiness" instead?
Again, I will insist upon practicality here: You daughter comes home from school and informs you that in class today they learned that there is nothing wrong with men sleeping with men. How do you address this? Is there not an absolute teaching of the Church on this matter or will you insinuate that in certain circumstances it MIGHT be okay?
I mean, taking an absolutists approach doesn't neccesitate being an ass about it, does it? Neither does (in my simple mind) calling something immoral neccesitate punishment.
Jesus stopped the men from stoning the adultress, but none-the-less told the woman afterwards to "go and sin no more." This to me rings with all sorts of absolutes...but not the sort of absolutes I think you accuse me of.
Saying that something is wrong because it destroys a relationship is an absolute statement, no? I would not disagree with your statement AT ALL, but I'm not sure that I see it as being any less absolutist in my perspective. More and more our cultural norms (our "moarlity" if you will) is moving further and further away from an Orthodox understanding of what things actually do hurt relationships - in other words what two adult people do in the privacy of their own home cannot possibly hurt any relationships - or can it?
Black and whites...of course there are black and whites, thought they may not be clear and easy to discern all the time. Your own statement of destroying relationships is an exceptional example.
I think your preconceived notion of "morality" is different that my admittedly more simple and likely inaccurate understanding of the term.
In the real world...I STILL have to teach my children about holiness while they go to school and are taught that there is no such thing. And THAT is an absolute.
you wrote:
So I should encourage our public schools to teach "holiness"?
>>you could try! but you wont get any farther than trying to ask them to teach moral absolutes. depending on the teacher, of course. i understand its a dilemma. my baby is only 8mos old. i currently loathe the idea of sending her to public school. not so much because of the teachers/curriculum... but because of the peer pressures to listen and dress like brittany spears.
Again, I will insist upon practicality here: You daughter comes home from school and informs you that in class today they learned that there is nothing wrong with men sleeping with men. How do you address this? Is there not an absolute teaching of the Church on this matter or will you insinuate that in certain circumstances it MIGHT be okay?
>>of course. holiness does not imply that certain behaviours are not absolutely wrong. but if i spend time with her explaining why the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong, to do her OR the church and credit i will need to talk about relational issues.
Jesus stopped the men from stoning the adultress, but none-the-less told the woman afterwards to "go and sin no more." This to me rings with all sorts of absolutes...but not the sort of absolutes I think you accuse me of.
>>sure. this is not a big deal. we're perhaps not disagreeing so much. its just that i read in scripture plenty of accounts where it appears that someone did something immoral (Christ included) based on either the law, or on the law+social convention, and in each case, there was another dynamic at play, greater than merely "behaving". ie, abraham/isaac, joseph, hannah, david, job, Christ eating the heads of grain, Christ healing on the sabbath, Christ dining with tax collectors, etc...
Saying that something is wrong because it destroys a relationship is an absolute statement, no? I would not disagree with your statement AT ALL, but I'm not sure that I see it as being any less absolutist in my perspective.
>>it is a matter of emphasis. you seem to emphasize the behavior. i want to emphasize the relationship. they are BOTH important, but i suppose what i react to is the general milieu in our society, where the term
'morality' is most often used in a way that ignores relationality, allows little room for mercy, and focuses merely on behavior. ie, there are many who would say it is absolutely wrong and immoral for you as a christian to drink scotch and smoke a pipe and watch R rated movies. but surely you can see that those behaviors CAN be wrong... but not intrinsically... they can be sinful depending on the context. and context IS relationship.
More and more our cultural norms (our "moarlity" if you will) is moving further and further away from an Orthodox understanding of what things actually do hurt relationships - in other words what two adult people do in the privacy of their own home cannot possibly hurt any relationships - or can it?
>>i would agree. which is why i think participating in the political culture wars that only emphasize and then try to legislate mere behavior will not change hearts. and if the heart is not changed, the behavior will not change either. and, too... what has been so extraordinary to me in becoming orthodox is precisely this emphasis... the harmartology of the church if you will... where the focus on sin is not first and foremost on behavior... but on the heart, the nous, the existential-relational dynamic between God and man and man and man and man and nature.
Black and whites...of course there are black and whites, thought they may not be clear and easy to discern all the time. Your own statement of destroying relationships is an exceptional example.
>>yeah, sure. the old law of non-contradiction. "are you being absolutist when you say there are no absolutes?!!" i did not say there are no absolutes, nor did i say that i am a relativist. my intention is to, in a blog discussion, add an element of inquiry to the conversation. not necessarily to contradict or argue with you... but to emphasize something that i have found very valuable. and in terms of relationships destroyed... joseph is an intriguing example: relationships were certainly destroyed. joseph's brothers meant it for evil. God meant it for good.
I think your preconceived notion of "morality" is different that my admittedly more simple and likely inaccurate understanding of the term.
>>i am responding to how the culture largely uses it. again, in ways that tend to focus merely on behavior. in the end, i would perhaps respond to my childs teacher, and my children, in much the same manner. but i think i could only give half a response if all i did was talk about behavior.
In the real world...I STILL have to teach my children about holiness while they go to school and are taught that there is no such thing. And THAT is an absolute.
>>i am sure you will have much to teach me in this regard when my daughter is of school age!
I would say that Pharisees ran into their problems with Jesus because they upheld a morality without holiness ("white washed tombs full of dead men's bones.)
Really? I think you may be reading too much of your own understanding into my understanding of morality. I freely offer mine may be innaccurate, however
Your statement here:
>>>well, your discussion started with a statement about "the foundations for morality". i simply do not think that those foundations are behavioral. they are existential, spiritual, relational. holiness is a category for thinking about behavior that starts from an existential/relational context as the foundatin to then address behavior. that's all. i simply feel holiness IS foundational to morality. comes-before
could not have been said better and I could not possibly offer more agreement with or praise of it.
Let me ask this: Can you have behavioral morality without holiness?
And, can you have holiness without behavioral morality?
In regards to teaching our children:
>>>but if i spend time with her explaining why the church teaches that homosexuality is wrong, to do her OR the church and credit i will need to talk about relational issues.
Naturally I agree...but now I am going to put you in a tight spot, mostly for my own benefit because I struggle with knowing how to approach it, and perhaps for your own. Let's roleplay. I am your 8 year old daughter and I want you to explain to me why the Church teaches that homosexual "behavior" is a sin.