I got the impression that these are matters the writers have been hearing and talking but, for an outsider and non-native speaker like me, it was a bit difficult to understand all background (‘between the lines’) messages. Probably I did not understand everything correctly. I guess that was not important for the writers (who cares about foreigners), they targeted the declaration to people around them.
4 Likes
Absolutely. In the parts I read there were loads of references to and assumptions of “common knowledge.” Common knowledge is not common to everyone; it is local or cultural. Common Knowledge is not knowledge, but rather is assumed to be true by a specific group of people. “Everybody knows” is not a good assumption to make, when one is setting up some sort of “official” or official-feeling document that others should sign onto. If someone from outside that circle feels like they are missing inside information, that is a good indication that the document is missing something.
I listed above some of the things that jumped out at me as “common knowledge.” They are commonly held mythologies and biased histories Americans tell ourselves. The authors of this “declaration” don’t see to be aware of their own assumptions, as they use them for the basis of their argument. I didn’t have time to work through the whole thing because a reading requires a critical reading.
Yes. And to people who accept a particlar, uncritical, self-affirming version of U.S and European history, theology and culture.
Don’t hang out with historians, naturalists or philosophers. One finds out quickly that the comfortable simplicity of the world is precisely not that.
5 Likes
While this may even be correct in a lot of places, that is our opinion and psychoanalysis of what some of these evangelicals are trying to do. True in many cases but also many of them may simply believe in Jesus and that he is the way, the truth and the life. Even if some of them are doing it for the wrong reason, that has nothing to do with us and what we are supposed to be doing. Are we supposed to cave to secular ideology? I am not sure the Peter incident really applies here in the way you are using it but I certainly have no interest in debating dispensationalism vs covenant theology. My views are simpler and just taken from Jesus in Matthew 28 and the fact that early Christians baptized whole households. I do not see liberal minded Christians picking up the bill here as there is no truly neutral position. Surely everything should be better with more Jesus. I am not a Christian nationalist and I support the general principles behind separation of Church and state—because I don’t want any government telling me how or who to worship and if they did so in the wrong direction this is an issue worth resisting and fighting until death. But if we think many schools don’y indoctrinate kids already with secular ideology we are mistaken. Sadly, many Christian parents reinforce this when pitting science vs faith. But I am New Englander and spirituality up here is considered generally dead compare to other parts of the nation so maybe my perspective is skewed. I see too little in our schools.
God necessarily exists. ALL of creation is upheld at every instant by God and He can reach people with the Gospel, a communist manifesto, a symphony or through a dead dog, God is sovereign. We are not and all we can do if follow what we think is His will. As I mentioned in another thread, there are people who know Jesus, do miracles in His name and he will tell them I never knew you. Jesus said this plainly. I’ll bet the opposite is true as well and there are people who don’t know “Jesus” (the transforming and Risen son of God who is creator, redeemer and sustainer of all things) by that name but know him none the less.
But I think if you look at stats: children born in Muslim countries will usually become Muslim. People born in Christian countries will usually become Christian. People born in secular countries, where kids attend secular schools devoid of all spirituality, where they watch tv, news programs and videos online that are secular, read history and science that utilize methodological naturalism… well, that is a good recipe for the Gospel not being preached. There is no neutral position here or easy answers. As a Christian the gospel is the cornerstone of my universe and I feel commissioned by Jesus in Matthew 28 to have that gospel everywhere, in all aspects of life.
"19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
I understand all the problems. How could we expect religios beliefs to be taught in public schools? Which religion? Which denomination, which interpretation? But we can do better. We can have preyer centers or chapels in our schools, we can have multiple times set apart throughout the day for prayer. I have a Muslim kid that leaves once a class every single day for 15 minutes to go to the office in a private conference room to pray. Why is spirituality an inconvenience or interuption to the educational process? Why is our moment of silence before the pledge 3 seconds long?
While you mentioned Peter and the “get thee behind me Satan” response from Jesus which does clearly recall the temptation in the wilderness, Christians who instantly cave to our children being exposed and immersed in secular ideology eight plus hours a day makes me think of another passage involving a millstone. We are called to preach the Gospel. I know there is a time and a place for things but Jesus and Paul also did things not really politically correct. I just think it concerns me how quick some Christians seem to embrace the idea that the world is okay with less Jesus. Sure, I don’t believe in forced faith. Live and let live is fine. But my definition of living and me being truly alive includes me preaching the Gospel. To live is Christ. If I am told there is a place I can’t do it, well, I answer to a Higher authority. Hopefully I have the courage to listen to God and let the chips fall where they may.
Vinnie
3 Likes
He needs to read the early church Fathers where they argued that claiming to own a creature made as God’s image cannot be countenanced and verges on blasphemy.
BTW, I recognize the Pharisee/Sadducee/Herodian bit there from a Dobson conference I once attended – it’s a freaky scary way to divide people into categories and label them enemies.
3 Likes
No link to some background?
That depends on how He is there: if it’s an official mandate, then it’s contrary to the Gospel because people resent having things forced on them. I’ve seen that in Christian schools, including Catholic, Lutheran, Prebyterian, and ‘non-denominational’, where kids vanish from the church at the first opportunity because of resentment at being essentially coerced rather than invited.
Exactly. That’s what I found missing in the Declaration; there was no evidence that the Cross entered into their consideration.
2 Likes
-
Characters in the drama:
- Tobias Riemenschneider, Calvinist pastor of Evangelical Baptist Church in Frankfurt Germany
- P, an unnamed ex-parishioner of Tobias’ church
- Joel Webbon.Calvinist pastor of Covenant Community Church in Georgetown, Texas.
- Until about a year ago, Tobias and Joel were on good terms with each other, so much so that Joel invited Tobias to move to Texas and co-pastor in Joel’s church.
-
First event: P moved from Germany to the U.S. and became a member of Joel’s church but continued to correspond with Tobias and others in Tobias’ church.
-
Gradually, P’s correspondence (by email, I think) became “disconcerting” to Tobias due to P’s changing views of Hitler, Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust. Essentially, P became conviinced that Hitler was forced into defending Germany and locking up Jews. Tobias expressed his concern to Joel who was noncommittal at best.
-
A ChatGPT summary of the conflict goes like this:
The conflict between Tobias Riemenschneider and Joel Webbon, which culminated in the Antioch Declaration, is complex and multifaceted. It involves a series of events and accusations, including:A Disputed Private Conversation: A private conversation between Riemenschneider and Webbon, the details of which are contested, sparked the initial disagreement.
A Holocaust Meme: A former member of Riemenschneider’s church, who had transferred to Webbon’s church, shared a controversial Holocaust meme with Riemenschneider. 1
-
The Disappeared Riemenschneider Podcast - Trinity Bible Chapel
Source icon
trinitybiblechapel.caPublic Accusations: Riemenschneider publicly accused Webbon of tolerating or even endorsing antisemitic views, citing the Holocaust meme incident and other perceived issues.
Counteraccusations: Webbon responded with counteraccusations, alleging that Riemenschneider had misrepresented the private conversation and made false claims about his character and theology.
The Antioch Declaration: A group of pastors and theologians, including Riemenschneider, released the Antioch Declaration, a document that addresses various theological and cultural issues, including concerns about the rise of antisemitism and other forms of bigotry within certain Christian circles. While the declaration does not explicitly name Webbon, it is widely understood to be a response to the conflict.
It’s important to note that the full details of the conflict are still emerging, and different perspectives exist on the events and their significance.
3 Likes
Vinnie, you have succumbed to gross generalities here.
I think I could accurately say we believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life - as he is reported to have said.
Not all of us believe we have the handle on “True Religion” or that every other Christian is wrong, or not even a Christian.
Some do.
There is not a universal understanding on what this means, even among those who would say they want Christ integrated everywhere.
Some of us understand that obeying Jesus’ commands is enough. He never promoted a cultural or governmental take over. He demonstrated just the opposite.
There is a wide variety of views on the the relationship between the “Two Cities” (or whatever term you’d like to use) among evangelicals. This Antioch group is not the norm – but may be in the near future as more evangelicals continue to tie themselves more overtly to particular promises of political power in exchange for money and votes.
What does this even mean? As I have known since I was in school, every Christian kid faced with an exam knows that Christian prayer cannot be purged from school.
Extremist evangelicals who imagine the “good old days” of Christian faculty leading the school in Christian prayer are delusional. They had better stick to homeschooling or private schools.
2 Likes
I don’t think so. I have used generalities but not gross ones. How does one talk about Christians without generalizing or over simplification? 40,000 denominations and counting, many major church branches outside those 40,000 and that is not even counting the (presumably) thousands of foreign ones that would have doctrines and thinking I would find odd. I think the type of evangelical Christian we had in mind was clear when Mervin referred to “these people.”
I have a concept and definition of evangelical Christian in my head and I certainly do not have to accept your self-declaration as an evangelical Christian or think you fit in under how I define the term. I accept that you think that but it’s not going to change my broad-sweep definition of one. One person or even a dozen on a relatively obscure Internet forum don’t change how I understand main-stream evangelical Christianity. There may be diversity within evangelical circles but I am speaking of the vocal center, not who I think would be labeled liberals on the fringes.
That is overly simplistic. In Jesus’s time the Jewish “government” was religious. But it just that the Jews were under Roman rule. But make no mistake about it, Torah was factored into the Jewish educational system—whatever it looked like. I can only imagine Jesus’s response if they said we can can’t refer to God in schools for fear of offending someone. Or if they decided to call it “Holiday Break” instead of a “Passover Celebration”. In Jesus’s day, Jewish identity, culture, government and religion education was entirely religious. Why would he overthrow what was? And make no mistake, many see non-violence resistance in Jesus’s teachings and outsiders may have thought the same since the sign over his head when He was crucified did say King of the Jews.”
I don’t know what it means. I don’t know what it looks like. I suggested prayer centers and more time devoted to God throughout the day. Prayer shouldn’t be a distraction or interruption to education. Maybe if Christians didn’t just cave to secularism they could put some energy into figuring out ways to make positive changes and combat the secularist ideology that plagues so many of our schools and our children’s thoughts.
If having more God and Jesus in schools is actually a bad thing, I think our religion is made up 
My personal thought is maybe letting parents choose schools or give huge tax breaks to parents who would like to homeschool or send their kids to Christian or Catholic schools that need to be payed for. It’s hard in todays economy to homeschool when 2 parents need to work so we can go into debt like good middle class Americans and own things. One size fits all public schools where God is removed seem outdated to me and I make a living teaching in one.i would support parents having more educational options and with checks and balances, privatizing education to a degree. On this I agree with Vance when he suggested during the debate on offering parents more options and choices for childcare (e.g. churches etc). I am all for the same in education.
The truth to me is that a free public education doesn’t seem to be worth what it once was in terms of content and rigor. We have made many changes for the better, however.
2 Likes
After reading the declaration, and noting the things that weren’t included (e.g. God’s Divine Forgiveness), I sensed the authors are urging all people to return to some sort of pre-Enlightenment “utopia” where everyone knows their proper place (especially women) and no one is presumptuous enough to challenge the theological party line.
Reference is made at the end of the declaration to Aristotle, though the real troublemaker has always been Platonism in its various incarnations. Oddly, it was Aristotle, through Scholasticism, who held more prominent philosophical sway over the church in the pre-Enlightenment era. At least there was some semblance of reason to be found in Scholasticism.
I can’t help noticing that all the declaration’s collaborators and featured signers are men. What does this mean? Does it mean that Christianity should obey Plato’s teachings on the superiority of males (a non-Yeshuan doctrine that has plagued Christianity almost since its inception?)
The declaration states, “We deny that it is possible to recover an ethic that honors our fathers and their momentous sacrifices while actively and openly dishonoring them.” I don’t think it’s an oversight that no mention is made of the mothers who have also made momentous sacrifices. Is this document really talking about antisemitism, or is it instead a sneaky and not very loving end run around the role of women in God’s Creation? Isn’t it true that the “secular liberal edifice” so hated by the declaration’s authors features the expansion of rights and respect for women?
I’m not suggesting we should accept every idea and every change proposed by leaders in our society. Discernment and trust in God are essential for families and communities and nations. But using the Terrors of the French Revolution as an excuse to overturn all the positive advances in health, education, and inclusiveness that have come from the Enlightenment (an outgrowth of Christian faith!) is really just a way to put a stick in God’s eye.
We’re all God’s children. This is what Jesus taught.
5 Likes
Hello Vinnie 
do you mind elaborating what do you mean exactly by secularist ideology? I don’t think I’ve heard this specific term before and untill know I just assumed that it meant God wasn’t mentioned in general during education because focus was meant to be on other things and also to ensure inclusive environment.
Yes, and that would only make it fair as it seems right now those who have money (lots of it!) seem to have all the choices in the world, while normal people have none! (I’m speaking from my own observations in UK)
5 Likes
As well as children who fit a certain mold. Kids with special needs are precious in the Lord’s sight, but not on the balance sheets of private or alternative schools outside the (US) publicly funded school systems.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
6 Likes
It’s probably because at least some of them are opposed to women voting, as well as some other interesting views on women. Or perhaps all of them, I don’t know, I didn’t check every single name.
So I guess these men wouldn’t sign something signed by women, even if they were agreeing with it.
3 Likes
How true. I have a few grandkids with special needs, and the public schools do a great job in general. the local private schools not so much. About all the church schools offer is “thoughts and prayers” if you know what I mean. I worry that the public resources will disappear if our state votes in school vouchers, which they are likely to do.
3 Likes
- “Pretty women” don’t sign Declarations.
2 Likes
- The neat thing about “voucher funded” schools is that their administrations can control the curriculum and who teaches in the school. (Think: “loyalty oaths” and "affirmation of orthodox–i.e. approved Christian–beliefs.) And if the school founders are “religious organizations”, the courts are reluctant to enforce anti-discriminatory hiring practices.
3 Likes
Lol
Just to clarify it for everyone - this refers to Doug Wilson claiming that Christian women are more beautiful.
Brace yourself and read (if you dare)
2 Likes
Does this mean I can stop buying face cream?
2 Likes
Sounds like Wilson has a wandering eye, and some eye plucking out action may be in order.
6 Likes
Yes, lacking God. For me it’s an out of sight out of mind thing. Most of the world seems to have little room or time for God and I don’t see my society as particularly Christian. I’d define it as materialistic and coming with the false bravado that it’s all about the self and personal accomplishments. It’s also the fault of Newton and Christians. We insert God into gaps and they close and there is little room for Hod in people’s worldview. A lot of students are surprised to find out their science teacher is very religious when one student inevitable asks the question each year. They expect science and religion to be at odds and here we religious folk are just conceding to the removal of God from every public sphere for fear of offending non-believers. I assume that for many Christian’s, Muslims (etc.) that God is the center our lives yet we have removed God from the public sphere and related Him to our private thoughts. I don’t think Jesus would agree with that despite what some Christians claim. Jewish life was throughly religious.
I don’t have any answers on how to implement wholesale change except the few I suggested in here already. It’s a complicated topic but I don’t think giving up because we want to be PC is correct. I truly believe Jesus is the creator of the universe and somehow saved us from our sins and has commissioned us to spread the gospel everywhere.
Unfortunately the government usually uses a cleaver instead of a scalpel. But yes, I support greater choice. I thought the education at the Catholic school I taught at for three years was a little less rigorous than when I went to public schools but I can tell you the culture and climate was way better. It felt like a family. Public school can feel more like an institution.
Unfortunately, schools are often ill equipped and understaffed to truly help a lot of sped students. So many kids need 1:1 and that’s just not feasible. It’s also insane for a teacher with three separate preps/classes/lessons each day and 130 students to make special assignments each class for dozens of students. The US rightly pumps a lot of money into special education but is it working?
It seems to me that some think the answer to no child left behind is to just leave them all behind. We constantly lower behavioral and grading standards… I mean sure, if you need to show less suspensions or a higher graduation rate, make it so students can’t receive lower than a 50 for a marking period, make it so they can hand in work whenever, or change how you discipline so there are just less suspensions—or make teachers jump through three intervention steps before being allowed a write up… None of this fixes problems or helps kids, it just tries to hide them. But God is not allowed in our school systems so this is just par for the course.
I have a class with about 8 special needs kids (just under half the class) and we work hard for them (the para and myself). But imagine trying to teach 9th grade science to a student with an IQ of 60, and another next to them who doesn’t speak English, and another who speaks English but can barely read, and then having a bunch of other needy kids in the class. Two others that need everything read to them and so on. It’s not easy. I am grateful I have the best para with me this year. We keep grinding and I go for small steps. For some of them I know the level of material is just above their head and will be most of the year. So I focus on things like taking good notes, organizing their thoughts etc, focusing on smaller tasks in assignments, etc. I try to give them skills I think will help them…but I’m not really sure if “full inclusion” is always the answer in specialized high school courses. There are a lot of pros to it but half the data in education is made up or fluffed. The only data that is real and trustworthy is standardized test scores. Those are much more difficult to fudge. The value of standardized testing is another issue.
3 Likes
I appreciate your thoughtful observations about teaching in a complex situation. Thank you.