Who Is This Guy?
by Candice Watters on 03/04/2009 at 2:42 PM
So I've blogged twice now about Voddie Baucham's new book and promised a full length review over at Boundless, soon. Then it dawned on me that maybe some of you haven't heard of him before. I jumped right in because What He Must Be is the second of his books I've read. In case you've never heard of Voddie and wonder why we're giving him so much space and respect, I thought I'd take a minute to introduce you.
Here he is with his wife Bridgette.
And here's who he is:
It is impossible to understand Voddie’s approach to the Bible without first understanding the path he has walked. Raised in a non-Christian, single-parent home, Voddie did not hear the gospel until he was in college. As a student-athlete at Rice University, Baucham responded to God’s call on his life and entered the gospel ministry. His journey to faith was an unusual and intellectual one.
He understands what it means to be a skeptic, and knows what it’s like to try to figure out the Christian life without relying on the traditions of men. As a result, he speaks to ‘outsiders’ in ways few Bible teachers can.
He is a husband, father, pastor, author, professor, conference speaker and church planter. He currently serves as Pastor of Preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, TX. Voddie makes the Bible clear and demonstrates the relevance of God’s word to everyday life. However, he does so without compromising the centrality of Christ and the gospel. Those who hear him preach find themselves both challenged and encouraged.
Voddie and his wife, Bridget have been married since 1989. They have five children, Jasmine, Trey, Elijah, Asher and Judah. They are committed home educators.
You can find out more about him and his other books at voddiebaucham.org.
1. Marisa said the following at 3:12 PM on Mar 4:
1
Thanks for the background info! My dad actually bought this book recently... Though mortified when I first heard the title, I've warmed up to it considerably. Definitely appreciate my parents' protection and wise counsel as my guy and I traverse the territory of a new relationship, fraught with danger and challenges. It's been hard-but-good, and God is so faithful. :)
2. Justin T. said the following at 3:59 PM on Mar 4:
2
Voddie was a frequent guest speaker at my church during high school. His advice on dating/relationships to a bunch of teenagers was always extremely down-to-Earth and also extremely helpful, so I look forward to reading this book.
Also, as a side note, this picture fails to convey just how massively HUGE this guy is in person. You really wouldn't want to get on his bad side by doing anything inappropriate with his daughter.
3. Saidahwk said the following at 4:11 PM on Mar 4:
3
He's also a) brilliant and b) somewhat radical. The man knows enough about the Bible to make your head spin, but he's also pretty extreme. Personally, I love where he's coming from on just about everything, but he can scare you a little bit... hahaha.
4. Jessi said the following at 4:34 PM on Mar 4:
4
He seems like a pretty awesome guy! Kinda random question, but there was a TLC documentary on a couple months ago, about Purity balls. They interviewed a bunch of girls and their fathers. Out of all the interiews I remember there being two girls and their father who really explained their views well, and were also really gracious about it. Now that I am seeing this picture of Voddie Baucham, and thinking back to the documentary, I'm wondering if it was him and his daughters. I feel like the man might have even said that he grew up in a non Christian single parent home. Does anyone remember watching this show, and can they answer whether or not this was him? Thanks!
5. Apryl said the following at 7:03 PM on Mar 4:
5
I first heard Voddie on a North Point Community Church podcast. He filled in for Andy Stanley for 3 weeks and did a sermon series titled "Marriage by Design." I just listened to it again the other day. Pt 1 was "Marriage, by Design", 2) "What He Must Be", and 3) "What She Must Be". You can buy the series from the church if you are interested (I don't go there, but I love to catch their stuff on podcast).
I can't wait to get this book and then share it with friends! I have it and his other book, Family Driven Faith, on my wishlist. :)
Thanks Candice!
6. Emerald said the following at 8:26 PM on Mar 4:
6
Jessi (#4),
I watched that show on TLC as well! Mr. Baucham DOES really resemble the man from the show, as far as I can remember, but I am not sure. I also remember him talking about being raised in a non-Christian home. It was a fascinating show!
His book sounds very interesting too. Might have to take a look if I ever see it around.
7. Candice Watters said the following at 8:41 PM on Mar 4:
7
I believe that was Kevin Moore. He was interviewed on that show with his daughters...divorced, second marriage...takes his daughters to the Ball for years...it was a great interview (according to my friend who helps the Wilsons do media for the )
8. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:47 PM on Mar 4:
8
For a while I've heard of Mr. Baucham -- first on Boundless, I think. He seems the type of Christ-following leader I would love to like. However, his approval by patriarchalist extremists such as the Vision Forum factions concerns me. Could you perhaps elaborate on this?
9. dana111 said the following at 9:34 PM on Mar 4:
9
To Jesse,
I haven't seen the show that you are referring to, but Dr. Baucham does have a teenage daughter and he did grow up in a single-parent home. His mother was actually a practicing Buddhist before she came to Christ.
10. Steven said the following at 9:43 PM on Mar 4:
10
FYI, I am 100% sure that Voddie was not on that TLC show. I saw it too, and I've seen Voddie at 7:22, and I am positive those are two different people.
11. dana111 said the following at 8:53 AM on Mar 5:
11
Dr. Ransom,
I am not going to lie. Dr. Baucham's affiliation with Vision Forum does concern me, especially because of the negative views concerning race and ethnicity help by SOME within the patriarchalist movement.
I really can't answer your question, though, without writing A LOT of information. Sorry :)
12. Ted Slater said the following at 9:09 AM on Mar 5:
12
Dr. Ransom (#8) -- let's not put too much weight on any "guilty-by-association" arguments. It wouldn't take long for me to create associations between various individuals and organizations that'd make even the saintliest appear heretical.
Some people don't like Voddie's radical interpretations and applications of Scripture, and so they seek to malign him. It's a common tactic, one that doesn't often affect my opinions of people.
I find it amusing that on one hand there's this thought out there that Vision Forum is racist, and on the other hand there's this thought out there that they endorse Voddie, an African American man. Schizophrenic....
13. Rael said the following at 10:55 AM on Mar 5:
13
I just listened to a lecture of Mr. Baucham speaking on the centrality of the home in evangelism and discipleship, and was quite thrilled to find that you're reading his new book to review for us, Candice! I also saw him with his daughter Jasmine on a documentary. They were cooking a gourmet meal together. It was awesome. :-)
14. Dr. Ransom said the following at 11:03 AM on Mar 5:
14
My question was not based on the "guilt by association" fallacy as concern about the seeming friendliness between the two views and their representatives. Radical teaching does not concern me in the slightest, if it is Biblical! And I would not either embrace or reject "radical teaching" just because it's seen as radical.
I would like to see solid Scriptural teachers who uphold Biblical husband/wife and family roles, and disavow feminism and marriage-slander, more often equally and loudly disavow the abuses and extremes of "patriarchalism."
That un-Biblically radical teaching holds among other things that wives and children have a main goal of supporting a father as intermediate authority and "federal head" of a family. Advocates of these views see feminism for an un-Biblical evil (which it is), but unfortunately they read an opposite extreme into Scripture and heavily imply this is just as vital to "real" Christian practice as believing the Gospel.
The results are many views that are questionable at best, anti-Biblical at worse. These are unfortunately common in many homeschooling circles:
- Families must have as many children as possible to fulfill a "federal vision."
- Daughters must act as "helpmeets" to their fathers until such time as he decides to give her away to an eligible man as part of strongly supervised "courtship" methods that resemble little more than attempts toward arranged marriages.
- All women must be silent in church (to the point of mothers passing notes to their five-year-old boys to repeat if the mother wants to communicate something).
- Wives must constantly be in effect in charge of ensuring they uphold their husbands' leadership roles and sense of masculine well-being (quite a comical self-refuting paradox, this!).
This is not the same thing as Biblical "complementarian" concepts, advocated by Grudem, Piper and others. With emphasis on Scripture interpreting itself, rather than conforming to particular interpretations and culture elements, Biblical complementarianism holds:- A focus on true Biblical Grace, strongly rejecting chauvinistic or authoritarian attitudes.
- Raising spiritual children in the Kingdom is more important than only raising your own physical children (or taking over the nation to build the kingdom through large families as per the "federal vision" mandate").
- Women may work outside the home if they wish, perhaps while they are single or as a temporary measure as wives until the husband is able to be the main provider (John Piper tells the story of how his own wife, Noel, helped put him through seminary).
- Women's authority over men is Biblically restricted only in teaching in the Church; whereas in the outside-the-church world, a woman may in effect "direct" men, such as a female attorney with male paralegals, or a woman who designs traffic patterns for a city (again I am quoting from Piper's excellent sermons on the topic).
Thus, for the sake of others who see little difference, and more importantly the preservation of Biblical balance and Grace, my question remains about Dr. Buacham's affiliations. I don't mean this question come off as a challenge at all. Rather, it's a fully open question.And even if Dr. Baucham is closer to un-Biblically radical views, discerning Christians can embrace his teachings where they conform to Scripture and pick through the not-so-Biblical "overcorrecting" parts.
15. Adam said the following at 11:57 AM on Mar 5:
15
I just had an observation from something Ted said:
Some people don't like Voddie's radical interpretations...of Scripture...
I would say that this, if true, is the problem. Exegesis, while not always hard and fast, has certain standards whereby it must be done. When you start getting radical with your interpretation, you *may* stumble upon something that everyone has missed, but most of the time you will just simply be wrong. I have found that to be the case in every paper that I have read, and in every paper I have written. The times I have seen scholars get demolished the worst is when they tried to get cute with their interpretations.
There is enough countercultural material in the Bible in terms of a straightforward exegetical presentation of the text that we don't need to make our exegetical precedures more radical in order to find others. We don't just want to be countercultural, be we want to be *Biblically* countercultural.
God Bless,
Adam
16. a sassy sister said the following at 12:02 PM on Mar 5:
16
dr ransom:
well said.
17. RLynn said the following at 12:35 PM on Mar 5:
17
I heard a tape of Voddie speaking at a local church (not my own); his direcives for men to be spiritual heads of the household--even if they weren't when they got married--are very insightful and should be encouraging to men who know that their wives are more spiritually mature then they are.
18. Ted Slater said the following at 2:20 PM on Mar 5:
18
Adam (#15) -- by "radical," I meant "of or going to the root or origin; fundamental" (the first definition in my dictionary). So when I speak of "Voddie's radical interpretations and applications of Scripture," I'm talking about how he's more concerned about the original meaning, rather than how it might be interpreted through the modern cultural mindset.
My problem, sometimes, is that when I use a word, I am thinking of its dictionary definition, rather than how it might often be interpreted. When I used the word "ignorance" in a recent blog post, for example, I didn't mean that as an insult, but as simply "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact." There was no condemnation meant. I understand that words also have connotations, and I take those into account when I speak or write; you have to in order to communicate effectively. But I place more weight on a word's actual denotation than on its connotation.
19. Bertha said the following at 2:45 PM on Mar 5:
19
Ted:
The reason some consider Vision Forum racist is because they sell homeschooling materials with passages that contain passages demeaning to African Americans (these are older materials written when such things were (sadly) acceptable, but VF does not edit or address the passages). Whether Mr. Baucham is aware of these, I don't know.
20. Sara said the following at 6:21 PM on Mar 5:
20
Ted #18,
How do you think dictionary writers decide on a word's 'denotation'? They look at it's most-agreed-upon usage in everyday life. They look at "how it might often be interpreted".
There's no "actual denotation" set down in a dictonary that didn't originate in everyday use. Etymology can be interesting, but it's not very useful when you're actually using language. Say the etymology of 'simple' means 'once-folded'. Where did that come from, way back when? Again, it came from everyday speech, which is all about connotation.
What do you mean when you say you place more weight on denotation than connotation?
If you totally don't know how to use a word, the dictionary is good, but once you've got it, it's best to use the March 5th 2009 edition of Webster's that your own life gives you.
21. Dr. Ransom said the following at 7:24 PM on Mar 5:
21
Racism, whether real or just not-taken-seriously-enough, in Vision Forum would seem to be a concern. However, I would argue it's a result of more serious anti-Biblical views, as outlined above and as seen by many discerning Christ-followers.
But again, I still don't know whether Dr. Baucham has anything more than a casual relationship with Vision Forum anyway. So the discussion might be moot.
What I can say for certain is that Vision Forum founder Doug Phillips, who advocates extreme anti-Biblical patriocentrist views, has publicly applauded Baucham. I might hope those teaching God's plan for Christian families, and husband/wife roles, would at least mildly disclaim the severely un-Biblical views of chauvinistic patriocentrism. (For more on the differences, definitions of terms and links to more-helpful sources, I can point you to one of my columns, in particular the "Debate distinctions" section.)
Meanwhile, Nine Marks Ministries (which knows something about local church structure) in their review of Baucham's Family Driven Faith gave the book high "marks" for the best of reasons. Yet reviewer Michael Lawrence raised some concerns about the author's idea that a church should primarily be "a family of families":
My reason for raising this is not to be even a minor rabble-rouser or a nitpicker. Those of you who have read my comments here know that I'm solidly complementarian -- I love those teachings and see their beauty as a natural and Biblical spinoff of the doctrines of grace!
But I am concerned about folks on my side who might be zealous to oppose cultural ills, such as egalitarian feminism, and wind up falling into opposite error -- or at the very least, not cautioning others enough against opposite-extreme views.
And I have met and heard about plenty of families in which the overemphasis on "family unity" leads to moralism and legalism, stagnation of young people's -- especially women's -- individual spiritual and career growths, de facto idolatry of family, and of course worst of all, the devaluing of delight in and love for Christ -- substituted for moralistic Systems.
What is also very sad (especially to those familiar with Boundless' Biblical "talking points" on the subject!) are the hundreds of beautiful homeschooled girls in effect severed from the possibility of pursuing marriage because they've been convinced their role in life is to be "helpmeet" to their fathers' "federal vision"!
I hope this will not go unchallenged by discerning Christ-followers who seek Biblical balance. Absolutely, we must call out the sins of cultural feminism for what they are! Yet for Christians unfamiliar with opposite-extreme dangers, who may be tempted to overcorrect, we must equally decry -- or at least offer strong disclaimers -- the anti-Biblical views of Vision Forum-style patriocentrism.
22. Ted Slater said the following at 10:05 PM on Mar 5:
22
Sara (#20) -- I don't understand what point you're trying to make. You seem to be arguing in favor of what I wrote -- that words have meaning, and that we should tend to go with how that word "might often be interpreted." I agree -- that's what I had in mind when I used the term "radical," which means "of or going to the root or origin; fundamental."
But then the rest of your comment seems like a "correction," as though you are disagreeing with what I wrote.
You ask what I mean when I use the terms "denotation" and "connotation." I mean what the dictionary and common usage define them to mean. That's all. It didn't take me long to look the words up; let me encourage you to do the same.
I use a dictionary, even after having earned four degrees in communication-related fields, so that when I use words, I can be confident that they mean what I think they mean. I defer to how a word is generally understood, and not simply to what I think it might mean.
This reminds me of something I came across in Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" Sara, I don't want to be a Humpty Dumpty. :-)
It's late. Maybe I'm at fault for not understanding what you're saying.
23. Sara said the following at 9:25 AM on Mar 6:
23
Ted -- I was being kind of contentious, I guess, and maybe just using your post to make not-perfectly-related point...
People who value dictionary definitions of words--like the word 'ignorant'--more than they value current everyday usage of a word don't understand how dictionaries are made.
Dictionaries are made by surveying current everyday usage and then 'setting it in stone'. Therefore, strictly speaking, they become outdated the moment they're published.
Of course, it's usually more convenient to just look something up in a dictionary because it would be really hard to make a good real-time survey of a word's usage in the same way that dictionary editors have time to do. Typing it into Google does a fairly good job, though.
Dictionaries are the most accurately useful for reading old books, where you have a dictionary that was published around the same time as the book was.
[also, correction of my last post fwiw... 'simple' comes from Latin for 'not folded' or 'without fold' not 'once folded'.]
24. Lucie said the following at 11:43 AM on Mar 6:
24
In something of a sidetrack...could we stop the wholesale labeling of feminism as an "un-biblical evil" as one poster did, and remember the good and original purpose of it by our foremothers?
25. Ted Slater said the following at 12:03 PM on Mar 6:
25
Sara (#23) -- You wrote that "Dictionaries are made by surveying current everyday usage and then 'setting it in stone.'" While the first phrase is correct, the second is not. Dictionaries are regularly updated to reflect current usage. In that way, they provide a helpful balance of "descriptive" and "prescriptive."
Sure, I own an 1828 Webster's Dictionary, and appreciate the way it helps me better understand words. But for everyday communication, I rely on something that's been updated within the past five years.
Not sure why we're arguing about dictionaries, Sara. My training and profession has to do with words; I will continue to study them, exploiting (i.e., "employing to the greatest possible advantage") a variety of resources to do so, until my days are through. And I have no reason to repent for my will to wield words well.
26. Ashley Harris said the following at 12:15 PM on Mar 6:
26
Lucie,
I think much of the argument about feminism is semantics. How would you define it?
I would have considered myself a feminist until I took secular sociology classes. The textbook definition of feminism is totally equal rights and responsibilities for women and men.
No thank you. I don't want the same role as a man. I am ever so thankful that in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, male, or female as far as worth. And I am equally as thankful that there is a difference in roles and responsibilities.
I no longer call myself a feminist. Semantics.
27. Ted Slater said the following at 12:18 PM on Mar 6:
27
Sara (#23) -- I need to add something. You wrote:
"People who value dictionary definitions of words--like the word 'ignorant'--more than they value current everyday usage of a word don't understand how dictionaries are made."
(You've presented a false dichotomy -- modern dictionaries *do* reflect current everyday usage -- but I won't focus on that right now.)
It really sounds like you are saying that words only mean what *you* think they mean, and that dictionaries are irrelevant. If *you* understand a word to mean "such and such," then that is what that word means. If common understanding of that word, as reflected in a modern dictionary, differs from yours, then that common understanding is incorrect.
Again, that sounds a whole lot like our scornful friend, Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." No, Sara, words have meaning outside of ourselves. Meaning exists outside ourselves.
28. Sara said the following at 12:28 PM on Mar 6:
28
Ha, 'exploiting'. Maybe the problem is less chronological and more about different spheres of language use, which dictionaries and 'Google define:' are good for. It reminds me of my very conservative friend being shocked when the French teacher called her presentation 'provocative', or when I've been misunderstood for saying that so-and-so said something 'explicitly'.
Dictionaries do so "set things in stone", or paper. They can never be truly up-to-date, even though their outdatedness is usually trivial if it's a recent edition.
29. Catherine said the following at 1:55 PM on Mar 6:
29
I have been thinking a lot about this what we have been saying about Baucham's approach to Christian living. I think that is raises some good questions- and some problems. I love that he is focusing more on how we raise Christian families and asking how we can make Christian homes. What I am unsure of is the Biblical foundations of what he is advising- aren't we called to be the "salt" in the world? How can our children be a light to other children if they are sequestered in the home or organizations where everyone agrees with their parents? How can they learn to exercise their faith in the world? How can they be taught to think critically about ideas if they are not exposed to people that challenge them? Is indoctrination and isolation the same thing as a strong Christian faith? I worry that this is bad parenting- love and protection at the expense of allowing your children to make choices.
30. Andrea-Elena said the following at 2:00 PM on Mar 6:
30
Sara,
I would chalk up such misinterpretations to not being aware of the multiple denotations of a word and thus not understanding the connotation of the word as it was being used in that particular context.
Which is why I find Merriam-Webster.com's online version of the 11th edition so helpful and delightful to use. If I can track down the "main" word for a meaning, then many times the last paragraph of the entry has the list of synonyms (conveniently turned into hyperlinks - love that!) with explanations of their usual connotations and even examples of contexts in which they appear.
I'm not sure if you and Ted are really wholly disagreeing, but I observe that both of you have a love for words, writing, communicating, and so forth. And that's pretty cool to find some common ground between two people with diametrically opposed worldviews.
So... we here may never convince you to return to Christ. And I doubt you'll ever convince us to change our minds either. But as far as I can tell, you've behaved gracefully and graciously... and I want to give you kudos for that and thank you for it. I for one don't mind continuing to discuss/debate with you. And I will try to remain cordial, civil, not snarky with you. =)
I'm glad you're "here." You help make us think a bit more about big questions.... and why we believe what we believe. Plus, I think deep down you're a passionate person... maybe who's been burned too many times than she wants to have to have experienced. Many of us here are passionate people. So... welcome to the crowd!
31. Ted Slater said the following at 2:20 PM on Mar 6:
31
Catherine (#29) -- you bring up the ancient home schooling vs. government schooling argument. I've heard all the arguments in favor and against both. Let me address the weaknesses of your arguments.
You wouldn't send a small child into battle, would you? No, of course not. You would prepare them for battle by offering them physical training, training in strategy and teamwork, and so on. You'd have sparring practice; sometimes they'd get bruised. You'd feed them well and wait until they're at a place physically where they would stand a chance against those out to hurt them.
And then you'd send them in.
Similarly, parents are not expected to send their 6-year-olds into a place where the battle of worldviews occurs. You would train them first, not merely "sequestering" them, but really preparing them to engage other ideas will skill and grace.
And I think this is a biblical concept, for fathers and mothers to train up their children. They may carefully delegate that responsibility to others, but if they can help it, they should delegate that responsibility to those who fear the Lord and teach His precepts. In other words, to those with a Christian worldview, a biblical philosophy of education.
Here's another analogy. Do you think that the best way someone can learn to swim is by throwing them in the water and wishing them good luck? No, you train. You study. You hold them as they paddle their legs and as they churn their arms. They use inflatable things or floating boards. And when they're properly trained, then they can go into the deep end without these items.
You speak negatively of "indoctrination." I suppose it could be seen as some sort of heavy-handed authoritarian cram-it-down-their-throats kind of legalistic teaching. But that's not the way I see it. I'd rather see "indoctrination" as training children in sound doctrine. Surely that's a good thing, right?
Ultimately, you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between stifled mother-hen protectionism and releasing the little battle-ready angel to be salt and light in an unsavory, dark place. That's an inaccurate, unrealistic portrayal of what really happens, Catherine. You know that, right? Were you just being extreme to get your point across?
I received an education through the government school system. I do not condemn those who send their children to such schools. Please don't think I'm saying that. I'm simply saying that parents are obligated to educate their children, by doing it themselves or by delegating that responsibility to others. May parents make that decision wisely, for God's sake.
32. Catherine said the following at 3:08 PM on Mar 6:
32
I hear what you are saying and I do understand this perspective. Its a difficult choice- one that I am trying to make with my future spouse now (religious vs. public school education). I have always gone to religious schools (presbyterian and episcopalian) and I value the wonderful, wholesome friendships that I made there. They were also very open schools- we were required to take theology each year, but we also were taught evolutionary biology. I think this engagement with both worlds was a good foundation for me to take into life. Homeschooling has its advantages, but I can't imagine my teenage years without the wonderful priests, counselors and christian professors who offered me sound guidance and wisdom when I was not in the stage where I was searching for things outside of my family. Faith was an active part of our school community but not to the exclusion of the challenges of the world.
My fiancee argues that as long as there is a strong foundation at home, the public schools can be wonderful place to live christ out in the world.I do think he is more practical and realistic about the world than I can ever be given my relatively sheltered education. I think of my Jewish, Mormon and Muslim friends who have never wavered form their faith or family despite being a tiny minority (usually the ONLY minority) in the schools I attended. Why? Because their families nurtured their faith at home and prepared them to make good choices from the beginning. They prepared them for battle every morning and every night. they gave them an identity in the home.
The few homeschooled friends I have ended up in college terribly naive. They could barely hold a conversation with other people in the class who disagreed with them because they were so unfamiliar with the art of engaging in respectful debate. They may think they can debate- but without friends who truly differ from them they don't seem to even know how to see another perspective accurately. Is this really preparing them to share their faith effectively?
I don't know- I want my children to experience faith as an active part of their whole life and I want them to have friends who are also committed to living christian values- but I also want them to be prepared to make the right choices in a world that doesn't usually agree with them. I want them to be able to live christian lives that can serve as a testimony to others. I do not believe that the best way to guide others to christ is to isolate ourselves and our families. We must be "in the world" even if we are not of the world. It is living our example (including children and teenagers) that is our best witness. how can others hear it if we are only talking to each other?
33. Ted Slater said the following at 5:50 PM on Mar 6:
33
Catherine (#32) -- Again, you're repeating tired cliches about homeschooled individuals and false dichotomies. The thought that homeschooled students are less socialized, are naive, and so on, may have been true among some at one time, but it's not the norm within contemporary Christian homeschooling. Indeed, my experience is that they are better socialized, better able to defend their positions, more widely read, more polite, more biblically literate, and so on.
A good number of our authors have been homeschooled, my wife has been homeschooled, Motte Brown and Steve & Candice Watters are homeschooling their children, and so on. Maybe it's just because I've pretty much only seen it successfully practiced that I have such a high regard for it.
The false dichotomy between "naive homeschoolers" and "open and engaging non-homeschooled students" is especially clear at the end of your comment: that you are either "isolated" (through homeschooling, presumably) or "guiding others to Christ." Can you please do your best not to present that cliched false dichotomy in your comments? It's just not true; it's quite insulting toward those parents who have personally taken it upon themselves to educate their children, and toward those who've been homeschooled.
Early in your comment you mention that the schools you attended were "open" in that they taught both theology and evolutionary biology. I wouldn't call that "open"; I would call it schizophrenic and false. Of course, that's because I believe that the evidence is more consistent with the biblical account than the Darwinistic account.
34. Catherine said the following at 6:40 PM on Mar 6:
34
I'm sorry if it sounds insulting. I realize that it is a very personal subject. I am sure that that is not true for all, but the homeschoolers that I have known are relatively young (21-23) so I can't say that its not a reflection in my life of a modern approach.
As for teaching evolutionary biology- I do think it is intellectually dishonest to not expose children to an explantion of biology that is accepted by the vast majority of practicing biologists. Being unfamiliar with those ideas seriously damages their ability to engage with and understand the arguements taking place around them. It has never damaged my faith - only encouraged me to seek out the ways Christian thought might apply in those realms too. I believe choosing to not engage these ideas honestly weakens faith in the long run.
Now, as to the role of children and witnessing, I would like to share one of my own stories. During that typical 17 year-old phase of questioning my faith, my greatest influence was a quietly devout Mormon guy in my class. Many days when I felt that I honestly could not live up to the standards of my faith in college, I had the immense priviledge of looking across the room to him valiantly practicing his faith in the midst of people who respected him but did not share his values. His example every day (the true meaning of preaching a sermon through acts, not words) led me back to a true, deep faith that I could make it too. What if he had not been there living out his faith in my life? I think you underestimate the incredible power righteous teenagers can have on their peers. Whenever we talked about him in private we all (guys and girls) said, well, I don't believe what he does, but wow, I admire him. He let us look UP to someone when there were very few people who could reach us in that personal way. Isn't that what we are called to as Christians? He showed us that you could walk with Christ in the exact place we were in (Something our parents could not communicate in the same way). Boys were welcomed into the Jewish community at 13- I think that at least by that age God acknowledges that they are ready to lead others to Christ. Keeping them away from others (in my opinion of course) makes it seem as though we feel that we will be tainted by people and ideas that we disagree with. Is our faith really so shallow? We stand on firm ground! Let others see us anchored to the truth so they can follow us! How many times are we told "Don't be afraid! God, your God, is with you"
35. Catherine said the following at 6:45 PM on Mar 6:
35
Also, I realize homeschoolers are not isolated these days. When I say isolated, I mean that the ones that I am friends with now did not associate in any meaningful way with anyone who was not Christian. Their social lives revolved around church, church sports, church organizations, etc. That is not exposure to anything resembling the real world.
36. Rachael said the following at 6:58 PM on Mar 6:
36
re: homeschooling
Homeschooling may or may not affect one's social skills. Homeschooled people can turn out just fine socially. But even if it does influence some in the negative sense, think: Why do you think it's negative? Does the person really just have a number of interests and act more quiet in social settings? And if it's negative, think, part or all of that could be because of the personality. Homeschool alone shouldn't be blamed as social opportunities abound outside the educational setting.
I was homeschooled for a number of years (K-8th). I had other homeschool friends and I enjoyed swimming lessons and swim team during those years.
Going to a public high school was a huge adjustment, and I didn't enjoy it overall, but I probably wouldn't even if I wasn't homeschooled. In high school I spent a ton of time on my homework and studies but graduated with a very good GPA, though I didn't continue in math and science all the way (but didn't need to). I was on the swim team all the way through HS, and track for a season, so that, in the world's eyes, may have helped with 'socialization.' And I was involved in some other stuff there. And then other socialization stuff in my HS days would come through work, church, youth group...In HS I had some level of boldness with my faith and tried to incorporate it into schoolwork for probably at least 3 English classes.
But even if I had been homeschooled in HS I would have been able to work and be involved in church, both of which are social situations.
My sister, who like me was homeschooled through Jr High, can often come across as really outgoing and peppy and is incredibly intelligent. All my siblings are intelligent, and they were all homeschooled for a time of their lives. I really admire the faith of especially 2 of them, and I admire all of them in terms of their character. 1/2 of us are married, one will marry in May, and one has a girlfriend. We're not perfect, and homeschool was not perfect, but I really respect my mom and greatly admire her faith. I think her hope was for us to have a solid foundation of our faith, and I still look up to her for spiritual guidance.
I've met some pretty cool people over the years who have been homeschooled.
That said, I don't know if I'm going to homeschool my future children part of the way through or not. We'll see how it goes. It'd have to be a decision made with my husband considering various factors.
Basically, homeschool alone shouldn't be the only factor when considering the positive and negative ways in which people turn out.
37. Anne said the following at 8:45 PM on Mar 6:
37
Maybe boundless needs to be a little less critical of public schools. Maybe Ted I take offense with what you say about homeschooled students being smarter. Possibility the reason is because they have parents who care. I think that plays a role in how well students do in school. Of course, this is never factored into the discussions of how homeschooling is better than public school. I went to public school and I'm going to be a teacher, so maybe I take offense with what boundless says about public schools. I am sick and tired of teachers being seen as bad guys on Christian websites. Apparently, teachers are just people who indoctrinate kids and really don't care about the students. That is completely false. I am a Christian and I happen to love teaching. Stop making one extreme school look like the norm.
38. Ted Slater said the following at 2:03 PM on Mar 7:
38
Anne (#37) -- Like you, I went to a public school. Like you, I studied to become a teacher (earning a master's degree in Education). Like you, I am a Christian.
My sister is a teacher in a public school. Teachers are not "the bad guys." I honestly don't know how you came to the conclusion that we're saying that. I really don't.
You wrote, "I take offense with what you say about homeschooled students being smarter." Please show me where I said that.
One final question: Is your name Anne or Beth or Suzy or Claudia? And do you really have that many Hotmail accounts?
Catherine (#34) -- I appreciate your clarification, which seems to say that teens may be ready to be let loose in government schools to provide a Christian witness to their peers. I think that argument has some merit. As for 6-year-olds, I'm not sure most of them are sufficiently prepared to withstand being under an ungodly (by very definition) education.
Again, if a parent is able to either educate their own child or delegate that authority to godly educators, I think that's the way to go. If they're in a place where the only option for them is to allow the government to educate their child, they will likely have to work with their child after "school" to ensure a proper education (to understand, for example, the relevance of the Lord or Scripture when it comes to a particular subject).
39. Sara said the following at 6:38 PM on Mar 11:
39
Ted, 38
I don't know if that was very nice to call Anne out on using all those different screen names! I was like that, too, when I first started posting things online: it's very nerve-wracking at first, thinking how what you're writing could be read by anyone... at least it was for me, and I wasn't posting anything particularly weird or not true to myself. I remember being very paranoid, and having someone announce that I was acting funny would've made me even less likely to use my real name!
I totally get where you're coming from, about not lying and such... at the same time, you're coming from the place of being totally comfortable with the whole world knowing your thoughts. Some people are more shy and anxious and private.
Of course, maybe this Anne person is a total jerk, I don't know.
(Just read the other posts)
Ted again,
I wasn't clear, I very much agree that words only have meaning outside of ourselves: isolated people don't develop language, it's a community thing. Therefore word meaning is *collectively*...subjective. :0
Andrea-Elena, what a sweet post :)