I just came across this article.
A Church of England school has a Christian group come in to teach a bit of Christianity. Reading between the lines, it seems they teach that when people do things wrong, it's called sin. However, some parents kicked up a fuss, saying that their kids had been upset by this. (They said that this was an extremist view!) As a result, the headteacher submits to the parents' complaints and bans that Christian group from the school.
Here are the problems:
1. It should come as no surprise that a Church of England school might teach Christianity. Surely people would wonder why it is called a Church of England school if they didn't teach Christianity?
2. What are the parents really upset about? The article makes out that it was due to "teaching them about sin"... is this implying that kids shouldn't be told that people do bad things in the world, and that we all do things wrong at times? Has society really got to the point where we no longer believe that minor misdemeanours are still wrong, and that those who do believe such things must be extremists?
3. A headteacher of a Church school apologising to parents for - essentially - being a Church school.
Now, as if the article itself wasn't bad enough, the 'Comments' section shows a greater level of stupidity:
Thankfully, the word 'wrongdoing' can be defined as 'sin'. Interestingly, having grown up (as a Christian) with the understanding that sin is simply the term used for all bad things (from lying about homework to mass murder), 'sin' does seem to sometimes be defined as a theological concept, however it is not considered a purely theological concept. It still refers to moral wrong.
Plus, given that the vast majority (over 95%) of the world's population describe themselves as having an element of spirituality or some sort, certainly those people will understand the word 'sin' and I would be very surprised to find that they have "moved on from equating it to wrongdoing."
Since 'sin' is almost always equated with 'wrongdoing', given the nature of the school being a Church of England school, even if it is considered a theological concept, it would not be out of place.
Added to which, most people wish to see 'wrongdoing' punished - hence the justice system. The real theological aspect to 'sin' would be the result: that unforgiven sin would result in an unpleasant punishment of some form... what is commonly referred to as 'hell'.
Parents should be able to pull something good from this: children are now questioning their actions and it should open up the way for discussions on consequences. Such a discussion is much needed in Western society today.
This is potentially a pathway the UK will walk down unless political correctness is brought to reason.
This was a comment that caught my attention: the question of 'choice'.
There is always a choice. If a person is truly unhappy with something, they will make a change. Parents seem to be happy with the school being a Church of England school. When something like this comes up where a parent disagrees, it is the current social trend to try to force the school to change.
It is not a case of there not being agreeable schools in the area, it's a case that the parents don't want the inconvenience of moving house in order to be close to a more agreeable school. It's essentially selfish. The options are simple:
a) Accept the school for the way it is.*
b) Move to a different school in the local area (which may also be Church related).
c) Move house to find a more agreeable school.
It seems that these parents (as per the current trend) wish the least inconvenience to themselves: write a letter using current political buzzwords such as 'extremism' to force their view.
The current glorification of 'rights' prevents people from seeing a move in location as a viable option. It's as if they think, "I have a right to live where I want and for the government to provide me with an agreeable school nearby."
That attitude is selfish and destructive.
*Unless the school is openly abusing children, in which case it should most certainly be reported. But such a school would not last long as responsible parents would be uncomfortable with it and remove their children from it. But talking about 'sin' or other concepts (theological or otherwise) is not a form of abuse.
A Church of England school has a Christian group come in to teach a bit of Christianity. Reading between the lines, it seems they teach that when people do things wrong, it's called sin. However, some parents kicked up a fuss, saying that their kids had been upset by this. (They said that this was an extremist view!) As a result, the headteacher submits to the parents' complaints and bans that Christian group from the school.
Here are the problems:
1. It should come as no surprise that a Church of England school might teach Christianity. Surely people would wonder why it is called a Church of England school if they didn't teach Christianity?
2. What are the parents really upset about? The article makes out that it was due to "teaching them about sin"... is this implying that kids shouldn't be told that people do bad things in the world, and that we all do things wrong at times? Has society really got to the point where we no longer believe that minor misdemeanours are still wrong, and that those who do believe such things must be extremists?
3. A headteacher of a Church school apologising to parents for - essentially - being a Church school.
Now, as if the article itself wasn't bad enough, the 'Comments' section shows a greater level of stupidity:
Plus, given that the vast majority (over 95%) of the world's population describe themselves as having an element of spirituality or some sort, certainly those people will understand the word 'sin' and I would be very surprised to find that they have "moved on from equating it to wrongdoing."
Since 'sin' is almost always equated with 'wrongdoing', given the nature of the school being a Church of England school, even if it is considered a theological concept, it would not be out of place.
Added to which, most people wish to see 'wrongdoing' punished - hence the justice system. The real theological aspect to 'sin' would be the result: that unforgiven sin would result in an unpleasant punishment of some form... what is commonly referred to as 'hell'.
Parents should be able to pull something good from this: children are now questioning their actions and it should open up the way for discussions on consequences. Such a discussion is much needed in Western society today.
There is always a choice. If a person is truly unhappy with something, they will make a change. Parents seem to be happy with the school being a Church of England school. When something like this comes up where a parent disagrees, it is the current social trend to try to force the school to change.
It is not a case of there not being agreeable schools in the area, it's a case that the parents don't want the inconvenience of moving house in order to be close to a more agreeable school. It's essentially selfish. The options are simple:
a) Accept the school for the way it is.*
b) Move to a different school in the local area (which may also be Church related).
c) Move house to find a more agreeable school.
It seems that these parents (as per the current trend) wish the least inconvenience to themselves: write a letter using current political buzzwords such as 'extremism' to force their view.
The current glorification of 'rights' prevents people from seeing a move in location as a viable option. It's as if they think, "I have a right to live where I want and for the government to provide me with an agreeable school nearby."
That attitude is selfish and destructive.
*Unless the school is openly abusing children, in which case it should most certainly be reported. But such a school would not last long as responsible parents would be uncomfortable with it and remove their children from it. But talking about 'sin' or other concepts (theological or otherwise) is not a form of abuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment