10 Tips for Destroying Your Children’s Souls

Sheltering depends on how it is done. Completely cut them off from the world so that they have no idea what is out there? Bad idea. At the same time, children do need to be raised so that while they are aware of what is going on, the world is not influencing them. That’s the hard part. But as a result, there are things I will not give my children to watch or listen to (which would include South Park and Marilyn Manson. Rule of thumb: if I don’t need to see/hear it, I’m certainly not going to give it to my kids!).

We don’t have cable (satellite, whatever) tv in large part because we believe television exerts too great an influence on kids. At the same time we are not without a television, we just have much more control over what the kids watch (Amazon Prime as well as Apple TV + itunes; we’ve built up a fair collection of movies & shows), how it is presented, and thus can help guide their response to what they see. The noose is pretty tight right now, but as our kids get older it will be relaxed until it gets to the point that they have a great deal of freedom to make their own decisions as to what they take in.

Chris, I agree to your initial response to Nick and respect your own efforts at parenting, but I don’t believe children can be raised in such a way that the world doesn’t influence them without an Amish-like separation from the world. I think it is a given that the world will influence kids. Kids will always manage to get around the best attempts and intentions to control what they see and hear (and it need not be intentional disobedience, just peoples homes where different values are held).

Certainly, your rule of thumb is good. However, another rule of thumb is that if the world esteems it we will be confronted by it. I don’t think introducing children/teens to Manson and South Park needs to be synonymous with putting it on a pedestal, encouraging them to accept it/esteem it, etc. I think properly preparing a child for it can in fact more effectively teach them that it isn’t as big a deal as their friends make it out to be and not worthy of the esteem given it. Personally, I think that would be more effective than sheltering or ignoring it. If actively sheltering kids communicates dishonesty then actively ignoring certain worldly influences, I fear, communicates apathy. I think we should take the bull by the horns when it comes to depraved influences and demonstrate how a Christian can be in but not of the world, neither fearing it or living in a world that is more our imagination than reality.

We can make kids aware of what the world produces without making it available to them. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? By your reckoning, does the pervasive presence of pornography in our society mean we should introduce our kids to it so they know what to expect? We are to guard ourselves – and all the more our children – from these influences. This is neither dishonest nor apathetic (even the more “monastic” type separation is not dishonest, even if it is ill advised). Yes, the world will influence our kids. Yes, they will see and hear things we don’t want them to. No, it is not our jobs to ensure that these things never, ever cross their paths (particularly since it would be impossible for us to do so). At the same time, it remains our job to train our children in the way they should go – not by showing them the devil and trying to convince them that he is more unpleasant than their lost friends make him out to be, but by showing them Christ and making sure his glory is on display even when we encounter those worldly influences which would wrest for their attention.

Actively, showing kids porn? I don’t know. They’ll see it sooner or later. I’m not advocating it, but if they had it I’d use it as a conversation starter. They do need to know the parts of anatomy and their function. They need to know about lust and God’s plan for sexuality. They need to know how pornography degrades women and entraps men. They may even find helpful to hear the testimony of a parent that has struggled with it and what they learned about God and grace and getting through it. And in this day and age I think those conversations need to happen at a young age.

I think we may be somewhat close in our outlook if our rhetoric isn’t quite matching. I don’t want to over-protectively separate my kids from it, or ignore it, or come across as some wrist-slapping, sexually-frustrated, “sexuality is evil” puritan. All of those are unhelpful. I think whatever the worldly influence the worst thing we can do is misrepresent it for something it’s not either by fearing it through over-protectiveness, ignoring it and not recognizing what it is, misunderstanding it or intentionally being misleading about it. That sends the wrong message to kids and is a big reason for a lot of rebellion. If our faith does not let us deal truthfully and transparently with the world then our faith is not in God.

Thanks for the discussion.

“”it isn’t as big a deal as their friends make it out to be””

I’m sure there is more to this statement than perhaps was fleshed out, but I was struck by the phrase, “it isn’t a big deal,” in regard to wordliness and ungodliness.

Again, I don’t want to jump too hard on this phrase because I don’t think it was meant in an extreme way of accepting and capitulating to culture.

I guess I fall on the “prudish” side of the line. I think all sin, “including the little ones like South Park” are an afront to God Who is holy. I don’t look on the Amish with contempt as examples of people who are somehow “off the charts” when it comes to holiness.

I lived in Amish country and I just know that such a stereotype of Amish values is just that, a stereotype.

I guess we will forever be at odds between those who believe Christ is with culture and Christ is against culture (to paraphrase a great scholar).

“Coming out and being separate” in my opinion should not be caricatured as “sheltering from, ignoring, or fearing” the world. I personally look at it as a matter of “separation” demanded by Paul’s clear admonition and the entire teaching of the “Holiness Code.”

While we are no longer bound to live by the “Holiness Code,” we would be wise, it seems to me, to be instructed by it. That necessarily would involve some level of separation.

“”Actively, showing kids porn? I don’t know.””

There are many, many times I have to admit, “I don’t know.”

This isn’t one of them.

“If our faith does not let us deal truthfully and transparently with the world then our faith is not in God.”

Being “truthful and transparent” is one thing. Showing or giving your kids porn is another.

Frankly Blake, if you use porn as a “conservation starter” you faith is not in God. Your faith is in Blake and Blake’s inflated, egotistical self-centered, self assurance that Ole Blake can handle porn and teach his children about porn and not get burned.

“You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness.”

To be fair, Blake did not say give it to them as a conversation starter; he said if he found them with it, if they had it. And that’s a fair response. Catch your kids with porn? It’s time for a frank conversation.

I remember a professor talking about finding his sons with a Playboy magazine. He said he flipped it open with them and started asking things like, “What if this was your sister?” Now, that’s just a Playboy, which back then would be mild compared to most of the stuff today, but it still points to the kind of thing Blake meant by using it as a conversation starter.

Thank you Chris.

Frank and cb, you aren’t even trying to read my words in context or you wouldn’t suggest such outlandish things. When I say “it isn’t a big deal…” that can NOT be separated from the rest of that sentence “I think properly preparing a child for it can in fact more effectively teach them that it isn’t as big a deal as their friends make it out to be and not worthy of the esteem given it.” All of the depraved novelties that exist in the world are tools of the lying one. When we see clearly how these things are connected to corrupting influences, rather than superstitious illusion (i.e. black and white, don’t do it because it’s bad because I/the Bible said so) the novelty and excitement wears off since depravity is more common than dirt.

I believe sheltering is a kind of fear-mongering that gives those things more power and honor than they really have. If Christ has saved us from sin past, present and future and we believe that by seeking Him we can overcome temptation then the powerlessness and worthlessness of these things should not cause us to fear them or create that fear in others. And do not misinterpret that as a license for anything. I already harp on holiness to the point that many may confuse me for a legalist. We have a real power as followers of Christ to not only change this world but also to encounter it differently. Christian parents have an obligation to disciple their children in that power that comes from the one true living God and that power can not be absent in the face of popular depravity if we’re going to equip future generations to be in but not of the world.

So, no, those depraved things aren’t a as big a deal as the depraved would make them out to be. They’re common things. They deserve no place of honor or esteem. They have no power over the believer that the believer does not allow them to have. By the power of Christ’s grace we can extinguish their influence on us. These things are the tools of rats, not demigods. No one fears a rat more than they do God. I advocate that through holiness and wisdom we disciple our children to recognize and live this truth in holiness and wisdom.

Blake. We do in fact disagree. I don’t think anything I said was outlandish.

In fact I qualified my comment on your phrase about “a big deal” so as not to take it to an extreme.

Your words about porn were simply quoted as is. You expressed ambivalence. I simply expressed an opposite point of view.

Again. I do not want to push your view beyond what you said. You have a more open approach than I advocate.

You also continue to call my view “fearful and sheltering”. I prefer the term “separation.”

I don’t see that as “outlandish “

Frank, you’re right, we do have a difference of opinion. In my life experience seeing what happened in the lives of my peers and my own life, the definition of separation you and others appear to support (maybe I’m not clear enough on your definition) is one that I can not interpret any other way than fearful or sheltering. If your definition is what I think it is I have seen too many of my friends in high school and college and nearly myself at one point either walk away from their faith or become status quo Christians after being raised in homes that had very similar definitions of “separation”. I am more open in my approach because I don’t want my kids to go through what I and my peers went through. I’d like to think that this strategy is adjusted based on what I perceive to be the mistakes and blindspots of my and my peers’ parents. I hope and pray that the different strategy will have the desired outcome.

“”” In my life experience seeing what happened in the lives of my peers and my own life, the definition of separation you and others appear to support “””

Blake, I’ll start a new thread. The other was getting a bit long.

My definition of “separation” is simply to follow what the Bible says, “Come out from among them and be separate.”

I think you are using a stereotype and caricature of “Amish” (I don’t remember if you mentioned them or not) or perhaps the rigid legalistic position of some “holiness” groups.

That is not what I mean. In my opinion, and I could be misinterpreting your view, you are much more “liberal” (not theologically speaking) than I believe the Bible allows.

For example, you appear not to be gravely concerned about the worldly trends in T.V. (Southpark, etc.). It’s “not that big of deal.” I agree that it is not the “cause” of the great evils of the world and would not warrant a “movement” against Hollywood, but I think you have gone too far from your boyhood experience in the other direction.

I’ve raised my kids. In fact, I could hear myself saying the very things you have said. And, I agree with the “spirit” of what you are saying if not perhaps the “details” of your approach.

I am sorry I was not more “separatist” with my kids. I was far too permissive thinking they were “getting it” since I was a pastor from their births. That was a huge mistake on my part.

It is a painful mistake I am living with. I know other pastors who fared much worse taking the same approach I did. So, I am thankful.

Experience, as you point out, has a huge impact upon our “views.” My experience has been that being too permissive is far more deadly than being too strict — if that is the only two options one has which I don’t think it is.

You are on pendulum. You are swinging in a direction away from your “experience.” I too am on a pendulum swinging away from my experience (which is probably a bit more than yours by age).

The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

If I made it seem like I am judging you to be “morally loose,” then I have not spoken clearly. We differ in the direction of our swing, but I think we are both hoping to get back to the middle.

This issue is a “thorny” one to be sure, but one with immense consequences for one’s choices.

Frank, thanks for sharing. To be clear I agree with and am trying to be faithful to the Bible’s view of separation. I used the Amish specifically because their concept of separation is too far. I, too, live in Amish country and am aware of the stereotype and don’t consider them to be models of holiness. In fact, to speak plainly, I think they’ve taken separation to such an extreme I wouldn’t consider them Christian since they don’t obey the Great Commission.

I don’t think I am being permissive or liberal. In fact I’m advocating being controlling, but of a different nature. I believe in close supervision coupled with a ready, scripture based analysis. I don’t believe in permitting anyone to sin. I’d like to think of this as more like a vaccine (small controlled dosage, discipled and supervised correctly to result in rejection of future sin) rather than a “let’s avoid letting them make contact” approach. I also, don’t think that South Park et al are “no big deal”. In a cosmic sense and compared to God they are no big deal. For a Christian properly dependent on God they can be no big deal (meaning they can have no trouble avoiding them and not be tempted when they do run into them). For the world they are a big deal and I want my children to understand why the world considers them a big deal and why they do not have to and should not follow suit.

I don’t know you or your kids, but I also want my ideas to be heard and considered by those who really were very sheltering but may be under the false impression that they didn’t shelter enough (maybe that’s you, maybe not). The issue isn’t how much to control or not control, but the being upfront and honest about the world. Yes, parents need to responsibly control what their kids are exposed to, but they should be transparent about the reasons why and the reasons need to be more thoughtful than Bible prooftexting. There should not be taboo subjects to talk about with kids (that might be going too far so I’m not going to be completely absolutist on that one).

My dad was a pastor, too, and I had friends that went off the deep end who were pastors kids and I suspect their parents and my parents wondered at times whether they disciplined too much or not enough. I wish they understood that they’re focusing on the wrong thing. The issue was that they weren’t upfront and honest. They didn’t trust us to handle the truth (if they even knew it to begin with). They weren’t openly vulnerable or imperfect. I resonate with most of the items on Mike’s original list. I really just want to get across that humility, honesty and transparency will go a long way in helping kids learn from and respect whatever boundaries parents feel are best to have in place.

Chris Roberts,

There is a difference between the meaning of this statement by Blake:

“Actively, showing kids porn? I don’t know. They’ll see it sooner or later. I’m not advocating it, but if they had it I’d use it as a conversation starter.”

And this statement of interpretation of his statement by you:

” Catch your kids with porn? It’s time for a frank conversation.”

You are right. Catch your kids with porn, have a frank conversation. And yes, in that conversation, be honest about yourself. A man should always be honest about himself.

On the other hand, Blake stated, “Actively showing your kids porn? I don’t know.”

Chris, that is a weak statement and you know it. Any man who has lived in this world and is honest with himself knows that there is only one answer to this question: “Actively showing your kids porn?” The one and only answer is: No. We, as followers of Christ should never actively show our children porn. To do so is to play with fire.

Chris, we as fathers are not in the boy business. We are to be in the man business. We should seek to teach our sons to be:

Spiritually strong.
Emotionally strong
Mentally strong
Physically strong.

A major problem among American Christians is that men have abandoned the teaching of their sons to be men, men of God, strong men of God.

cb, sorry to be blunt but your exegesis of my words is complete crap. You can’t take single sentences and phrases out of my posts and twist my meaning to say something “I’m not advocating.” I can not imagine under what circumstances I would show porn to my kids. “I don’t know” is me trying to display the humility and honesty I was discussing earlier by not being able to imagine such an ordeal.

I do know no one learns to drive by reading a manual with no pictures and no one learns to fight temptation by never facing it. I’m not advocating getting children to sin. I’m not advocating putting them in environments where they may be tempted beyond what they can bear. I am advocating proactively and carefully strengthening them spiritually so they don’t stumble over certain things when they inevitably encounter them.

I’m not omniscient and can’t imagine all scenarios, but it does seem like probability would suggest there may exist a one in a million scenario where teaching them to face pornography with more than a stern lecture might be more beneficial than the stern lecture. I’m not advocating giving kids porn. I’m only suggesting the world works in strange ways and if we don’t find more creative ways to deal with things than stern lectures and wrist slapping we WILL lose this generation.

Blake,

I did quote your words as you stated them.

Blake, porn is like fire. Fire is bad if attached to the human body. Porn is bad if looked upon. It really is that simple.

Therefore, there is only one right thinking and righteous answer to, “Actively show my kids porn?” That answer is simple. It is: “No, I would never show my kids porn.”

The answer would never be, “I don’t know.” That is a poor and weak answer. There is no other way to look at it. There was no “humility,” as you state, in that answer. It was simply a weak and misguided answer and you need, for your sake and for your children, if you have any, realize it as such right now before you put yourself and your children in harm’s way.

Blake, I spent 14 years as an advocate for sexually abused children. Every perpetrator I ever dealt with had been a user of pornography. Porn is as addictive as crack and for many of the same reasons. Leave it alone.

Lastly, I must ask, do you actually have children?