Book Review of "Already Compromised", plus Some Thoughts

Comment

Comment by Adam J. Benton on May 19, 2011 at 5:36am

I don't think you have to convince me because I think we mostly agree. We both acknowledge that teaching alone is limited and that uncontrolled "exposure" isn't necessarily the best thing. I suspect we would both take the additional step and go "therefore controlled exposure is good" although we may quibble over what "controlled" is.

 

As for them letting down their guard, I think this ties into the earlier point you made about how they'll have to make up their mind eventually. Both of these mean that it is important children are taught how to think, not merely what to think. Provide someone with a basic education in critical thinking and with any luck that'll take over where their apologetic training fails - perhaps when they "turn it off" because they feel safe or encounter an unusual situation. A fallacy is a fallacy whether its being made by an evolutionist or professing Christian college and the student will be able to point it out and not fall victim to unbiblical thinking because their guard is down.

Comment by David Thomas Posey on May 18, 2011 at 4:23pm

Well, I don't reckon I'll change your mind; the point of the book is that many students are getting taught falsely at Christian institutions where they might have their guard down.  In other words, they get more than exposure, but also indoctrination that can confuse or corrupt them before they know they're even being exposed to anti-Biblical teaching. 

Regardless of why they turn aside, from lack of teaching ahead of time and/or the evolutionary teaching, people need to know that they could face compromise even where they feel the safest.  I think the book does a pretty good job of providing this warning.

Comment by Adam J. Benton on May 18, 2011 at 3:01pm

But teaching is inherently limited and thus "exposure" (or whatever word you want) is needed to make up for the limited nature of education. Yes, care must be taken - the reason many loose faith upon leaving a mono-culture is they're accosted with many other views most of the time - but with sufficient context and control, I see no reason why, for example, an Imam may be invited to explain what Islam is at a youth group, perhaps with a sermon before or after on where the Islam goes wrong. That way you get the "exposure" but also the teaching and "indoctrination."

Comment by David Thomas Posey on May 18, 2011 at 1:15pm

Something about the word exposure I don't like.  You're right that teaching can only go so far, but extreme care should be taken when encountering false worldviews. 

I like the analogy of counterfeit money detectors; (as I've been told) they study good money all the time, and become completely familiar with it.  Then when they see the counterfeit stuff they can recognize it.  If a person is well trained (shall I say, indoctrinated?) in the truth, they will have a basis from which any exposure can be interpreted. 

I don't think we're supposed to give all options and let them decide for themselves (although eventually they have to), but rather give the right option and defend it against the wrong ones.

Comment by Adam J. Benton on May 18, 2011 at 10:17am

And any apologetic training should involve exposure to others, rather than merely being taught about them as teaching can never convey the complexity of others.

Comment by David Thomas Posey on May 18, 2011 at 10:06am

If you mean the parents should train up their children in the way they should go, so that when they are old they won't depart from it, i.e. apologetics training, I wholeheartedly agree with you.  Coming out from among them and being seperate is great, but we still need to be always ready to give an answer.

Comment by Adam J. Benton on May 18, 2011 at 5:35am

Why are the arrows dulled when they go to college? I suspect the answer isn't that they're taught unbiblical beliefs, as being taught something doesn't equal acceptance (as posts on this site from students questioning their biology education attests too) but rather that they're exposed to the existence of alternative ideas. No matter how well one is taught about another person they will be far more complex than that teaching could ever inform you so the first time you speak to them you will be surprised and introduced to a new idea, which you'll have to adapt into your worldview and whenever a worldview adapts it has the potential to go in the "wrong" direction.

 

Thus even though a child may be taught about, for example, Muslims they're still going to be surprised when they encounter one and have to adapt. As such I think the policy of isolation I see a lot of Christian communities is a bad thing since as soon as a child leaves this mono-culture they'll be exposed to so many different opinions there's a good chance their beliefs will be "dulled." Surely it would be better for a child to be exposed to many different ideas before they leave their parents so that the parents can shape the adaptation that follows encountering a new culture and so I suspect isolationism isn't the answer.