We had another bullying incident affect one of our children today. Something like this has happened in our family every year (this one is mild by comparison to some others, thankfully).
It’s going on everywhere. A student at another high school just a mile from our home committed suicide last year rather than face repeated bullying. It’s a tragedy widespread enough to have its own name now: “bullycide.”
I can’t claim expertise in bullying statistics, trends, or causes. I know our own family’s story well enough, though. Our children have been advised to “ignore it first, then ask the other person to stop.” It hasn’t worked. (How surprising is that?) They’ve been told to “advocate for yourself.” That’s good advice as far as it goes, if the theory is true that bullies seek out those who seem weak. There is a limit, though. If someone threatens me with a weapon, I’m not going to “advocate for myself,” I’m going to call the police. That principle has a parallel in the schools: sometimes teachers and administrators must get involved.
The solution cooked up by one of our daughter’s grade-school teachers was to write a mark on the whiteboard when she caught a student misbehaving. She gave one student twenty-six marks one day. Something was desperately wrong there. We finally got Lisa, our daughter, transferred to another classroom, where the teacher had a reputation for being terribly strict. Lisa was just thankful and relieved to be in a safe environment at last.
A few months ago she and I talked with a middle-school counselor who has been trying to strengthen anti-bullying measures in our county. Lisa was hoping there might be some way she could help as a student. I asked the counselor what he considered to be the causes of bullying. He answered in terms of broken homes (undoubtedly a major contributor), and also self-esteem issues among both bullies and victims. He’s a thoughtful and well-informed man, but still his list seemed to be missing something, so I asked him, “Isn’t it also that bullies know they can get away with it? Wouldn’t bullying decrease if schools took strong disciplinary action against it?”
It wasn’t a new thought to him—but it had hardly been mentioned at the last anti-bullying conference he had attended. Bullies can be very good at hiding what they do, he said, which partially explains how they get away with it. Our family’s experience, however, tells us that some bullies get a pass. Even when the schools have known what was going on, they haven’t always done much about it. Sometimes they have (one principal stands out as excellent among them), but not consistently enough at all.
I was a music education major at Michigan State University in the 1970s, when MSU’s education department was regarded as one of the top two or three in the country. Our training included a semester in a sensitivity group—a valuable experience for the relationship training it provided, yet weakened terribly by the ethical philosophy informing it. The buzzword of the day was “values clarification.” Teachers were not to impose ethical values, but rather to help students clarify and understand their own, with a view to honoring all students’ values. It was an incoherent idea from the beginning, for there is an ethical value expressed even in that; and to enforce (or not enforce) any rule whatsoever is to communicate and to impose a value upon students. Moreover, as Josh McDowell has pointed out, the Columbine shooters were expressing their values, too. Why not honor them for the clarity of their purpose, if clarity was indeed what their schools were trying to promote?
Values clarification was the fruit of an unbiblical and manifestly false view of persons, that we are basically good: if only our goodness can be drawn out from inside us, we will all do good to each other. This failed educational doctrine has never disappeared as it deserves; instead it has morphed over time into tolerance, the value imposed on others by those who would never dream of imposing a value on others. The effect of values clarification (or at least its underlying philosophy) remains in schools’ unwillingness to recognize evil for what it is. One telling outcome of the 9/11 tragedy was young persons’ “full cognitive meltdown:”
The campuses, once citadels of opposition to military action, generally are quiet, in part, said author and commentator David Rieff [in October, 2001], because this generation of students is hamstrung by the “politically correct” education it has received since kindergarten. “The nice kids have been taught that all differences are to be celebrated,” said Rieff, currently a visiting professor at the University of California Berkeley, “and they’re in full cognitive meltdown. Their homeroom teachers and guidance counselors never told them that there are people in the world who mean them harm.”
To young people educated in this way, Rieff said, “it just doesn’t make emotional sense that cultural differences could lead to war and not greater understanding.”
Schools need to help children understand that evil is real. There are people in the world who mean them harm—and some of them might be riding the same bus with them.
There is a growing anti-bullying movement in America. I welcome and applaud it. I doubt it will succeed the way it could and should, though, unless it takes seriously what Bible believers have known all along (but which our culture has suppressed): that supreme goodness is not bound up in the heart of humans, just waiting for the opportunity to be released. There is evil among and within us. It needs both redemption and correction. As long as we try to hide these obvious truths from ourselves, bullycides will increase, and children like my daughter and her friends will continue to get hurt.
The school assured us today that they will deal with this incident appropriately. We’ve always worked hard to keep good relationships with our kids’ teachers and administrators, and this time I think they will do what needs to be done. I’d love for them to prove my thesis wrong (this time, at least) that schools don’t respond the way they should; for obviously it is a generalization that has exceptions. If they take the right action I believe it will help. It’s hardly the whole answer, but it would be a good step to take.
March 2nd, 2011 | 10:47 am | #1
One thing I’ve noticed is that whenever I run across an anti-bullying article in the popular press, it’s always, always aimed at “how to teach your child to deal with a bully.”
Never, “How to figure out if your kid is a bully and what to do about it.”
For every bullied child, there must logically be a proportionate number of bullies. Not every child involved in a bullying incident is a victim. Yet at least popularly, ALL effort is expended at teaching the victim how to respond, none at teaching your kids not to be bullies and dealing with them if they are. I guess that’s because, like the Berkeley students of 2001, no one wants to talk about the reality of “bad” kids, and also because suggesting that your kid might be a problem implies that you are a “bad parent.” And “suggesting that someone is a bad parent” now seems to be giving racism a run for its money as the last and worst sin that it’s possible to commit.
March 2nd, 2011 | 12:06 pm | #2
There is also a responsibility on the part of the parents of the bullied child. That responsibility ranges from karate lessons (bullies have kneecaps too) to aggressive legal action against the bully and his parents. Take it out of the hands of the school and put it in the hands of the courts. (After all, the money from the sale of the bullying child’s parents home will contribute greatly to the bullied child’s college tuition.)
March 2nd, 2011 | 12:15 pm | #3
Chuck: agreed. We have not quite had to go to court, but we have gotten police involved. Not that we would have minded a settlement….
March 2nd, 2011 | 6:42 pm | #4
I know some people will think this is simplistic, but here goes: Kick the little bastards out of school, call the cops, and sue the parents. There, I said it!
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:14 am | #5
A thought-provoking and interesting article. Good comments, too.
Since I am 25, and therefore have exposure to and (now) distance from that politically correct education, I’d say your analysis is spot on. The reality of bad kids is simply glossed over, as is the implied possibility of bad parenting.
It’s simply unreasonable to think that everyone can be reasoned with, if you only sit down and talk with them. People who think like that are the most unreasonable of all! And yet that very assumption — that we can “advocate” for ourselves — is simply naive.
People are not inherently good or kind. They are a mixture of good and bad. Overall, this makes us impure. Yet, by God’s regenerative action through faith and confession we are made clean, and we can attain a level of decency. But to simply assume that such decency is hidden within each of us, independent of divine intervention…
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:39 am | #6
I agree with you, Tom, that we must address the bullying problem, and some people are evil, and mean others harm. I’m assuming you agree, though, that not ALL people, mean others harm?
Which brings me to the coherence, of the notion that, all people are not basically good. Is it your position that, all humans are not basically good? and if so, how does one account for the fact that, many people ARE good, and this goodness can be traced to good upbringing?
What I’m trying to decipher here, is the coherence of the notion that, all humans are “not basically good”. If this is true, how do we account tfor people, like yourself, who want to end bullying, for example, a manifestation, I would submit, of your goodness.
Do we have a level of “badness” that all humans possess, as a result of the Fall, but then varying levels of goodness, that result from genetic/environmental factors, that are able to be altered, by human efforts?
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:43 am | #7
And, how do we coherently, on a theoretical level, connect the basic “badness”, all humans presumably possess, as a result of the Fall, with thvarying levels of goodness/badness, that we can correct, and how do we know that we’ve reached the basic level of “badness”, we all have, due to the fall, and therefore, we cannot correct, and must accept, and leave to God?
March 3rd, 2011 | 9:43 am | #8
Hi Bret,
We are all born into sin, and are all ‘not’ good (Rom.3:23)(Psalms 51:5)(Rom.3:10-18). Scripture is very clear on this, and yet you write as if we only ‘presumably’ have a sin problem. Every single one of us has a sin problem, we are ‘all’ not good. Mitigating factors such as upbringing, cultural constraints, and the general grace of God for unbelievers, and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit for believers is what tempers our inherent non-goodness.
Do you remember the story in Mark 10 where Jesus asked the rich young ruler why he (the rich young ruler) called Him (Jesus) ‘good’? Jesus’ response was that no one is good except God alone (Mark 10:18).
True correction in behavior only comes as one submits himself/herself to the commands of Scripture and to the prompting of the Holy Spirit that resides in the believer.
March 3rd, 2011 | 9:55 am | #9
There is also a responsibility on the part of the parents of the bullied child.
I am sick of hearing about the responsibilities on the part of the bullied child and his parents.
Let’s hear more about the responsibilities of teachers, to provide a safe environment.
When bullies hit the age of 21, you stop hearing about how it’s the victim of workplace harassment to deal correctly with the harasser.
Among adults, it is the responsibility of the employer to provide an environment safe from inappropriate harassment. Why are schools held to a different standard?
March 3rd, 2011 | 9:57 am | #10
Oops – meant to say, “”When bullies hit the age of 21, you stop hearing about how it’s the responsibility of the victim of workplace harassment to deal correctly with the harasser”
March 3rd, 2011 | 10:01 am | #11
Right on, Blake. I will say that I’ve heard a lot of hoopla lately about “what schools can do” and “anti-bullying programs” and so forth, so there’s at least an admission that schools have some responsibility That’s why I pointed out that what I *haven’t* heard is the responsibility on the part of the parents of the *bully.*
However, I do notice that most of the “anti-bullying” stuff is focused on relationships, and how to teach kids to react to bullies, and things like that . There’s very little focus on “how to haul the bully’s behind in for discipline and make sure it stops.” And yes, I know that much bullying is clandestine, but you can’t tell me my teachers were oblivious to everything that went on in their classrooms when I, and others, were bullied fairly openly. There was just a belief, starting I don’t know when, and continuing in various forms to the present, that “kids need to work these things out themselves.” As you say, that would never fly in adult workplace or academic environments.
March 3rd, 2011 | 11:27 am | #12
By all means the schools should also share the burden of responisibility and that includes suing the administrators who fail to prevent it as well as the individual teachers who fail to preven it.
A couple of school teachers living in a cardboard box under a bridge is a good message to send to the rest of them.
March 3rd, 2011 | 11:55 am | #13
“how do we know that we’ve reached the basic level of “badness”, we all have, due to the fall, and therefore, we cannot correct, and must accept, and leave to God?”
The doctrine of the corruption of humanity in no way entails the idea that there is an endpoint to the opposition to evil, particularly in cases where the protection of the relatively innocent is in view. It simply states that the evil is inevitable, not that no efforts should be made to limit and restrict its outworking. Civil law exists because of the recognition that man is corrupt and the corruption must be controlled lest harm occur to others, not because there is an expectation that there will be general conformity to goodness.
Ultimately, we will concede that our efforts will never be fully successful, but that is never to be taken as a requirement, or even a license, to stop striving for civil justice between persons.
March 3rd, 2011 | 11:56 am | #14
There was more than one time along the way when we told our kids that if they got suspended for giving a bully what s/he deserved, we would find a way to celebrate it with them. Never happened, though.
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:16 pm | #15
Steve, hi, great to talk with you. My question is philosophical. How do we coherently put it together? We know some people are better than others. Is this because they have less original sin, than their more evil counterparts? If original sin, is a predisposition, that we all share, how do we account for the differences, in sin level?
I don’t believe in actual sin, that all humans have, at birth. “Sin” only has coherence, in my view, if it translates into ACTUAL behavior. I do believe (in agreement with, although I’m not one, Orthodox interpretation of Original Sin) a human propensity, for sin, that we all have. The question is, how does this translate into a coherent theology? If everyone has the same propensity, why the differences, in actual behavior? How do we account for the saintly behavior of John Paul the second, and the horrible behavior of, say, Ted Bundy?
Some will say, environment and genetics. Perhaps, but how, causally, does this fit into Original Sin, tendencies?
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:26 pm | #16
Hi Bret,
My answer is philosophical. It’s based on the basic presuppositions you have about human nature, creation, your place in it, and whether what God says about it has any bearing. You say you don’t believe in original sin, I understand, and we have had some discussions on this before. This is an underlying issue at the heart of many of our disagreements, but yet you ask these questions to Tom and to the forum as if we all agree with you that there is no such thing as original sin. This is a vast assumption on your part. I think it’s fine to delineate where one’s position on this is, but the answers we come to based on this original starting point are going to be vastly different.
Your thoughts?
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:30 pm | #17
“There was more than one time along the way when we told our kids that if they got suspended for giving a bully what s/he deserved, we would find a way to celebrate it with them. Never happened, though.”
The limitation of that approach is that I, at least, could never have given any bully “what they deserved.” I was undersized and timid. I would have been pounded to a pulp had I attempted it. For some kids, it would just work better if teachers were as zealous about stopping bullies as they were about punishing kids who draw pictures of guns or talk too much in class. Even in my childhood in the 70′s, when kids really did get sent to the principal for things like “talking too much” or “making trouble in class,” teachers looked the other way when it came to one kid picking on another outside of direct class time.
So while I don’t think it’s wrong to hit back at a bully if it comes down to it, I just resist any approach that puts any burden on the bullied child to react properly (however you define that) rather than standing up and saying that it is absolutely unacceptable that we tolerate behavior between kids that would be dealt with between adults, whether in the workplace or in public. This HAS TO CHANGE.
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:36 pm | #18
No, Steve, I ask them, knowing full well that I’m in the minority here.
My position is, how do we account for the differences, if we all have equal “amounts”, if you will, of Original Sin.
My point is, how does one coherently “fit” the doctrine of Original sin, with what we know empirically, that people clearly differ, in their sins, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
I’m asking a valid question: if we all have the same amount of Original Sin, and the latter is the ultimate cause of our sinning, why the differences? I was curious what evangelical or so-called Bible Christians thought of this.
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:53 pm | #19
Penamom: You make some great points. how I see it, those who bully, usually have low self confidence, and often are jealous of those they bully. We must teach our kids to be independent, and self confident. and, with that, they’ll develop the courage to defend those who are bullied, and through this leadership, perhaps serve as role models, to other children. this works with adults, as well, incidently.
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:57 pm | #20
Original sin is not quantifiable. It is a condition of imperfection that limits our ability to do good and achieve holiness in our actions.
The doctrine does not invalidate what we know empirically about parenting, heredity, and so forth as contributors to persons’ character and temperament, except in the case of those who (wrongly, foolishly) think there is empirical reason to believe that humans are basically good and only need their goodness to be drawn out of them. Empirically we know that good behavior comes not by birth but by training, discipline, practice, and so on; and that no one is completely good.
So if you’re looking for some contradiction here to what you already know about human learning and upbringing, you need not look for it. Other than our disagreement about the core doctrine of original sin, the empirical differences are probably not there.
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:01 pm | #21
pentamom: again, I agree that the burden must not rest upon the victims; and that the rest of the world that’s letting this go on needs to wake up and do something definite and decisive about it.
The middle-school counselor of which I wrote in the original post has the right kind of ideas, but he’s stymied by his principal who, for example, is opposed to actions that might cause emotional distress to bullies. We’re trying to pray her out of her job (at this point that’s all the influence we have on it; our kids go to different schools now). She doesn’t belong there.
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:05 pm | #22
Hi Bret,
You said,
‘My position is, how do we account for the differences, if we all have equal “amounts”, if you will, of Original Sin.’
My answer, my friend, was in #8 above. Upbringing plays a big part, I think. Family, friends, our cultural heritage, can all have a mitigating influence on our natural proclivities to evil. For the Christian believer, it’s more than that as well, as we are told in Scripture that the Holy Spirit resides within us, that we are a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16) , and not our own but bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:19-20). That we are a new creature.
One’s presuppositions here Bret will lead down a forked road, with the choice at the crossroads as to how to answer your question in #18 above.
Could some of the differences be genetic, prone to evil in one area over another? Your thoughts?
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:11 pm | #23
Tom, I’m not looking for a contradiction, just coherence. What you say is perfectly sensible. My question is, why some people seem to be more good than others. Perhaps you’ll answer:genetic and environment. I would agree, but where does Original sin, fit into this picture?
I certainly agree with you that, we cannot (or at least there’s no current reason to believe it, although I would not, on an a priori basis, reject its possibility) “perfect” humans. But how does one bridge the conceptual gap, between what you believe, presumably, is real, actual original sin, that all humans, possess, and the very real distinctions between, say, a good person, such as you, and, say, a mobster; you both have equal Original Sin. Is it that, we all have equal Original Sin, and then heredity and environment, works to account for the differences? If so, how does this cohere with the notion that, Original Sin, is itself genetic? Are there two seperate genetic pathways, one for Original Sin, that all humans have, and another, that’s different for each person, and partially accounts for the behavioral predispositions, that environment, can work on?
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:18 pm | #24
Steve, I do believe that, yes, there’s some evidence to suggest that “evil”, has a genetic basis. But (please see my question 23, for Tom), this is distinct from whether Original sin itself is genetic. If they were the same, genetically, we would all be prone to the same types of evil.
But the evidence just doesn’t seem to support the latter notion. some seem to have genetic propensities toward psychopathy, or antisocial personality disorder. That’s distinct, from BEING one, that needs environment. But Original Sin, if it is “genetic” is immune to environmental influences. That is, regardless of one’s environment, according to traditional Christianity, Original sin is immutable.
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:23 pm | #25
Bret said,
‘…say, a good person, such as you, and, say, a mobster; you both have equal Original Sin.’
Taking some liberty here Tom, but Bret, Tom is ‘not’ a good person. Neither am I, neither are you. Before we jump to conclusions, I am speaking of ‘good’ as God sees it. We have all missed the mark. We all have a sin problem. None of us can stand before God as ‘holy’, without mark or blemish. As I stated in #8 above, Jesus said that only God is good. He alone is ‘good’ (Mark 10:18).
The differences in ‘goodness’ that you want to delineate between Tom and a mobster, are human derived ideas of ‘goodness’, not God’s.
God’s standard is complete perfection. Not one single blemish or mark. Can you meet that standard?
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:30 pm | #26
@Bret,
‘But Original Sin, if it is “genetic” is immune to environmental influences. That is, regardless of one’s environment, according to traditional Christianity, Original sin is immutable.’
Hi Bret,
Wrong conclusion. A person born in sin as we all are, is not ‘immune’ to environmental influences. Environment can play a huge part in our behavior. It’s not either/or, it’s and/both.
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:43 pm | #27
Steve, you’re surely not saying that, we can eliminate the effects of Original Sin, by environmental influences, are you?
I’m not denying that environment plays a role (I think I made that explicit in my antisocial personality example), in our traits. My point is, if Original Sin is real, then it perhaps is transmitted genetically. If so, it isn’t influenced by environment (otherwise, why would we need Christ’s redemption). But if it’s genetic, it’s unusual in not being influenced by environment (most, if not all, human traits are), and, it must be distinct from the usual genetic transmission process (since the latter is empirically verifiable, and influenced by environment). But if it’s not genetic,how do we make sense of Original Sin? Is it purely a matter of faith, or what?
March 3rd, 2011 | 1:51 pm | #28
Steve, of course, I could never meet God’s goodness. That’s not the issue. One couls still be good, and not perfectly good. One can be a “theologian”, without being a perfect theologian. One can be “kind”, without being perfectly kind. but that does not necessitate that one postulate Original Sin, to account for it. One could merely stipulate that, only one “being” can be perfectly good, and that’s God.
March 3rd, 2011 | 2:00 pm | #29
Bret, your questions in #23 all seem to be of the sort that I answered in #22.
As to your comment #28, the analogy fails. One can be imperfectly a theologian yet be a theologian; one cannot be imperfectly pure and yet pure. There is pure and there is not-pure. God is pure (good), and no human is.
In human experience there is not even such a thing as sort-of-pure. Or, how good do you think is good enough to be called “good” in God’s eyes? Suppose there’s a percentage scale. How far up that scale do you think a Mother Teresa might be? How far up do you think she might have said she was?
We’re not postulating original sin to account for anything; we know about it because it is revealed. What is empirically evident is that original sin is consistent with what we know about humans, whereas the false notion of original goodness, which I have alluded to above, is not.
March 3rd, 2011 | 2:09 pm | #30
@ Bret,
‘Steve, you’re surely not saying that, we can eliminate the effects of Original Sin, by environmental influences, are you?’
Yes and no Bret, if by what you define ‘goodness’ as.
Yes, environmental influences can have a mitigating effect on our behavior to be evil, but most of us are never as evil as we could be. Most of us never resort to the type of evil that is the basest, most carnal, most insidious type of evil that we as human beings can succumb to. Most of this does not work itself out in the actual physical manifestation of our behavior. This is not true for everyone however.
But our minds are another matter. Jesus says that if you call someone a ‘fool’, you have already committed murder in your heart against that person.
And no, environmental influences do not have any effect on Original Sin when it comes to the standard that God requires of us to be righteous and to take care of our sin problem. There is none who is righteous, and it took the painful and excruciating death of Christ (the only righteous and perfect one) on a cross to solve this for us.
March 3rd, 2011 | 2:21 pm | #31
Tom, I’m not suggesting that humans are completely good. I’m suggesting that, if the word good, means anything, it must be applicable to certain people. Of course, these people are not perfectly good. But they meet the dictionary definition of good. John Paul the second, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, etc., etc. Far from perfect, as we all are, but still good, if we wish to do justice to the common sense interpretation, of the word.
I’m not suggesting that Original sin account for everything. I’m merely asking that it, plausably, account for the traits that we actually find in humans. I often hear that, the wickedness of Humans, is evidence in favor of Original Sin’s validity. Perhaps. But, if so, it seem that we would have more anti-social personality types, than we do (rather than 1 to 2 percent, as is currently estimated), and we would find more evidence, from genetics, of this Original Sin.
Instead, we find genetic evidence for particular human traits, that don’t apply to humans, wholly.
Well, it’s revealed, in all due respect, in your, and other evangelical Christians interpretations, of the Bible. I think it has more to do with that great African philosopher, with the good mother, Monica.
March 3rd, 2011 | 2:29 pm | #32
Steve, thanks. Frankly, the main reason, many humans are not as “bad as we could be”, is that we, well, can’t be! That is, we could not tortue someone, or kill someone, because we would feel too bad about it! I think that this could be God given. But it certainly exists. Most people could not do what Ted Bundy did, because most people are not psychopaths, and being the latter is necessary (although not sufficient) for doing whta he, or Stalin, or Hitler, etc., have done.
That does not mean the rest of us are wonderful. We all must strive to be the most moral we can be, and I hesitiate to say, what I said about humans, generally, being incapable of doing PROFOUND evil, as with the Bundy example, since there’s a possibility of complacency, setting in, but it’s supported by science.
March 3rd, 2011 | 2:35 pm | #33
Steve, I don’t think that Jesus intended that literally. He meant to point out the importance of having good thoughts, about others, because thinking bad, about others, is often a precurser, to behaving badly toward others, not that they’re equivalant, morally.
My question, and perhaps it cannot currently be answered, is, how do we, coherently “fit”, or causally link, Original sin, with what humans actually do.
Do you believe that Original sin, is ACTUAL, or potential. Because I cannot see, how one can be “guilty” of something, unless one has actually done the sin. Hence my support for the propensity of sin.
March 3rd, 2011 | 2:39 pm | #34
i would also like to clarify something. Just because the evidence seems to show that, one must be a pychopath, to do the worst of the worst, that should NEVER make the rest of us let our “guards down”. We must always strive to be the best we can be.
But it’s interesting to note that, there’s a clear propensity, toward moral behavior, that seems to have more of an empirical basis, to it, than Original sin, as traditionally concieved, has. I’m just, saying, as it were.
March 3rd, 2011 | 3:39 pm | #35
Hi Bret,
you said, ‘Steve, I don’t think that Jesus intended that literally. He meant to point out the importance of having good thoughts, about others, because thinking bad, about others, is often a precurser, to behaving badly toward others, not that they’re equivalant, morally.’
Not so, my friend. This is exactly the standard of God’s righteousness that is required of us, even in our thought world. Thus none of us measure up. Outwardly or inwardly.
‘My question, and perhaps it cannot currently be answered, is, how do we, coherently “fit”, or causally link, Original sin, with what humans actually do.’
What do you mean by this? None of us is good, and can merit God’s approval by what we do without being regenerated in faith by the Holy Spirit and an acknowledgement that Jesus is LORD, and that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10: 9-10). It’s a mindset shift, a paradigm shift, from thinking that we can from ourselves autonomously reach out and grab truth and satisfy God’s requirements, to acknowledging our finite character, the inability of ourselves and what we do to satisfy God, and submitting in our minds (behavior then follows) that God (being the Supreme Creator of the universe, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise) has set the rules, and we can only come to Him in the way that He has said.
‘Do you believe that Original sin, is ACTUAL, or potential.’
I’m not sure I would define it in just those two ways. We know that Adam when created had the ability to sin and not to sin, (posse peccare, posse not peccare) as Augustine points out. From Scripture we learn that Adam was chosen to represent the human race, but that since the Fall, man now has the inability to not sin. We cannot but sin. We still have freewill, but this will is in bondage to our sinful nature and cannot do what is godly, never able to meet God’s perfect standard of holiness. I realize we have already dialogued about the differences between Augustine and Pelagius on this.
‘But it’s interesting to note that, there’s a clear propensity, toward moral behavior, that seems to have more of an empirical basis, to it, than Original sin, as traditionally concieved, has. I’m just, saying, as it were.’
Tom, in #20 above seems to have already dispelled this notion and answered this question, my friend:
‘those who (wrongly, foolishly) think there is empirical reason to believe that humans are basically good and only need their goodness to be drawn out of them. Empirically we know that good behavior comes not by birth but by training, discipline, practice, and so on; and that no one is completely good.’
March 3rd, 2011 | 3:57 pm | #36
Bret said,
‘We must always strive to be the best we can be.’
Hi Bret,
For what purpose, my friend? If it is in obedience to Christ’s commandments in Scripture, then it is an outflow of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit on our minds and hearts. But this is the heart of the gospel, in my opinion. Non-regenerated man can never please God by striving to be the best that he can be. He has to ‘submit’ his will, his mindset, his intellectual thoughts of autonomously attaining truth, to God’s directives on how to meet this requirement. God’s clear directives are that in Christ all things are summed up, in Christ one must put his intellectual endeavors and autonomous self under His Lordship and control. In doing this, one finds freedom to then love one’s neighbor as oneself and as a slave obey the commandments of God out of a happy heart.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #37
Steve, thanks for your good comments. I have to respectfully disagree. Frankly, I don’t believe that God would set such a standard, that thoughts and behavior are equal in sinfulness. This cannot be defended, in my view, Biblically, or in a common sense fashion.
I guess if I had to choose, between Pelagius, and Augustine, I would choose the former, although I’m probably somewhere between, the two.
I believe that it simply makes no sense, to argue that, the thought of murder, and actually murdering someone, are equivalant, morally. It would, my friend, and I say this with respect, because I do respect you, complete nonsense, of moral philosophy, and natural law. The latter, is the reasoning, given to us, by God, to decipher moral truths, which is available to all humans, who can reason.
The quote, from tom, you provided me, does not refute, the quote, you provided, from me. i merely said that, there’s empirical evidence to support the notion that, humans have a moral propensity. Tom, at least in that quote, is saying there’s no empirical basis, for saying humans are basically morally good, which is different than saying, what I said (that there’s a moral propensity for it). One could have a propensity, for something, but not be “basically” that way. But that’s a logical point. I do believe that humans are basically good, if one means that, we strive to do the right things. But we’re also selfish, too, and that leads us astray.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #38
Bret,
You say,
This is obviously false. “Having one living pink polka-dotted horn” means something without having any actual referent anywhere in reality.
But suppose we were to stipulate that if it were to have meaning, it must apply to some person. Why must it be applicable to certain humans? “Able to fly” has meaning without applying to any human.
Now the word “good” is arguably different: maybe it really doesn’t mean anything if it is not instantiated in any morally-significant entity or person. I don’t know if that’s true; it would require some thought to work it out. The question doesn’t matter, for “good” certainly does apply to a person, God; thus it means something. It also applies in a comparative sense to certain human actions and certain dispositions (some are more good than others, even though none are perfect). It also applies in a comparative sense to people: some are morally more good than others. But the word “good” standing alone, in a definite rather than a comparative sense, as applied to the whole person, need not apply any human in order to have any meaning. It applies to God, and that is sufficient. There is no incoherence in the concept of original sin to be found here.
St. Augustine was not the originator of the concept of original sin. Have you ever read Romans 3? That would be a good original source for you to inspect.
It’s also worth reading through Scripture to discover what God’s goodness is like, to see what the standard is and how the best of us fall short.
You asked,
Easy: we actually do things that are wrong, and we are unable to be consistently pure as God is.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:18 pm | #39
Steve, we must strive, to be good, or the best we can be, because God made us, to be that way. I simply don’t believe that humans are basically bad. I think we’re good, because God made us, but we have freedom, and selfish tendencies, which means we need God’s help.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:22 pm | #40
Bret, you say also,
What do you mean by “moral propensity”? If you mean an awareness of what is right and wrong, I basically agree. If you mean an awareness that it is good to do right, then I also agree. If you mean the ability consistently to do right, then I disagree, and I think that’s both empirically and biblically demonstrable.
You add,
To be basically good and to be selfish at the same time is possible only if one relativizes “good” to mean “sort of good.” God is not “sort of good.” He is good. Period. God’s standard is not “sort of good,” either: which is why (you’ll see this in Romans 3 if you read it as I recommended) he provided Jesus Christ to rescue us from our totally inadequate “sort of good-ness.”
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:25 pm | #41
Tom, yes, I have read it, but, it’s a matter of interpretation. Historically, I believe, Augustine has had more of an influence, vis a vis Original Sin, than anything, or anyone else. I could be wrong, of course. But the Bible, as I’ve indicated in previous discussions with you, is ambiguous, in many areas. Therefore, clear cut interpretations, are often not to be had.
I’m glad you acknowledge that humans have dispositions, toward goodness, that’s all I’m saying.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:27 pm | #42
@ Bret,
‘I don’t believe that God would set such a standard, that thoughts and behavior are equal in sinfulness. This cannot be defended, in my view, Biblically, or in a common sense fashion.’
Hi Bret,
Yes, you disagree, I understand that. But I don’t think you are looking at it from God’s perspective; that no one is righteous, not even one. You mention the word ‘biblically’, so I would challenge you if you choose to respond, to use actual Bible verses in your defense. Can you support your position ‘biblically’?
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:36 pm | #43
Tom, I’m not sure that there’s a whole lot of disagreement here, except maybe the degree of human goodness. I don’t want to speak for you, but I think you, perhaps think that humans are “less good”, than I do? Also, I believe in a human propensity for good (I think you do, too, based on your most recent comments), but I also believe in a human propensity for evil, but not actual evil, in the form of Original Sin. If the latter simply meant, a propensity toward evil, and not “actual” evil, then I would agree. But, unless I’m misinterpreting you, are you advocating an actual transmission of sin, or just the tendency, or something in between, as Steve seems to advocate?
We agree, I think, on moral propensity.
I think we disagree, on the details, of Natural Law,(e.g., homosexuality) but we both agree that, Natural Law, is a God given reasoning power, we have, to decipher degrees of moral seriousness, for example, in thoughts and actions. I don’t, for example, think it makes any sense, at all, to interpret Jesus’s words, concerning thoughts, as having equal moral seriousness, as actions. That would seem to throw reason, out the window, with all due respect, to my friend Steve.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:37 pm | #44
Bret, you’re making this a binary choice, that either we’re basically bad or we’re basically good. Neither one represents biblical thinking. We were created in God’s image, with a moral nature that knew and did the good. We fell through sin, and we lost the ability consistently to do good, and thus the ability to meet God’s standard.
We did not fall so far as to be “basically bad.” We fell so far as to be “nowhere near good enough;” and so far that even the best that we do is nevertheless alloyed with self-interest and other impure motivations.
Actually as I write this I realize there’s a different confusion going on than the one I started to respond to. I’m going to continue without erasing what I wrote so far. I take the risk of being misinterpreted in my first paragraph here, because the truth of what I wrote depends on how one construes the terminology. And that’s what I need to ask you about: what do you mean, Bret, when you say “basically bad”? You obviously think it is a conception to be refuted, but it’s not clear what it is you are refuting. Does “basically bad” mean (in your mind) something like “always inclined to do the worst possible thing”? Or something else? I don’t know. If that were indeed what you were thinking, it would be an example of something you need not try to refute, because we’re not affirming it.
My second paragraph in this comment is a brief description of what we mean by being in the condition of original sin. Is this what you thought the doctrine was about? Or were you thinking of something other than this?
Is Romans 3 “a matter of interpretation”? Goodness sakes, Bret, how could it be more clear? If that’s not clear enough, then nothing is; and your opinion that it’s “a matter of interpretation” is a matter of interpretation. If you can feel free to deny the clear teaching of Romans 3, then by the same principle I could feel free to deny that you deny it, for even your written opinion here is “a matter of interpretation.”
For the sake of your own sanity and logic, my friend, don’t walk that trail. Don’t brush off a text that means something as if it didn’t. Once you start doing that, you fall off not just a path but a cliff into entire meaninglessness.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:39 pm | #45
You suggest,
No, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think you believe that God is less good than he really is, or else that his goodness matters less than it really does. That’s the key difference between our opinions. Only with that standard in mind can the rest of this make sense.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:50 pm | #46
Steve, I’m not arguing that thinking bad thoughts is morally acceptable. I’m stating that, it’s less serious (much less!!) than DOING morally unacceptable things. As I interpret Christ’s words, He’s pointing out that, thoughts, that one cultivates, often lead to a corresponding behavior. That is, one must, unless something is really impulsive, think of something, prior to doing it. So, if one doesn’t think about something, one’s unlikely to do it. That’s His point, in my view.
Look at the Ten Commandments. They’re about behaviors. They’re not about thoughts. Which is wise. Thoughts, as neuroscience, and psychology informs us, are not under our control, directly. Behaviors, are. People, good people, will have bad thoughts. But as long as they don’t “encourage”, or “try” to have them, there’s no moral culpability, here. Jesus is telling people not to cultivate, or dwell, on bad thoughts. He’s not stating (in my opinion) that thought, bad thoughts, that “pop” into one’s head, involuntarily, are bad.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:52 pm | #47
Tom, no, not at all. I believe God is perfectly Good, with a Capital G. I think the real difference is, I believe that he made US better than you do. I don’t want to misinterpret you, so if this is wrong, please correct me.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:53 pm | #48
Look at the tenth commandment, Bret. (Really, I mean, look at it; I doubt you have done so recently.) It’s about thoughts. It’s not about behaviors.
March 3rd, 2011 | 4:57 pm | #49
I believe he made us good, and we chose not to stay that way. The rest of it is explained in my comment 44. And I still think you are not taking seriously enough the difference God’s goodness makes. It is the standard, it is infinitely above us, and in light of that very relevant standard, your “I believe that he made US better than you do” is meaningless. Suppose you think the average human male can jump higher than I think he can. If the standard is the moon, who cares? That’s about how much difference our opinions might make in relation to God’s goodness.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:02 pm | #50
Tom, concerning your 44 comments. I think that, there may be more agreement than disagreement. I take your view to be that, there’s sin that we’re guilty of, by virtue of the behavior of Adam and Eve. This contributes to us being both good and bad, but the balance is more bad, than good. Is this close to your view?
My view is, that yes, we have an inclination toward selfishness, which can manifest itself in sinful behavior, but there’s no actual sin, transmitted, from Adam and Eve, to us, only selfish proclivities. But we’re good, because God made us, that way, and we can, using reason, recognize the Good, but fail to act, if we give into selfish tendencies.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:03 pm | #51
And back to your comment 46, please don’t get me started on the philosophical, scientific, and psychological incoherence of a statement like “Thoughts, as neuroscience, and psychology informs us, are not under our control, directly. Behaviors, are.”
I mean, not to be disrespectful or anything, but wow. Either you’re a determinist (more specifically, a denier of agent-causation; I’ll continue to use “determinist” for short) or you aren’t. If you believe some of the junk philosophy out there that’s masquerading as neuroscience, then you might be a determinist; but if you are, then you have to be a determinist with respect to behaviors, too. If you’re not a determinist with respect to behaviors, then it makes no sense to be one with respect to thoughts.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:04 pm | #52
Tom, only as it relates to actual behaviors. I’m curious: do you believe in a moral distinction, btween thoughts of sins, and actually behaving sinfully?
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:08 pm | #53
Do I believe in a moral distinction between thoughts and behaviors? Yes and no. Consider the jump toward the moon I mentioned previously. Viewed from earth, some jumps are certainly higher than others. Viewed from the point of view of God’s standard, it makes little difference: both fall very, very, very far short.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:10 pm | #54
@ Bret
Hi Bret,
‘Steve, I’m not arguing that thinking bad thoughts is morally acceptable. I’m stating that, it’s less serious (much less!!) than DOING morally unacceptable things.’
I understand what you are arguing, and what I think I’ve been trying to say, maybe inadequately, is that in terms of meeting God’s requirements, in a salvific sense, in our endeavors to meet God’s holy requirements for righteousness, even our thoughts will accuse us, not just our behavior. This is the high standard that God requires. Thus, He since Adam fell (and it could be argued that His foreknowledge and predetermined will since before the foundation of the world), and knew that this standard was impossible for us to meet, provided the solution of a promised Seed (Gen. 3:15), the Christ, as the only way to be saved from our sin problem.
I am not saying that in our behavior as it works itself out in our 80-90 year lives, there is no difference between ‘thinking’ something, and ‘doing’ something. There is. But this does not determine our eternal destiny, it does not determine whether we meet the higher standard of ‘submitting’ ourselves to Christ’s Lordship. This is God’s ultimate requirement between the sheep and the goats, what have you done with ‘Christ’?
I hope that is clearer, my friend, and as an aside, one cannot attain unto God’s requirements for righteousness by just obeying the Ten Commandments (Rom. 3:20).
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:15 pm | #55
Tom, do you really dispute the findings of neuroscience, that shows that thoughts are not directly under our control? Please feel free to get started. I’d love to see your argument, against that. Behaviors, no doubt (unless one’s experiencing an epileptic siezure, for example) are under our control. Hence, it’s unjust for God to hold us accountable for something outside our control.(assuming of course, as I do, that God is Just, and to hold someone accountable for thoughts they cannot control, is unjust, since their choice is remived from the equation).
Do you control all your thoughts? If so, you’re a very unique human. I’m not saying that one has zero control. But, the best way to not have a thought, is to not try to NOT think it! this is a very well known principle, of how our brains work. Have you not had a thought, that you didn’t like, but it still stayed in your head? If not, you’re unique.
Determinism, has to do with behavior. As I stated, we have control over our behaviors.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:22 pm | #56
Tom, I suggest that you look at the work of Stanley Rachman, a Canadian psychologist, who, showed that, “bad thoughts” pop into people’s heads, frequently. They don’t “choose” these thoughts. And the worst way to get rid of them, is to try and control them. One should accept them.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:27 pm | #57
Steve, thanks for your clarification. I do agree with you, in one respect, and that is, are behaviors are irrelevant to whether we go to heaven. But the agrrement, ends there (on this issue) since I believe all of God’s creation is saved!
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:28 pm | #58
Neuroscience? No, junk philosophy masquerading as neuroscience. Feel free to look at my arguments.
Do you really think we control our behaviors while having no control over our thoughts? Then our behaviors are fully decoupled somehow from our thoughts. That’s incoherent. Does your typing behavior on this blog (which you can control) have no connection to your thoughts (which you cannot control) about what you are typing?
As to your comment #56, you’re on to something. You’re very close to a good statement of the meaning of original sin. Bad thoughts that we do not choose are still bad thoughts. Follow that track and see where you land…
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:36 pm | #59
BTW, I know that’s a large list of articles on that link I just provided. Remember, I warned you not to get me started…
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:42 pm | #60
@Bret,
‘But the agrrement, ends there (on this issue) since I believe all of God’s creation is saved!’
Hi Bret,
Please, I beseech you, can you not quote some Scripture to back up your position? You claim to be a Christian, I don’t doubt that, but I have rarely seen you quote the Christian Scriptures in defense of your position. Most of the time, it is merely your opinion, or someone else’s opinion, but rarely do you use actual Bible verses or passages to back up your claims. This is unconscionable my friend in dialog between brothers. So, in all honesty, I have to ask myself, ‘Why doesn’t Bret use the Christian Scripture to reference his points?’ Does he not know it very well, and feel uncomfortable in quoting it? Does he not believe it? If he does not believe it, or feels uncomfortable with it, then why does he call himself a ‘Christian’?
My friend, I’m not trying to be condescending or derogatory here, these are real questions that I am grappling with over the time that we have been dialoging here on First Things. Can I charge you again, in sincere brotherly love, to support your claims from Scripture?
Blessings.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:51 pm | #61
Tom I never said that we have NO control. I don’t dispute the obvious connection, btween thoughts and behaviors. My point is, thoughts enter our minds. We often don’t know where they came from. They may be good, or bad. If they’re bad, but we don’t want them, the worst thing you can do, paradoxically, is try and get rid of them! Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is, we don’t have complete control, over our thoughts.
Clearly, if a person has bad thoughts, but didn’t choose to have them, and does not engage in behaviors that are conducive to these thoughts remaining, it’s unjust to conclude that God would hold him as responsible as another person, who has the same bad thoughts, but does all in his power, to keep thinking what he’s thinking.(let alone the person who actually behaves in the same way he’s thinking).
Obviously, what one thinks about, is derived from one’s senses. Therefore, it makes sense, that one should expose oneself to good sense experiences, to have good thoughts. To it’s just wrong, sorry, to believe that we can control all our thoughts. Do you have thoughts you don’t like, and have you tried to get rid of them, to no avail? Most people have, it’s a human trait.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:54 pm | #62
Steve Drake: thank you, I know you’re not trying to be condescending or derogatory, and I don’t take it that way, either (and i know Tom isn’t being that way either), these are good questions. I’ll look into it. blessings to you too.
March 3rd, 2011 | 5:59 pm | #63
You’re getting closer, Bret (#61). Keep following that track…
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:01 pm | #64
Tom, thanks for the link. i don’t doubt that you can provide good arguments for your views. Indeed, that’s a main reason I enjoy discussing these things, with you, is you’re obviously highly intelligent, and provide reasons, for your views.
But I just think the evidence is clear that, we don’t have complete control over our thoughts. I concede we have some, or even a lot, but not complete control, and we only cause ourselves distress, when we try to have complete control. I think if we have bad thoughts, we’re wise to not try to control them, but to, paradoxically, accept them, then they tend to go away. This in no way means we approve of them, morally. It’s sound council. Ian Osborne, M.D., an expert on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and a devout Christian, has pointed this out, in his book on OCD.
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:02 pm | #65
Bret,
Thank you, dear brother. May we both like King David learn to love His Word, and make it our meditation all the day (Psalm 119:97).
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:12 pm | #66
My guess is, you think Tom that, my statement about most humans having bad thoughts, is tacit acknowledgement, of Original Sin, well, maybe! But my view has been, and remain that, we have a propensity, toward sin, but wev’e committed no sin, until, well, we’ve committed a sin! That is, our actual behaviors, are what are sinful/not sinful, since we control them.
you’re right that, bad thoughts, (whether we want them, or not, or control them, or not ) are still bad thoughts, but God, being infinitely merciful, does not hold us accountable, i believe, as long as we don’t actively cultivate them, and do all in our power, to behave morally. This would be analogous to someone who, gives someone a substance, that, he believes will help the recipient, (he thinks it’s medicine) but it’s really poision, and the recipient dies. This person is really dead, and shouldn’t be. So, objectively, an unjust death has occurred, but the person who did it, due to his benevolant intent, is not guilty of a murder.
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:13 pm | #67
Thank you, Steve! Great point, brother. blessings!
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:20 pm | #68
Tom I just made a cursory survey of your, erudite, and sophisticted set of articles, vis a vis neuroscience, and it’s going to take a while, to get through them! I agree with you, you shouln’t get started! Lol! :)
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:25 pm | #69
oops… Perhaps I should be a little more “sophisticated” in my writing of the word “sophisticated, instead of the wholly unsophisticated spelling: “sopisticted”.
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:44 pm | #70
Bret, you’re still on a good track.
To do good is not just a matter of behavior; same with doing evil. The Ten Commandments include one that is clearly just mental: Do not covet. The First and Second Great Commandments are about attitudes (attitudes expressed in behavior, but nonetheless attitudes). The First Great Commandment in particular says to love God with our hearts, minds, souls. These are largely (if not completely) internal states, not external behaviors. God does hold us accountable for our failure to keep these most basic commandments, internally as well as externally.
You mention his mercy, and in this you are correct, he is merciful in Christ for those who believe. But mercy is not applied unless there is something to apply it to. The reason mercy is relevant is because he has something to be merciful about. He is not merciful toward that which is morally upright or acceptable; he just approves it. His mercy is toward sin; it is his forgiveness and passing over it, through grace. Therefore your very own argument leads directly to the conclusion that what you say is not sin, actually is.
Your analogy is flawed and completely inapplicable. We are not talking about thoughts with benevolent intentions, are we? We’re talking about wrong thoughts.
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:58 pm | #71
I want to echo what Steve said to you about sourcing your opinions about Christianity and the Bible. Your basis for your opinions is consistently stated in terms of “I feel…” or “I believe…” or “I could never believe….” Do you think there is any authority in that, anything that ought to persuade another?
If you are going to make a claim about Christianity, you must take seriously that God’s truth is found in his revelation. If you are going to argue that some belief or other accords (or does not accord) with God’s truth, you must provide some reason other than your own feelings for us to believe it.
More to the point: if you think that your own feelings or self-referential beliefs are adequate to ground your own beliefs, then you are the one who is misleading yourself. I urge you as one who cares about you: don’t live that way. Find a reason for your beliefs. Find a good reason. If it is a belief about God, then don’t view yourself as the authority. Find out what God himself has to say.
Otherwise you will be an idolater of the highest order, creating your god in your own image. Please don’t do that to yourself.
March 3rd, 2011 | 6:59 pm | #72
Again: please don’t do that to yourself. I mean it, because I care.
March 3rd, 2011 | 7:06 pm | #73
Thanks, Tom.
March 4th, 2011 | 5:05 pm | #74
Penamom: You make some great points. how I see it, those who bully, usually have low self confidence, and often are jealous of those they bully. We must teach our kids to be independent, and self confident. and, with that, they’ll develop the courage to defend those who are bullied, and through this leadership, perhaps serve as role models, to other children. this works with adults, as well, incidently.
Bret and Pentamom: I don’t know how one should stop a bully from bullying.
I do agree the parents of the bully should take some responsibility, but the school has got to be part of it.
For one thing, the parent isn’t even really in a position to know. That sounds counterintuitive, but sometimes parents really don’t see things everyone else sees. Nobody wants to bring it up. The school has got to be the one to make expectations clear.
For another thing, bullying is situational. Kids know which environments they can and can’t get away with something in. Kids will act one way at home, another at school. Even there, they will act one way in one class, and another way in a different class. Kids are all about limits. They know exactly where the limits are and how firm those limits are.
There can’t be a solution unless schools accept that it’s their responsibility both to have those limits in place – and have them be good, strong limits – and also the schools need to be responsible both for knowing what to demand of parents, and figuring out what they’re going to do about the situations where the parents can’t or won’t meet that expectation.
March 4th, 2011 | 8:41 pm | #75
Amen, Blake. I don’t think the problem of parents knowing about their kids being bullies is as intractable as you seem to — just because you don’t witness a particular behavior in your kids doesn’t mean their shouldn’t be certain red flags in their general behavior or character that would lead you to ask certain questions, for example. Though bullies might be able to act like good citizens and non-bullies under certain eyes, that doesn’t mean they will exhibit generosity, kindness, patience, and generalized tolerance of other people’s weakness, if they actually harbor a constant secret desire to exploit weakness when they can get away with it. If you notice a lack of positive character traits in your kid, that’s a good time to start asking what negative ones might be there. That’s precisely why I think the plethora of articles about “how to tell if your child is being bullied” that make absolutely NO mention of “how to tell if your child might be a bully” are misguided.
But overall, I agree — there simply has to be a set of consistent, enforced behavioral guidelines at the school, and the responsibility taken to see that they’re held to. I simply won’t accept the notion that adults can be utterly confounded and outwitted by a clever child who’s nonetheless dumb enough to be a bully, time after time after time.
March 5th, 2011 | 1:18 am | #76
That’s precisely why I think the plethora of articles about “how to tell if your child is being bullied” that make absolutely NO mention of “how to tell if your child might be a bully” are misguided.
I’ve seen some articles on “how to tell if your child might be a bully”.
In the wake of Columbine (wow, has it really been that long?) our local school district actually drew up a list of “potential shooter characteristics”, and I became quite alarmed at the idea of what you might call “profiling” – especially since they had this way of describing bullied kids as being potential bullies.
But you can’t accuse a kid of something until he’s actually done something. This is especially important when it comes to labels of the sort that can harm someone (like “criminal” or “bully” or anything that suggests mental illness). You might know your kid has problems, but the community needs to work together to make sure communication is flowing the way it ought – and, again, the school needs to know what it is going to do if the parents are uncooperative.
Incidentally it’s interesting to note that cohesive communities are the single best protection from all manner of community violence. Crime rates, domestic violence, bullying – the best protection you can have is to build the community. If a man hits his wife, does the rest of the community turn their back on them and shun them, or do the women take the woman aside and offer her support while the men take the man aside and coach him on anger management skills?
It seems to me that bullying might be on the rise because our nation and our communities are losing the skills needed to provide the necessary support – or maybe the new “realities” are so complex that new, more sophisticated skills are needed, and they just aren’t there. Yet.
March 5th, 2011 | 9:43 am | #77
Well, those articles you describe, in my experience, tend to be more about “who to be afraid of” than about “who needs discipline and help.” That’s part of the problem. If you frame the argument in terms of “Oh no this kid might be the next Dylan Klebold” you label and victimize kids with the wrong “symptoms,” and you don’t really help anybody.
If you frame it in terms of, “Look, if your kid tends to manipulate his little sister or other weaker children around him, there are ways to put a stop to that both to protect the little sister and to help the kid learn to interact with others appropriately,” that’s quite a different approach, and it doesn’t have to entail labeling the kid as a “bully monster.” One problem I see with the lop-sided (I was going to say one-sided, but I’ll accept your word that you’ve seen some more balanced stuff) approach is not just that it gives no useful information on how to deal with the bully side of the issue, but also that it makes it look as though bullies are a fact of life, a bully is an omnipotent monster of unlimited ability to evade detection and discipline, and the rest of us just need to learn coping skills. A more balanced approach that treats bullying as inappropriate behavior among kids that can be dealt with, is kinder to the bullies AND more helpful to the victims or potential victims.
March 5th, 2011 | 9:45 am | #78
BTW, I like your last two paragraphs, as well.
March 8th, 2011 | 8:41 am | #79
[...] she is willing to open it to include a Columbine shooter’s “authentic self.” (See further here on bullying.) It also rests on a contentious and erroneous view of the nature of being [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact