Parents Have Homework Too: Some Suggestions to Help Children Make the Most of Homework

The following article was first published in Tri-State Family Magazine (Distributed by The Herald-Dispatch, Huntington, WV). Copyright © 2007 by Dennis E. Bills.


“Mommy! Daddy!  Guess what!  I have lots of great homework to do tonight!”

     Some children carry their schoolwork home with glee and great anticipation, but I would venture to say that this child is not your own. 

     While some children dutifully complete assignments with little or no help from parents, other students struggle.  If your child is like I was as a student, he will find a paper clip more interesting than his division problems, bending them into flocks of fascinating figures (this is called “avoidance”).   Meanwhile, assignments take longer than the teacher intended, and the student grows bored and frustrated.  What was intended to be a simple, brief assignment becomes tedious and time-consuming.   Because they have not used homework time efficiently, some students then return to class unprepared, with incorrect answers, and having made little effort. Their homework time has not been profitable. 

     Teachers cannot be there to tell a child to “please put down that paper clip, keep your eyes and pencil on your paper, and move on to the next problem.”  That responsibility falls to parents. Parental involvement is essential for these students as they develop their own sense of responsibility and diligence. 

     So what can a parent do to make homework time more profitable?  Perhaps the most important parental action is supervision and accountability.  You might be surprised at how many parents do not check assignments for completeness or do not know the type, amount and difficulty of the homework their children bring home.  In order to prevent that, here are some suggestions for parental supervision and accountability: 

• Set a consistent time and place for doing homework so that the child knows exactly what to expect on a daily basis.  For example, make sure your child begins homework consistently at 6:00, after she has eaten and had some time to play or spend with her friends outside. 
• Make sure the place of work is comfortable and free of distractions.  If a paper clip can distract a child, imagine what TV or family members within earshot can do.   A desk in the bedroom might be a good place. 
• Know what assignments your child must complete each night.  Check her homework notebook before she begins.
• Check in on your child frequently and ask how things are coming along.  Make a note of how far she has advanced since the last time you checked.  Your purpose is to make sure she remains diligent.
• Allow breaks periodically.  No student wants to sit at a desk for an hour at a time without some mental and physical escape.  
• Make sure that the student balances speed, diligence, and accuracy.  Do not allow the child to rush through an assignment so that she can answer “yes” when you ask her, “Have you finished your homework?” (which by the way is one of the worst ways to provide accountability for many students). 
• Check assignments for completion, effort and accuracy.   It may be a good idea to set aside the last 15 minutes or so of homework time for a joint review of your child’s assignments.   You will not know all the answers, but you do know your child well enough to evaluate whether she is trying as hard as you know she is capable. 
• Communicate frequently with your child’s teacher.  Tell him or her your opinions about the homework.  Do you think it was too much?  Did it take too long?  Was it too hard?  Does the teacher need to give more explanation?  As you become more familiar with your child’s assignments, you can become a valuable aid to both your child and her teacher. 

     Teachers should go the extra mile during the class day to see that your child is learning.  However, they are incapable of providing academic supervision and accountability for the student at home. It is up to Mom and Dad to provide that accountability.  You see, parents have homework too.

The Misguided Messianic Character of Conservative Christian Politics

Many conservative Christians believe they have a divine mandate to restore the United States of America to its Christian roots by force of law.  I believe these efforts are misguided and unbiblical.  

The Constitution is not a Christian document in spite of what we believe the religious commitments of its authors to have been.   A simple return to strict interpretations and applications of the Constitution as the Founders intended should never be equated with Christian righteousness.  More than this, it should not be made a standard by which one judges the “Christianness” of a politician or policy. Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse either our constitution or democracy as the standard by which to define a God-glorifying, "Christian" nation.   Waving an American flag or being a patriot is not tantamount to being a Christian.  If it were then the larger majority of Christians around the world and throughout history have lacked the Christian wholeness that being a U.S. citizen apparently provides. Even more, to say that Christians must “pledge allegiance” to conservative politics is to violate the Christian Faith in ways that border on idolatry.

At best, the Founders allowed for democratic rule by the majority, circumscribed by certain generic inalienable rights, regardless of the religious commitments of that majority. What this means is that the prevailing perspectives of the people, whether Christian or not, are constitutionally authorized to become the prevailing policy of the nation.  Thus the Constitution itself may very well inhibit the rechristianization that many political Christians are fighting for.  The Constitution endorses the platitude, “As the people go, so goes the nation.”

Besides the dubiousness of the mission to restore this nation to its "Christian" roots and constitution, the legislation of Christian morality is not an effective tool for accomplishing national repentance. In fact, it is a waste of political time, energy, and influence. Even if Christians could prevail in policy by democratic means, government is still incapable of preventing sin by force of law, because sinfulness is first and foremost a condition of the heart.  Since no law has ever existed that could change the heart (a fundamental tenet that many Christians appear to be ignorant of), the prohibition of sinful behaviors will neither fully prevent them nor alter the sinful heart-condition that spawned them.  On the contrary, according to Scripture such prohibitions will frequently exacerbate sin.  Therefore, governmental efforts to effect behavioral change for merely moralistic reasons are futile.

National repentance can only be accomplished by preaching and teaching God’s law as part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Preaching and teaching the Gospel is exclusively the domain of the Church.    Government can and should maintain the right of Christians to preach and teach.  If it does not, Christians should preach and teach anyway, for we should obey God rather than men.  But government itself is neither responsible for, nor capable of, effecting the goal of preaching and teaching.  These separate spheres of responsibility for both Church and State comprise the biblical doctrine of what is secularly called “the Separation of Church and State.”   According to this doctrine, the exclusive authority of the Church to preach and teach the Word of God is an inalienable right bestowed by the Creator. 

What then is government’s separate responsibility with regard to the law of God? It is primarily to protect innocent people from the harmful effects of others’ sins.   By “harm” I do not mean simply the offence of someone’s sensibilities, but actual harm (material or immaterial) to another human being’s person, rights, dignity, or property.   Since government cannot change hearts, it can only protect the innocent from the actions of evil doers.  Government cannot change a thief’s heart, but it can and should prevent a thief from taking someone else’s property. Government cannot change a murderer’s heart, but it can and should prevent the taking of someone else’s life (note that abortion falls here).   These protections from sinful acts fit with the biblical description of government as “God’s servant to bring wrath upon the wrong doer” and the biblical mandate to enforce justice on behalf of constituents.

Although government is powerless to prevent sin and change sinfulness, it stands to reason that it has no right to authorize, endorse, command or empower sin.  It may not be responsible to apply the law of God beyond what is necessary to protect people, but it has no right to fight against the law of God.  By way of analogy, I may not be responsible as a private citizen to punish criminals, but that does not mean that I have the right to aid them in their criminal endeavors.  Similarly, the doctrine of “separate spheres of responsibility” does not mean that government itself is authorized to violate or endorse the violation of the law of God. For example, it is possible that a certain immoral behavior might not have any harmful effect upon anyone other than the willing participants.  Government will overstep its bounds to legislate against this behavior, but at the same time it cannot and should not authorize, endorse, empower, or command this immoral behavior.  Government might not be authorized to legislate against homosexuality or premarital sex, for instance, but it has no right to endorse it.

Therefore, the two most pertinent initial questions for evaluating whether Christians should support moral legislation are these:  1) Is this law necessary to protect the innocent from others’ sins?  2)  Will this law authorize, endorse, command or empower violations of God’s law?   The question of whether or not a law will restore a nation to its Christian roots or bring about a revival of Christian moralism is irrelevant.  There will never be a law that can do such a thing.   Christians who use political activism to accomplish these things are wasting their time with useless efforts that God neither endorses nor commands.   They may even be unwittingly working against God’s created order and his Gospel.

[I recognize the theoretical nature of this essay but hope that it spurs some thoughts. There are huge holes in the theory.  For instance, how does cruelty to animals and conservation of the environment fit into this paradigm?  Granting the need for further consideration, I do believe the basic framework has validity, usefulness, and biblical support.]

Excuses, Excuses Excuses: How Parents Sometimes Undermine Character Development in Their Children

The following article was first published in Tri-State Family Magazine (Distributed by The Herald-Dispatch, Huntington, WV). Copyright © 2007 by Dennis E. Bills.

“I am not trying to defend what my child did, BUT . . .” or “I know what my child did was wrong, BUT. . .”  As a school administrator, I have heard these words all too many times.   Few parents like to think that their child has a behavior problem, but parents who excuse misbehavior risk stunting character development.     An important part of character development is learning to take full responsibility for mistakes, accidents, errors, and especially wrongdoing. 

    Unfortunately, children do not need help excusing bad behavior. They are adept at either explaining it away (“My fist slipped and I accidently hit him”) or generously sharing blame with others (“He hit me first”).  Parents who also make excuses are subtly teaching their children that such behavior is not really so bad, and that they can get away with it regardless of their own culpability.  

    There are several reasons why some parents excuse their children so quickly and easily.   Some parents who believe their children are unfairly accused may be overly protective, resulting in blind defensiveness.  Other parents cannot accept that alleged misbehavior is really all that bad, failing to understand that perfect children are few and far between.   Still other parents are simply unwilling or unable to face their child’s problems.  Often they observe the same problems at home and feel helpless to deal with them. They find it easier to deny or excuse misbehavior than to address it head on. Parental excuses for misbehavior usually fall into three categories:

Blame Circumstances

     “If such and such had not happened, my child would not have misbehaved.”   Other versions include “My child is rowdy because he’s not been feeling well,”  “He is disruptive because he is bored,”  “If the notes had been sent home on time, she would not have cheated,” and “She hit Sam because they were sitting too close.”  While circumstances may sometimes contribute to misbehavior, they are not themselves the cause of it.   At some point, children must learn they are responsible for their actions regardless of the circumstances surrounding them.    

Blame Other People 

    “I know my child did wrong, but what are you going to do about that other child?”   A common ploy of those who wish to excuse their child’s behavior is to point out what was wrong about another child’s behavior.  They do this for two reasons:  1) to minimize their own child’s blame, and 2) to satisfy some notion of justice.   While it is important for children to see discipline as fair and impartial, fairness is not nearly as important as taking full responsibility for one’s own actions, regardless of what punishment befalls another. The thought that someone else is not getting what they deserve too easily distracts from the full weight of one’s own guilt.  A child who is focused on “fairness” will not be willing to face his or her own responsibility.   Likewise, parents who are preoccupied with fairness are stealing from their children even more valuable lessons about personal accountability. 

 Blame the Brain

    “My child has ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).”   When a parent announces this to me, I know to brace myself for two things:  1) the child will likely have behavior issues, and 2) the parents have already begun the process of excusing them.  Now, I have no doubt that a real, organic condition known as ADD exists.  However, the label is often bandied about apart from a professional diagnosis or without adequate exploration of its causes.   ADD is a label for a particular set of symptoms, such as “does not pay attention” and “does not sit still.”  It is a description of, but not an excuse for, behavior problems. Even professionals are coming to realize that ADD is often an unhelpful and overly diagnosed label.  ADD cannot and should not be made to imply that morally wrong behavior is acceptable, that such children are incapable of doing right, that there might not be additional reasons for misbehavior, and that normal, consistent discipline is inappropriate. 

    Most parents work very hard to teach children right from wrong, but sometimes they undermine their own efforts by making excuses for them.  Parents who excuse misbehavior are not teaching their children to take responsibility for their actions. Children who do not take responsibility for their actions will not adequately recognize bad behavior or have incentive to change.  Parents will do better for their children if they help them identify and take responsibility for the full measure of their own wrongdoing—without making excuses.


Post-Publication Note:  Fairness and justice is a crucial issue for parents to teach their children.  Unfair discipline can cause bitterness and hopelessness within a child, so I believe that parents should fight for fairness in discipline in schools.  However, my experience has led me to believe that "fairness" can very frequently be used to deny or distract from the culpability that a child bears for his or her own behavior.  A best case scenario would would include encouraging  children to take full responsibility for their own behavior while fighting for fairness in school discipline.

Tips for Teacher Trouble: How to Handle Trouble with your Child's Teacher

The following article was first published in Tri-State Family Magazine (Distributed by The Herald-Dispatch, Huntington, WV). Copyright © 2007  by Dennis E. Bills.

As the summer comes to a close, many parents find themselves thinking back over the past school year and ahead to the next. Parents who have had significant conflict with their child’s teacher may wonder what they could have done differently. 

From time to time, every parent will disagree with teachers over grading decisions, methods of instruction, points of discipline, or in-class comments. When you disagree with a teacher, what is the most effective way to communicate your concerns to him or her? The saying “You catch more flies with honey” comes to mind immediately, but an age-old adage for dealing with interpersonal conflict is perhaps more meaningful: Treat others as we want to be treated. When dealing with teachers, this means stepping into their shoes to anticipate their perspectives. To help us as parents do just that, here are a few suggestions:

Remember that teachers are not perfect.  

Think of those times when we as parents have not known how to deal with our own children.  In those moments, we do the best we can.  Unfortunately, we still mess up from time to time.  Teachers are no different and hope for the same grace from us that we want from others.  They have the difficult task of uniting children from a variety of families, backgrounds, and philosophies into one classroom.  Every child, family, and situation is different. Teachers cannot be expected to always get it right, and they hope for patience and understanding when they don’t.  

Consider whether the issue is really worth bringing up.  

How big is the problem? Is it possible to let it pass without bringing it up?  Perhaps it is simply a personality issue or a simple mistake that is unlikely to happen again.  If it helps, write it down.  If you notice a trend, then approach the teacher with the problem.  Often, when some time has passed, we have a better perspective on whether or not a problem is really significant.  If it is, then by all means, talk to the teacher.  Sometimes, however, we find that we do not really need to after all.   

Try to avoid discussing your complaint with other parents.   

All of us know how discouraging it can be to discover that someone is talking behind our backs.  We should keep in mind that talking can cause other parents to think less of teachers who are very willing to address complaints.  

In the same vein, always talk to the teacher first.  

Give the teacher every opportunity to fix the problem before bringing it to the administration or discussing it with others.  Teachers do not want parents to be mad at them are often eager to fix problems.  As we step into their shoes, we should realize that few things are more discouraging than someone going over our heads to complain about us.   Wouldn’t we prefer the chance to fix a problem first? 

Support your teacher whenever possible, especially in front of your child.   

There are important lessons for children to learn about respect for authority that are sometimes more important than whether the teacher always handles every situation correctly.  If you need to talk to the teacher, be sure to do so privately.  Be careful not to tear down a teacher in front of a child.  A child’s attitude toward teachers can be strongly influenced by his or her parents.  Off-hand remarks can be a heavy burden for a child who must sit in that classroom every day. 

Establish a positive, encouraging relationship with the teacher.  

Send notes of encouragement, share uplifting stories, convey your child’s positive opinions.  Teachers hear far more negative than positive comments.  Encouraging words can lay a foundation for great communication in the months ahead.  

Finally, if a teacher has exhibited a pattern of unresponsiveness to your input, you may find it necessary to talk to the administration.   Most of the time, however, you should find teachers very responsive to your suggestions. They are eager to have parental feedback that will help them understand your child better.   Parents who treat teachers as they would want to be treated can have great teacher relationships even when problems arise.

Axioms for Christian School Administrators

Some lessons I learned that kept me from discouragement, insanity, and quitting during my decade as a school administrator.  Ironically, I did eventually quit--to become a pastor.  Which reminds me--these principles have crossover applications for pastors as well. 

1. You cannot make everyone happy, including teachers, parents, board-members and students.   In fact, in the normal course of operation, you are quite likely to make someone mad.  
2. Happy parents will seldom tell you they are happy.  Unhappy parents will not shut up about it. 
3. Unhappy parents talk to other parents. 
4. At any given time, some rather significant portion of the constituency will be unhappy with something about the school.   
5. Every year some families will leave because they do not like something about you, the rules, students, teachers, curriculum, or the school in general.   
6. Once a family decides to withdraw, their case for leaving grows exponentially. 
7. Administrators do not have a toggle switch to turn off bad behavior or attitudes in others.  Do not get frustrated that you cannot simply throw a switch and make it go away. 
8. Administrators are trying to accomplish the nearly impossible task of coordinating the interrelationships of hundreds of sinful people (including themselves) who all have different beliefs about education, discipline, child-rearing, right-and-wrong, etc.   You cannot expect it to be smooth.  
9. Administrators are not responsible for the sinful natures of the students.   They bring their depravity with them. 
10. The people most responsible for students’ habitual displays of depravity are the students themselves and their parents. 
11. Mere rules and regulations will not prevent the depravity of students from asserting itself. 
12. Students, especially girls, will bicker with and complain about one another.  There is little you can do about it. 
13. Relationships can be difficult in Christian Schools because the pool of relationships is smaller, and students cannot simply go find another group of friends. Public schools, being larger, have a natural advantage in this area.  
14. Schools have a natural ebb and flow of enrollment from year to year both in particular grades and across the school. 
15. Once every few years, Christian schools inevitably cycle through difficult times, hardship, and crisis.  
16. Large numbers of Christian school students tend to transfer elsewhere between 8^th grade and 9^th grades. 
17. Most Christian schools struggle to keep students in high school.  Students naturally lust for the apparent vim and vitality of student life in public schools and exert tremendous pressure on parents to let them transfer. 
18. Most schools have problems, but be patient, and eventually they may transfer elsewhere. 

A Christian Philosophy of Education

A Christian philosophy of education can benefit all Christian families, because all Christian families must educate their children. By some means, they must provide their children with information and abilities that will prepare them for life in the world. Christians should ask themselves, “Does God have anything to say that bears upon the subject of education? Does God say anything that should influence my decisions as I educate my children?” The answers to these questions will help us begin the task of developing a Christian philosophy of education.

What is a Philosophy of Education?

A philosophy of education is a set of first principles that forms the ground for all that we do in education. These first principles seek to answer a variety of questions such as “why and within what parameters will we educate?” They provide the impetus that drives teachers, administrators, parents, and students, giving meaning to their roles and responsibilities. These first principles state what educators believe is foundational, what they can infer from those foundations, and what they cannot compromise. They provide direction and keep educators aiming toward certain goals that, when achieved, will allow all involved to say, “We have been successful.”

Biblical Authority

A Christian philosophy of education necessarily starts with the Bible. After all, we are Christians asking the question, “What is a Christian philosophy of education?” We accept the Bible as authoritative because we are Christians. If we want to know what God’s opinion is about something in this world, we go to the Bible by default, and we accept what it says. So the foundational principle in our Christian philosophy of education is that the Bible is authoritative for Christians. This naturally leads to a question that directs the development of our philosophy of education: “Does the Bible have anything to say about education?”

Biblical Worldview

At the least, the Bible teaches us that education should include a biblical worldview. A worldview, in simple terms, is a way of viewing reality. For instance, some people view reality as if God did not exist, and this belief influences how they interpret the world and everything in it. On the other hand, a biblical worldview presupposes the existence of God and the truth of Scripture. It accepts what the Bible says about reality and integrates the Bible’s teaching into every area of life, including work, entertainment, social experiences, family relationships, and education. In education, young and impressionable learners are intentionally indoctrinated and ingrained with information and skills that will affect everything they do for the rest of their lives. Cornelius Van Til defines education as “implication into God’s interpretation,” which is just a fancy, philosophical way of saying that education is teaching students to see the world as God sees it (Johnson, 44). It is, above all else, providing young minds with a biblical worldview--namely, that this is God’s world and we should see it as he sees it.

History is the record of God’s involvement in time. Science is the study of the composition and patterns of the universe, created and held together by God Himself. In the realm of language and literature, the gifts of communication and creative expression are among the most precious bestowed by our Creator. In the field of mathematics, the orderliness and logic of our minds depends in every way upon the absoluteness and orderliness of the Creator. Since this is God’s world, the facts of history are the work of his providence, the facts of science are his creation, and the facts of language are his gift. Van Til said, “There are not because there cannot be other facts than God-interpreted facts” (Warfield, 22). In order for education to possess truth and integrity, it must lead us to interpret academic facts according to God’s point of view. Education must presuppose a biblical worldview.

Cornelius Van Til in his Essays on Christian Education reminds us that non-Christians do not acknowledge this worldview:

“He too may be an artist, a scientist, or anything else that is open to him at his time of life. He does not believe that the creation lies under the curse of God. He does not believe that Christ, the anointed of God, has lifted the curse from off the ground on which he stands. He does not think of himself as made in the image of God. Every fact of the universe with which he deals does, as a matter of fact, belong to God, but he assumes that it belongs to no one. The last thing he will think of is to do all things to the glory of God” (4.)

The first chapter of Romans explains the effects of misinterpreting the testimony of God’s creation. The creation manifests God’s eternal power and divine nature, so that human beings are without excuse. Unfortunately, they did not glorify God or give thanks to him. Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. They claimed to be wise but became fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things instead of the Creator. The result was moral reprobation and condemnation. This is a scary thought for Christians who must educate their children in school systems that do not acknowledge a biblical worldview.

Covenant Theology and Parental Responsibility

In addition to biblical authority and worldview, a Christian educational philosophy should consider the role of covenant theology. Covenant theology recognizes that God’s covenant with human beings is an organizing theme of the Scriptures.

Today, through Christ, covenant families are descendants of Abraham, having been engrafted into the covenant. This covenant continues for them today. He has promised to be our God, and the God of our children, and our children’s children unto a thousand generations. However, there are conditions to this covenant, namely the commands to love God and our neighbors. In Exodus 20:5, God ties the commandments and the covenant together, asserting that his covenant blessings upon succeeding generations require obedience to these commandments. Deuteronomy 6:4 explains how these covenant blessings were to be perpetuated.

“These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them upon your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down, and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door frames of your houses and gates.”

In picturesque language, God says that there is no sphere of life that should escape the teaching that the Lord is our God. This teaching should be constant and pervasive. It should be so ingrained in our hearts and minds that we should be obsessed with love for God. Moreover, the covenant responsibility for passing on this godly obsession rests uniquely and necessarily with parents.

All this begs an application: In the course of our children’s education, are we as parents ensuring that they are constantly and pervasively taught to love God and man? Parents are the means God has chosen to perpetuate his gracious covenant unto a thousand generations of those who love him. They are to teach them day and night, when sitting at home, when taking a walk or going for a drive, when putting children to bed and getting them up in the morning. Parents are to keep love for God constantly before their eyes.

Covenant Community

The children of Christian parents belong in God’s covenant by default. They already have access to many of the blessings of God’s covenant, because God is their God. This place in God’s covenant installs children into the covenant community we call the Church. It is, so to speak, the support group for all those who are partakers, through Christ, of the covenant promises. God is our God, our children’s, and our church community’s. We are all in this together.

This principle of covenant community gives vision and mission to church educational programs for youth. Parents who have baptized their children take a vow in the presence of this community to teach them the doctrines of our holy religion and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In many churches, the congregation also vows to assist parents in the Christian nurture of their children. In so doing, the congregation affirms that parents are not alone in their vows before God. Though responsibilities of the covenant may seem overwhelming at times, we have the body of Christ to strengthen us, provide support and guidance, build us up in our faith, remind us of a biblical worldview, and help us keep covenant with God. The church does this by continually reminding parents of their responsibilities, by bringing those who privately, publicly and home school their children together into one body, by providing fellowship and encouragement, and by providing youth programs in which children meet other covenant children, learn of God, and participate in godly activities. The value of belonging to this community is profound.

For some churches, the covenant community also provides a biblical foundation for forays into Christian school education. Louis Berkhof drew that connection:

"Advocates of Christian education have always maintained that the Christian school is an outgrowth of the covenant idea and is absolutely necessary in order to enable the child to appreciate his covenant privileges and to understand the solemn significance of his baptism in the name of the triune God. They are convinced that the Christian school, as well as infant baptism, finds its main support in the doctrine of the covenant" (Johnson, 65)

Historically, many Christian schools started as a reaction to the decline of spirituality and morality in our public schools (among some other far less "noble" reactions). However, such a reaction falls short of the biblical ideal. Churches should not start Christian schools because they do not like public schools, or because, if all else is equal, they believe that children should be in a protected environment. Churches that start Christian schools should do so because they have vowed to help Christian parents fulfill their covenantal and parental responsibility to teach their children a biblical worldview.

Biblical authority provides the foundation for a Christian philosophy of education. A biblical worldview implies the scope of education. Covenant theology suggests that parents are the guardians of a biblical worldview for their children. Since this is God’s world, and education is an inherently religious task, parents are to pass God’s view of the world on to their children. The covenant community is responsible to assist parents with this task. All this gives poignant meaning to passages such as Ephesians 6:2, in which parents are told to bring up their children in the training and instruction of the Lord, and to Ps. 78:1-2:

“O my people hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hidden things, things from of old – what we have heard and known, what our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from our children, we will tell to the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord, his power, and the wonders he has done. He decreed statutes for Jacob and established the law in Israel, which he commanded our forefathers to teach their children, so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they in turn would tell their children then they would put their trust in God and would not forget his deeds but would keep his commandments.”

References

• Johnson, Dennis E., Ed. Foundations of Christian Education: Addresses to Christian Teachers.Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1990.
• Van Til, Cornelius. Essays on Christian Education. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1971.
• Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948.

Truth in a Cup

An Illustration Designed to Awaken Awareness of Epistemological Uncertainty

You and I are sitting at a restaurant table. As a Christian, I am faced with the task of demonstrating to you the truth of my religion. Perhaps you need to be persuaded because you do not believe that we can know which religion is correct. Or perhaps you believe in a different religion. At the least, you certainly reject the idea that Christianity is the only true religion. And even more, you are offended that Christians so audaciously claim that they alone have the truth.

Let’s put Truth in a cup. Pretend that the empty cup on the table beside us contains the essence of reality— unadulterated Truth. Whatever Truth may be is in that cup. Now we seal the cup, so that neither of us can see it, and we begin to guess the answer to the question "What is Truth?" Our task, then, is to guess what is in that cup.

Here is how we will go about it: We will each explain what we believe to be the Truth. We will take those beliefs about Truth and will each place them in our own separate cups. When we finish filling our cups with our beliefs, we will open the Truth Cup to see which, if either, matches the Truth.

So we fill our cups. My beliefs are traditional Christian beliefs, and I place them in my cup. Perhaps your beliefs are somewhat agnostic, but you do believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to be moral and treat others with respect. Or maybe you don’t. Regardless, your beliefs, whatever they may be, go into your cup.

Before opening the Truth cup and making our comparison to see who is correct, there are several important things to note about the nature of what is in our cups:

1. We cannot change what is in the Truth cup. The truth is not influenced by what we believe. We can grunt and moan and believe with all the faith we can muster and not alter religious reality one iota. That indeed is assumed in the very definition of reality. Reality is what is, and is not merely what we think it is or what we want it to be. So what we have placed in our cups cannot in any way change what is in the Truth cup.

2. It is impossible for both of us to be right. How do I know that? Because when I compare what is in my cup with what is in your cup, I see that my cup contains the belief that Christianity is the only true religion and that all others are false religions. Your cup on the other hand contains a belief that says that I am wrong and have no right to be so close-minded. So we see from the start, without even opening the Truth cup, that both of them cannot be correct. They are both mutually exclusive.

3. Both of us could be wrong. Of course, it is possible that neither of our cups matches what is in the Truth cup. In that case, we should both commit to changing what we believe to match the truth when it is revealed to us. Only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup.

4. One of us might be correct, and the other wrong. Once again, only a fool would hold onto old beliefs that he or she knows don’t match what is in the truth cup. The loser must either ignore the Truth or accept it by bringing his or her beliefs into alignment with the Truth.

It is possible that you do not agree with these four assertions. If that is the case, the we will place your disagreement in your cup, and I will place these beliefs in mine. We will then compare them to the Truth in the cup beside us.

Now at this point, we should both come back to the reality of the situation and acknowledge a very real problem with our method. After all, we are just pretending. We are sitting at a table in a restaurant and are staring into some cups imagining that we have life’s ultimate answers mixed up in our soda. Finding out who is correct is not so simple as taking the lid off the cup on the table beside us. In reality, the only way we can know the Truth is if somehow it is revealed to us. Revelation is essential. Our choice is to either have it revealed, or live our lives with no confidence whatsoever that we possess the Truth.

The next question for both of us is, "To whom or what will we go for this revelation?" That’s a hard question, isn't it? It must be someone or something that demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely knows what is in the Truth cup and is capable of and willing to reveal it. Either that, or we are left to play the Truth Cup game with that person or thing as well and ultimately must move on to a greater source. Or perhaps we are left to just make stuff up and then place our faith in it as if we knew it were true.

To whom or what will you go to for this revelation? Does this source demonstrably, certainly, and absolutely know what is in the Truth cup? Is this source capable of revealing it? Is this source willing to reveal it? Do you know that you can you trust your source? Or are you placing your faith in made-up stuff? You may not believe that I should trust my source. However, on what grounds do you assert the certainty of your knowledge?