• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Raising Children in a Mixed Marriage

ICXCNIKA

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
No I am not saying they should obey the husband what I am saying is that it is far more important to have agreement on faith than something as trivial as bedtime. Also, I would imagine that the child would follow whoever gave them more of what they want and then let the parents fight it out.
Liz said:
ICXCNIKA said:
I am glad you brought up house rules. It is obvious that our faiths are very different which maybe why we are not having a meeting of the minds. What would happen if you told your child they had to go to bed at 9PM and your husband said they could go to bed when they wanted... who would the child follow?
Well, I hope we'd agree beforehand on a bedtime - but if not, I think it would have to be whoever said it first - it's only fair to a child to go with the first response to a question, and also, you shouldn't encourage children to go asking mum something when dad's already answered, or vice-versa.

Are you saying you think they should automatically obey my husband before me?
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Seattle, WA
Liz said:
Quinault said:
Understanding different perspectives requires abstract thought. Children must develop the ability to think abstractly by thinking literally first.
Ah, but understanding different perspectives isn't the first thing you do ... first you simply acknowledge that they are there. I didn't understand for a while why dad said something was red when I saw it was green, but he did, and it was just one of the peculiarities of the world. If you think about it, so many things seem arbitrary to a child, they're less likely to be bothered than you may think.
How long have you worked on child development? I have worked in this field as either a mother or a teacher for over a decade and a half. Color theory is an example of a concrete concept. You were not taught that your father was right when he called a color red. You were taught that he had a condition that caused his eyes to see the color as red. IF you took a preschool class, and were asked to name a block of color and you had a choice between labeling the green block red, or labeling it green, you labeled the green block green. The way your father saw the color was and is fundamentally wrong as an answer when answering the question. Faith is a primarily concrete concept. When I taught my children about the concept of God the first time, I didn't teach them about EVERY God and view on God at once. Children need succinct explanations when they are young and then you can expound on them as they grow older.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
^Very, very, very VERY bad idea. If you raise a child that way you will cause extreme marital strife. Children will just ask the more permissive parent first. This will cause the children to essentially be single parented. The stricter parent will be left out of all parenting decisions and labeled the "bad guy."
Oh come on Quinault, that is just silly now. You seem to think couples exist as if with a great yawning chasm between them, that can only be hesitantly covered over. Unless something is already very wrong in a relationship, why would they be like that?
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Seattle, WA
Because parenting can either ring a couple together or tear them apart. Issues that are small in a marriage before children will become a big issue as parents. We parent based upon a world view and from the perspective of our faith. If you believe that we are incapable of doing anything good you will parent a child to correct the sin out of them. If you parent from the perspective that children are inherently good and learn to sin you will parent in another way. And if each of your parents parent from a different perspective you are in a parental method divorce situation. The rules with Dad are different then the rules with mom. Then the child will decide which method they prefer and only seek the parenting of the parent they "like" more. One parent is parenting to teach and the other is teaching to correct. They may seem like the same concept, but they are not.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
Liz said:
Quinault said:
Understanding different perspectives requires abstract thought. Children must develop the ability to think abstractly by thinking literally first.
Ah, but understanding different perspectives isn't the first thing you do ... first you simply acknowledge that they are there. I didn't understand for a while why dad said something was red when I saw it was green, but he did, and it was just one of the peculiarities of the world. If you think about it, so many things seem arbitrary to a child, they're less likely to be bothered than you may think.
How long have you worked on child development? I have worked in this field as either a mother or a teacher for over a decade and a half. Color theory is an example of a concrete concept. You were not taught that your father was right when he called a color red. You were taught that he had a condition that caused his eyes to see the color as red. IF you took a preschool class, and were asked to name a block of color and you had a choice between labeling the green block red, or labeling it green, you labeled the green block green. The way your father saw the color was and is fundamentally wrong as an answer when answering the question.
Oh, I see - I thought you'd researched child development yourself.

What I've looked at is the research into cognitive/linguistic theory, which is rather different from the (much more useful, of course!) practical stuff about how you teach a child his colours. The point is, children are equipped to understand far more, and far more subtly, than you're giving them credit for.

A child knows that, when he's asked, 'what colour is this?', he should give the appropriate answer. But, it's been shown that children also learn about perspectives, and not as late on as you think. If you have a child of 5 or so, who can't comprehend someone else's perspective affects their perception of truth, you have a problem. In the UK, you'd usually be referred for special check-ups of the child's development (it being one of the common and observable signs of autism). These things are really quite important, and if you try to blank them out of a child's development, you will damage that child.
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Seattle, WA
No, you aren't getting what I mean. I have studied child development a great deal both professional and as a parent. I have at least 2 children with Sensory Processing Disorder. Children can be willfully deceptive at an early age. But a child does not know what the abstract concept of a "lie" is until they are older. My 3 year old can steal a cookie and not tell the truth when asked if he stole it. That isn't a lie, that is just a lack of understanding truth from non-truth.

A child can be taught that hitting another child is wrong from several different perspectives. All of it comes down to the basic premise as to whether or not the abstract concept of hurting someone else is "wrong" or subjective. If it is subjective then you teach a child that they are hurting someone else and leave it up to them to decide if hurting someone else is wrong/right justifiable. If you teach a child that hurting someone else is wrong, you must teach them why hurting someone else is wrong.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
Because parenting can either ring a couple together or tear them apart. Issues that are small in a marriage before children will become a big issue as parents.
That, I am sure is true!

We parent based upon a world view and from the perspective of our faith. If you believe that we are incapable of doing anything good you will parent a child to correct the sin out of them. If you parent from the perspective that children are inherently good and learn to sin you will parent in another way. And if each of your parents parent from a different perspective you are in a parental method divorce situation. The rules with Dad are different then the rules with mom. Then the child will decide which method they prefer and only seek the parenting of the parent they "like" more. One parent is parenting to teach and the other is teaching to correct. They may seem like the same concept, but they are not.
For what it's worth, my husband and I don't disagree about whether people are inherently good, or inherently sinful. But I don't think it's usual to let a child choose which parent it will always go to. It'll be randomized by things like, who's home when, who's in the room, which parent does what with which child, etc. etc. Indeed, lots of things will vary depending on mood - I know my mum would sometimes be strict because she was feeling cross, and she won't be the only parent like that!
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Seattle, WA
I have seen how teaching abstract ideas of truth can warp a child. And when it comes to faith you have to wait to make a concept abstract until you can build upon a concrete view. If there is not a base of absolutes to build upon a child will not be capable of understanding anything. You will essentially be teaching a child that they only rule there is is that there are no rules, which a child simply can not understand. A rule that there are no rules is a false dichotomy.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
No, you aren't getting what I mean. I have studied child development a great deal both professional and as a parent. I have at least 2 children with Sensory Processing Disorder. Children can be willfully deceptive at an early age. But a child does not know what the abstract concept of a "lie" is until they are older. My 3 year old can steal a cookie and not tell the truth when asked if he stole it. That isn't a lie, that is just a lack of understanding truth from non-truth.
Well, I thought 3-4 was roughly when you start to watch out and see if children are capable of lying, pretend play, understanding the 'naughty Teddy' type experiment, and so on. It's a pretty important stage in development, not something you should be blase about if a child can't do it.

A child can be taught that hitting another child is wrong from several different perspectives. All of it comes down to the basic premise as to whether or not the abstract concept of hurting someone else is "wrong" or subjective. If it is subjective then you teach a child that they are hurting someone else and leave it up to them to decide if hurting someone else is wrong/right justifiable. If you teach a child that hurting someone else is wrong, you must teach them why hurting someone else is wrong.
Yes, of course. But I don't see why that would be a problem in a Christian marriage - we all know that hurting someone else is wrong, for a range of reasons from the simple ('how would you feel if Timmy did that to you') to the more complicated ('Timmy is just as important as you'). Now, of course, the pain probably is a bit subjective, but I don't see that as a great excuse for a child to learn!
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Seattle, WA
Let's put it this way; the set of letters we use in the English alphabet are used in plenty of other languages. The sounds that a certain letter makes can vary from language to language slightly or sound completely different. When you teach your child the alphabet, you don't start by teaching them all the various sounds that letter makes in every language. You teach that child that a letter makes a specific sound in a specific language. Visually the letters may be the same, but the sound is different. Teaching a language by hearing bypasses this issue. But you don't teach a child the names/sounds of a letter concurrently when they differ unless you introduce context. You can't introduce context before a child is capable of reading. So you teach the English alphabet and the other alphabet separately. You don't say the alphabets altogether at once. The "a" says ... but in this language it says.....and so on and so forth.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
I have seen how teaching abstract ideas of truth can warp a child. And when it comes to faith you have to wait to make a concept abstract until you can build upon a concrete view. If there is not a base of absolutes to build upon a child will not be capable of understanding anything. You will essentially be teaching a child that they only rule there is is that there are no rules, which a child simply can not understand. A rule that there are no rules is a false dichotomy.
Interestingly, my mother-in-law, who catechizes the children in church, thinks this is completely wrong!  ;)

But she's just one person, so only one view.

What concerns me is, I am sure if you teach children like that, they will learn about Christianity by rote. But they will have no faith.
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Seattle, WA
Children can not reliably discern and differentiate a "lie" from "the truth" until they are about 5-8. They can discern "right and wrong," but not the truth from a lie. A lie is the willful act of with holding or clouding the truth. Whereas something wrong is incorrect, and something true is correct.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
Let's put it this way; the set of letters we use in the English alphabet are used in plenty of other languages. The sounds that a certain letter makes can vary from language to language slightly or sound completely different. When you teach your child the alphabet, you don't start by teaching them all the various sounds that letter makes in every language. You teach that child that a letter makes a specific sound in a specific language. Visually the letters may be the same, but the sound is different. Teaching a language by hearing bypasses this issue. But you don't teach a child the names/sounds of a letter concurrently when they differ unless you introduce context. You can't introduce context before a child is capable of reading. So you teach the English alphabet and the other alphabet separately. You don't say the alphabets altogether at once. The "a" says ... but in this language it says.....and so on and so forth.
Sorry Quinault, I really appreciate you trying this analogy because I am fascinated by language, but I'm not getting it. Could you explain a bit more clearly what you think this means for teaching a child about faith?
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
Children can not reliably discern and differentiate a "lie" from "the truth" until they are about 5-8. They can discern "right and wrong," but not the truth from a lie. A lie is the willful act of with holding or clouding the truth. Whereas something wrong is incorrect, and something true is correct.
Really? In this country, the 'silly Teddy' test is still done on children in reception (ie. 4). It's considered a concern if they can't do it.
 

Quinault

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Seattle, WA
The teddy test is not a test about lie versus truth. That test determines the ability to discern correct versus incorrect.



I have to get to the Farmers Market before it closes, I hope someone else can take over and explain more. If not, I can write more tomorrow.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
Quinault said:
The teddy test is not a test about lie versus truth. That test determines the ability to discern correct versus incorrect.
We might be talking about a different test? The one I'm talking about is testing whether or not a child knows that someone else won't know and see exactly what he knows and sees. It's a test of understanding of subjectivity.

I have to get to the Farmers Market before it closes, I hope someone else can take over and explain more. If not, I can write more tomorrow.
Hope you enjoy the Farmers' Market then!
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Liz said:
deusveritasest said:
Liz said:
If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!
We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.
So what's the problem then?
Your children won't be served.

Btw, the two pre-teens being baptized yesterday were officially received as catechumen, with the blowing ceremony and everything.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Liz said:
Quinault said:
There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever ;) A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.
I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.
They can understand two views at once. They just can't, as neither can adults (despite what the CoE and the American educational establishment preach), hold them at once.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
katherineofdixie said:
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front
Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.
I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
ialmisry said:
Liz said:
deusveritasest said:
Liz said:
If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!
We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.
So what's the problem then?
Your children won't be served.

Btw, the two pre-teens being baptized yesterday were officially received as catechumen, with the blowing ceremony and everything.
That's not what the priest says. They will attend Communion with everyone else in the Orthodox Church, no problem with it.

I think if a pre-teen feels strongly that he or she wants to be a catechumen, you have to respect that, btw.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
ialmisry said:
Liz said:
Quinault said:
There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever ;) A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.
I just don't understand this assumption that children cannot understand two views at once. It speaks poorly of the state of education in America, perhaps, because I've never encountered problems with it here.
They can understand two views at once. They just can't, as neither can adults (despite what the CoE and the American educational establishment preach), hold them at once.
Agreed. Actually, I don't think the CofE has ever suggested someone can hold two views at once (citation?).
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Liz said:
katherineofdixie said:
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front
Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.
I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.
No, people disagree on many issues, such as to whether peanut butter should be kept in the refrigerator.

We're not talking about trivial things, and I suspect that you know that.
We're talking about substantive differences.

But since you don't believe children should have the assurance that their parents will make good and right decisions for them, you will, along with their freedom to decide which if any religion they will be brought up in, let your children decide whether or not they will go to the doctor, or the dentist or get immunized or attend school?

Really? I'm astonished to hear that. As a newly-wed, you much prefer the current situation of high divorce rates, "shacking up," and single-parent families?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Quinault said:
There are two major issues that would be fairly insurmountable explaining to children. (George wouldn't have this issue since he doesn't believe that children should be taught about faith at all). The first would be the orthodox view of salvation, the second would be the orthodox view of hell. Those two issues will always be an issue, and a very confusing one at that. You can not teach that "mommy believes this and daddy believes that" without confusing the heck out of the child. Either raise the child orthodox, or raise the child Anglican. Maybe you can make it "work" for your children. But the children will grow up quite confused and may eventually become quite angry and leave all faith altogether. The issues of communion are great as well. You can not have your children partake at one church one week and another a different week. Kids don't stay little forever ;) A child would not be allowed to partake of Anglican and Orthodox Eucharists concurrently. This would place the child in a position where they will have to choose between mom and dad at some point. They will have to decide that one or the other is correct. That is not a fair position to put a child in, it simply isn't healthy. You place the child into a situation of religious divorce whether you intend to or not.
If they partake of Eucharists concurrently, then they have taken mommy's side by default.  I would say that allowing the children to "chose" is also conceding the Protestant point, although there there is a history of Orthodox postponing baptism (though not in the final analysis IMHO any better reason).
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Liz said:
katherineofdixie said:
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front
Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.
I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.
Hmmm.  The 50s mommy and daddy raised the generation of the 60's and 70's.  So they gave them a background of stable family life which the children turned into the domestic chaos we enjoy today. Though Dr. Spock coming out in 1947 did his part, more so his "disciples."
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Liz said:
ialmisry said:
Liz said:
deusveritasest said:
Liz said:
If I did have children, they could not 'reject' communion, as they would be children!
We serve Communion to children from as young as possible in the East.
So what's the problem then?
Your children won't be served.

Btw, the two pre-teens being baptized yesterday were officially received as catechumen, with the blowing ceremony and everything.
That's not what the priest says. They will attend Communion with everyone else in the Orthodox Church, no problem with it.
Not if they aren't baptised Orthodox and remain so (i.e. no communion from the Anglicans) they won't. 

That's not, btw, an issue between you and the priest (is this the same one behind the last minute wedding problems?). It then becomes an issue between the priest and the rest of the Church.

I think if a pre-teen feels strongly that he or she wants to be a catechumen, you have to respect that, btw.
Depends on what you mean by "respect."
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
katherineofdixie said:
Liz said:
katherineofdixie said:
Much better not to pretend mum and dad can preserve an artificially united front
Actually, it's much better if mom and dad have an actual united front.
I don't think any couple agrees on everything. The 50s-style 'mummy and daddy are always right' hasn't got the greatest track record, and I'm quite happy to let it fall by the wayside.
No, people disagree on many issues, such as to whether peanut butter should be kept in the refrigerator.

We're not talking about trivial things, and I suspect that you know that.
We're talking about substantive differences.
Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')

But since you don't believe children should have the assurance that their parents will make good and right decisions for them, you will, along with their freedom to decide which if any religion they will be brought up in, let your children decide whether or not they will go to the doctor, or the dentist or get immunized or attend school?
I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?

Really? I'm astonished to hear that. As a newly-wed, you much prefer the current situation of high divorce rates, "shacking up," and single-parent families?
They are not 'either/or' alternatives, you know. I'd like to think we can progress from a rigid, 50s-style parenting model, and also avoid the other pitfalls. But perhaps I'm overly idealistic.
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Liz said:
Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')
Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.

I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

They are not 'either/or' alternatives, you know. I'd like to think we can progress from a rigid, 50s-style parenting model, and also avoid the other pitfalls. But perhaps I'm overly idealistic.
It hasn't worked at all well so far, so I think that you are overly idealistic.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,897
Reaction score
69
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Liz,

I haven't read through the thread, but I thought I'd pass along a comment that has been oft-repeated in Clergy circles, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox: "If you try to raise them in both faiths, they will choose neither."  I've only seen this a few times myself; but clergy more experienced than I have seen it numerous times, and while it does not happen 100% of the time, it seems to occur pretty close to that.  Here's why I think it happens:

Faith, especially Christian Faith, is focused around encountering Truth in places where it might not be able to be empirically measured.  For us Christians, Anglican and Orthodox alike, the Truth is a person and His Body, the Church, which does His work in the world.  As an adult, it is easy to compartmentalize life while still looking at the Church as the repository of Truth in the world - as someone raised Orthodox, it is possible for me to look at, say, some Eastern mystical religion which says that human beings should not be killed and say, "well they have a grain of the truth there."  

However, when children are raised up in two faith traditions, the first underlying message that comes across is that neither has the Truth (which is why they can't go just to one instead of both).  This prevents the strong bond between person and Faith that occurs when most of us are brought up in a 1-faith household (regardless of the parents' individual affiliations); thus, faith (& religion) will be seen more like a club than a way of life.

This is only a brief summary of my thoughts on the matter, and only stated from a broad, psychological-type perspective (not from the perspective as an Orthodox priest/aspiring theologian).  However, regardless of what I've stated above, I pray that the Holy Spirit guide you to what is right and good for your (and your husband's) salvation and the salvation of any family you decide to raise.
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
katherineofdixie said:
Liz said:
Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')
Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.
Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).

I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith. Wishing it away won't make it go, and wishing for it may not be  enough to bring it back.

They are not 'either/or' alternatives, you know. I'd like to think we can progress from a rigid, 50s-style parenting model, and also avoid the other pitfalls. But perhaps I'm overly idealistic.
It hasn't worked at all well so far, so I think that you are overly idealistic.
[/quote]

Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!

I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Liz said:
katherineofdixie said:
Liz said:
Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')
Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.
Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).
Yes, people disagree, as I said before, but agreement on substantive issues, especially the big ones of morality, values and beliefs is important. Unless morality, values and beliefs are situational - that is, there is no mutual agreement, only whatever one person wants to do. And you don't know that your friends don't refer to abusrd things - you are inferring. They very well may do so.
If they do, do you think it would be good for the children? From your statement, I infer that you don't think it is a good thing.

I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith.
So how does one "get" faith? How does one even know that faith is something that one would like to know about or decide about, that faith exists and is a good thing - unless one is exposed to it.
Which will that be, for your children? Or will you leave it up to them? (you certainly don't have to answer this - it's very personal)
You, I hope, won't let them decide for themselves whether or not they will be immunized or get their teeth seen to or go to the doctor or get an education.
These are important, not optional, things - which the parents should take care of, just like ensuring that their children are brought up in a religion.
Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!
What evidence do you have that I was referring to your marriage? I was actually referring to the sorry state of society today - as I mentioned before and you responded to - we have the evidence before us.

I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
Yes, why listen to people who already have children or who have been married for many years? Or who have actually grown up in a inter (or no) faith household?
How could they possibly possess insights that you lack?
 

Liz

High Elder
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
989
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Oxford, England and York, England
I had to take a little while to respond to this.

Katherine, you chose to give me unsolicited advice, in the middle of a thread that someone else had started. You can hardly blame me for feeling that this is inappropriate. What upsets me more is that, although I have sought advice from my priest, you - a laywoman - have decided that your personal feelings are worthy of more consideration than the advice of our priest.

It is very difficult for me to understand how the Orthodox Church can claim to be in any way unified, when lay members take issue with the decisions of priests and bishops (yes, of course, we checked with the bishop that he approved the marriage).

I have said, earlier in this thread, that it did not seem relevant to the original topic to discuss whether or not Anglicanism is correct (since Minasomalian, who started the thread, is not Anglican and is not dating an Anglican woman). The responses on this thread seem, to me, to display a fair amount of ignorance. That is understandable, since this is an Orthodox forum, but I don't see why there is this enthusiasm to continue spreading incorrect ideas. If you look at the continuation of the thread that split from this one, sensible questions on specific issues were asked - why would that have been so difficult for you?

You seem to think that moral rectitude is a concept unique to Orthodox Christians, despite the copious theological and anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If you genuinely believe (as you argue) that Orthodox Christians are automatically morally superior, perhaps you would be more comfortable as a member of one of the evangelical 'churches'?

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I simply cannot understand why the you think that the Orthodox Church is best served by having its most ignorant, lay members attempting to argue with ordained clergy.







katherineofdixie said:
Liz said:
katherineofdixie said:
Liz said:
Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')
Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.
Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).
Yes, people disagree, as I said before, but agreement on substantive issues, especially the big ones of morality, values and beliefs is important. Unless morality, values and beliefs are situational - that is, there is no mutual agreement, only whatever one person wants to do. And you don't know that your friends don't refer to abusrd things - you are inferring. They very well may do so.
If they do, do you think it would be good for the children? From your statement, I infer that you don't think it is a good thing.

I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith.
So how does one "get" faith? How does one even know that faith is something that one would like to know about or decide about, that faith exists and is a good thing - unless one is exposed to it.
Which will that be, for your children? Or will you leave it up to them? (you certainly don't have to answer this - it's very personal)
You, I hope, won't let them decide for themselves whether or not they will be immunized or get their teeth seen to or go to the doctor or get an education.
These are important, not optional, things - which the parents should take care of, just like ensuring that their children are brought up in a religion.
Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!
What evidence do you have that I was referring to your marriage? I was actually referring to the sorry state of society today - as I mentioned before and you responded to - we have the evidence before us.

I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
Yes, why listen to people who already have children or who have been married for many years? Or who have actually grown up in a inter (or no) faith household?
How could they possibly possess insights that you lack?
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Liz said:
I had to take a little while to respond to this.

Katherine, you chose to give me unsolicited advice, in the middle of a thread that someone else had started. You can hardly blame me for feeling that this is inappropriate.
I shared with you what it feels like for a child to grow up in a so-called "interfaith" marriage, and with research that I have read on the subject. I have challenged certain assumptions or statements that you have made, which I disagree with - isn't that the purpose of a discussion? Or have I misunderstood?
What upsets me more is that, although I have sought advice from my priest, you - a laywoman - have decided that your personal feelings are worthy of more consideration than the advice of our priest.
Please show me where I have done this, and I will most earnestly beg your and his pardon. I don't believe that I have ever said, "ignore your priest's advice."

It is very difficult for me to understand how the Orthodox Church can claim to be in any way unified, when lay members take issue with the decisions of priests and bishops (yes, of course, we checked with the bishop that he approved the marriage).
Again, where have I encouraged you to disobey your bishop?

I have said, earlier in this thread, that it did not seem relevant to the original topic to discuss whether or not Anglicanism is correct (since Minasomalian, who started the thread, is not Anglican and is not dating an Anglican woman). The responses on this thread seem, to me, to display a fair amount of ignorance. That is understandable, since this is an Orthodox forum, but I don't see why there is this enthusiasm to continue spreading incorrect ideas. If you look at the continuation of the thread that split from this one, sensible questions on specific issues were asked - why would that have been so difficult for you?
Again, please show me where I have made ignorant or incorrect statements about Anglicanism, and I will apologize. While I am not a scholar of Anglican theology, I am somewhat familiar with it since I have attended Episcopal church in the past. Perhaps one problem may be that the American version (ECUSA) varies significantly from the English version.)

You seem to think that moral rectitude is a concept unique to Orthodox Christians, despite the copious theological and anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If you genuinely believe (as you argue) that Orthodox Christians are automatically morally superior, perhaps you would be more comfortable as a member of one of the evangelical 'churches'?
Again, please let me know where I have said anything of the sort, and I will beg your pardon.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I simply cannot understand why the you think that the Orthodox Church is best served by having its most ignorant, lay members attempting to argue with ordained clergy.
No, I can honestly say that I have no idea what you are trying to say, since most of what you have imputed to me is not at all what I have said or meant to say. While it is true that I am the first of sinners, do you really think that it is kind to refer to me as ignorant?
Is it not allowed for Anglicans to disagree with ordained clergy?







katherineofdixie said:
Liz said:
katherineofdixie said:
Liz said:
Yes, you're right that big differences are more important than small ones - but actually, I think most people do have at least one area of significant disagreement, even if it doesn't emerge for quite a while. For example, lots of my friends are just getting to the age when their children need to go to school, and there are lots of state/private disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve (and, obviously, have far-reaching implications). As far as I know, none of these couples particularly foresaw disagreement, either (I hear a lot of disbelief at 'the absurd things s/he believes!')
Ok, now imagine these disagreements breaking out, which are really difficult to resolve and have far-reaching implications, about religion, in addition to whatever undiscovered disagreements that exist.  And that your children are privy to the remarks about the "absurd things" each of you believes about something as important as God, morality, values, beliefs and faith.
Do you think that makes for a serene and happy home life for the children? From personal experience, even with parents who loved each other devotedly, I can tell you that it doesn't.
Katherine, I'm saying I think people disagree, it's natural. I don't think it's even unhealthy. Btw, I don't think my friends argue in front of their children (nor, in fact, do I think they refer to 'absurd things' to each other - they're blowing off steam to me).
Yes, people disagree, as I said before, but agreement on substantive issues, especially the big ones of morality, values and beliefs is important. Unless morality, values and beliefs are situational - that is, there is no mutual agreement, only whatever one person wants to do. And you don't know that your friends don't refer to abusrd things - you are inferring. They very well may do so.
If they do, do you think it would be good for the children? From your statement, I infer that you don't think it is a good thing.

I don't understand the first part of what you say above - why do you think I believe that?
Then you don't believe that children should decide for themselves what religion they will be brought up in? Then who will be doing the deciding?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I said I didn't understand why you thought I believed those things - why is this necessarily to do with children 'deciding' to follow a religion? In my experience, one doesn't 'decide' such a thing, the way you might decide to have beef for dinner - if you have faith, you have faith.
So how does one "get" faith? How does one even know that faith is something that one would like to know about or decide about, that faith exists and is a good thing - unless one is exposed to it.
Which will that be, for your children? Or will you leave it up to them? (you certainly don't have to answer this - it's very personal)
You, I hope, won't let them decide for themselves whether or not they will be immunized or get their teeth seen to or go to the doctor or get an education.
These are important, not optional, things - which the parents should take care of, just like ensuring that their children are brought up in a religion.
Excuse me? What evidence do you have for saying my marriage isn't working well?!
What evidence do you have that I was referring to your marriage? I was actually referring to the sorry state of society today - as I mentioned before and you responded to - we have the evidence before us.

I will say, one thing that has brought us into close agreement with each other is reading threads like these and finding the blueprint for exactly how *not* to parent or relate to each other!
Yes, why listen to people who already have children or who have been married for many years? Or who have actually grown up in a inter (or no) faith household?
How could they possibly possess insights that you lack?
[/quote]
 
Top