"We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate"

At first glance I’d say that we should acknowledge and deal with our shortcomings, but mistakes do not necessarily negate one’s efforts to do right. Character flaws, however, are another story.

Jefferson owned slaves at a time when they were part of the estate, and so he inherited slaves like he did a house, lands, furniture, and grandma’s silverware. But that does not simply erase all the efforts he put into abolishing slavery. Also, he couldn’t simply free his slaves- it was illegal in some states and definitely dangerous for the slaves themselves. I think Washington was also in the same predicament- literally doing something he believed was evil, but the alternatives were worse.

Having said that, I don’t think I see that particular trend in IFBism. Washington and Jefferson made it clear in their writings that they considered slavery evil and not only wanted to abolish it, but took steps to do so. Keeping their slaves was actually abiding by the law at the time.

It seems that schools today don’t encourage students to think these things through. An underlying agenda seems to leach out into every facet of modern public education.

Can a modern or postmodern nation value history? The irony of the Enlightenment is that a movement that was based in large part on a recovery of classics issued a philosophy that undervalues history. Through painstaking historical study, modernism issued a narrative of progress. All previous ages chart an upward journey to the modern apex. Previous ages were “dark” and “ignorant.” The story of history, especially scientific history, is a tale of peeling away error and superstition. With rhetoric like this, is it any wonder that our culture is future-oriented, relying on technical mastery of the physical universe rather than perceptive understanding of the human condition?

American Christians have contributed to the decline of history. The dominant tradition in America is the free church, which tends to articulate its identity directly from the Bible without any historical attachment. This neglect of history is evident in the curricula of Bible colleges and seminaries, in the books on most pastors’ bookshelves, and in the lack of liturgy in most free church worship.

Perhaps with the collapse of modernist optimism, the current state is one that places little stock in the past or the future, but lives indulgently in the present.

[RPittman] Can we take this a step further by saying that we are seeing this same trend in our own Fundamentalism. If we focus only on our flaws, then our unity and common purpose is destroyed. What do you think?

That’s the very reason I’m part of SI. Fundamentalism does not consist only of IFBs. My background is from a fundamental Methodist tradition, we have members here who are Presbyterian and from other backgrounds as well. There are things that fundamentalists (and even those in broader conservative evangelicalism) have in common, and this site attempts to use those commonalities for discussion, argumentation, etc., in an attempt to give us a venue for sharpening we wouldn’t otherwise have. All the time I see comments from those wondering why SI allows the breadth of participation it does, where some think it should only be one particular branch of IFB-dom. All the different participants and sub-groups could find “flaws” in what the others believe. Those differences are indeed significant in a local-church setting as well as setting limits on with whom we can serve and join together. However, just as we can learn from the history of men like Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, etc. who were not perfect, we can learn from each other in this setting, to see both the commonalities and differences in our respective groups, while recognizing that there are things that bring those who believe in the fundamentals together in ways we cannot share with those outside.

So yes, if we focus only on the flaws or differences, which of course is common in fundamentalism, it not only helps destroy unity, it makes any recognition of the things that unite us nearly impossible. Fundamentalism today (like America) is not the same as it was when it was founded, but we certainly can learn from our history, both the good and the bad. When we don’t, we endanger our future, or at least make things much more difficult for ourselves than they need to be.

Instead, my problem with the former is that he despised God so much that he redacted all the miracle accounts and statements concerning Jesus Christ’s deity from his personal New Testament. And my problem with the latter was his vigorous freemasonry. I believe that Christians would be wise to seek other figures to hold in high regard, or to use as the objects of such statements as “If we focus only on our flaws, then our unity and common purpose is destroyed” which put Jefferson and Washington in the position of role models, as if our Christian leaders are supposed to benefit from being viewed in the same context as those two.

Quite the contrary, I would rather more Christians be aware of the actual religious beliefs of Jefferson and Washington and the other Founding Fathers, and that there be fewer poseurs presenting a false, fanciful view of this history like David Barton (and to a lesser extent the late D. James Kennedy). Far better to defend John Calvin for his role in the execution of Michael Servetus, Balthasar Hubmaier for his brief apostasy, and John Knox and George Whitefield for some of their more regrettable decisions than to invest time over the legacies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. And if a lack of knowledge of history is a problem, I would put it in the context of more Christian children knowing about people like Jefferson, Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, FDR, Martin Luther King, Jr. etc. than of Calvin, Hubmaier, Knox, Whitefield, William Carey and similar.

isn’t a Christian emphasis or interpretation, but flat-out ignorance of history, American gov’t, and related topics.

Only 12 percent of high-school seniors, who are getting ready to vote for the first time, have a proficient knowledge of history. If you’re looking for a tinsel lining, you could point to 20 percent of fourth-graders who are described as proficient, but that means eight of 10 haven’t learned very much during their tender years in the classroom.

You can check out any state or district stats and scores at the http://ies.ed.gov/ Institute of Education Sciences and at the http://nationsreportcard.gov/ National Assessment of Education Progress .

As a Pastor and Dad of a soon to be high school Jr. in a public school, I think I have a vested interest in this. I think part of the reason these children are ignorant of history has alot to do with parents. Kids in public school that want to learn, do learn. Do they have to wade through some PC? yes. But do they try to teach history? Yes. Part of the reason why these kids don’t know history is because parents have not taught their kids to be disciplined to study. That is why they don’t learn.

I was a history minor at BJU. One of the differences between history in high school and history in college was application. In high school we mainly had to work on the framework and timeline of history. In college, it wasn’t so much about the dates and place names (in the best classes). We had to explain, critique, and understand history. College history was way more fun. I especially liked Dr. Abrams’ History of Religion in America. It’s one of the most practical classes a pastor could have taken, because it helps us understand the people who walk through the church doors.

I loved Dr. Abrams’ insistance that the class was history, and therefore we were mainly trying to “understand” why people did what they did. He emphasized to us to try to understand where people were coming from before we at all tried to “fix” them.

Roland,

I agree with you. My point related to this topic is that a large part of why kids are failing to know history is the student themselves and their parents. Are there teachers teaching revisionist history? Yes. Wehave had to help my daughter in some areas, but by and large it has been better than expected. But as the the basic knowlegge, it falls back to the students themselves.

I agree with Bro. Pittman and Bro. Carlson. I know many parents who are actively engaged in ‘deschooling’, which is basically deprogramming their kids from such problems as brainwashing, peer dependency, and revisionism. Perhaps it would be nice to be able to hand over the education reins to someone else, but even if your child is in a Christian school, you can never never never never do this. It is SO important to communicate with your kids about what they are learning and how they are learning it. Not only that, but kids WANT to know what their parents think. They need the direction and guidance that only a parent can give, whether you have a teaching degree or not.

Turn off the TV and sit on the couch in the evenings and read to and with the kids. There are some great resources for this, such as http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-history-primary-sources-literary/dp/B0006…] Ancient History from Primary Sources: A Literary Timeline . Head to the local discount bookstore and get autobiographies and other writings of those who lived in early America. You can get the http://www.amazon.com/Annals-America-22-Set/dp/0852299605] Annals of America for a pittance. Visit colonial Virginia and Washington DC instead of Disneyland. Watch The History Channel (if you must) instead of Dancing with the Morons Stars. Don’t think that because your child is in a good private school, or you live in a district graded as “Excellent” that you can relax and leave the education up to ‘the professionals’. It ain’t gettin’ done, and the stats show it. Making sure your kids get a solid education is not difficult- it is simply a matter of priorities and making better choices.

Now I’ve gone to meddlin’… http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/pcwhack.gif

I think treating information as separate ‘subjects’ is harmful. How do you separate history from science from geography from cultural studies and literature? Each one of these affects and informs the others.

When we read Dracula together this year, some of the things we discussed were what was known about blood in the late 1800’s, the predominant religious ideas of the day, gender roles in Victorian England, the impact of the Industrial Revolution on society, and the juxtaposition of science and superstition.

The way history is often taught takes a scalpel and carves events out of their natural settings and reduces them to disconnected factoids. Only a deep and purposeful interweaving of events, culture, climate, topography, technology, ideas… gives a clear picture that grounds history as real in the mind of a student.

If you don’t know history, you can’t teach history. And if you don’t know history, you can’t teach you children what is wrong with the history they’re being taught. This statement applies to public schools, Christian schools, and yes, even home schools. I am constantly annoyed with ‘Christian’ history books that have been written by people who obviously learned secular history and then rewrote it from a ‘Christian’ viewpoint. They didn’t dig in and really analyze history from a Christian perspective.

The problem with many Christians, is that they want to take popular heroes (Lincoln, Jefferson, etc) and Christianify them. Two questions I check out in a history book are, 1. Which slaves did Lincoln free and why?, There are many opinions on this subject, and every person in my family has a different viewpoint on Lincoln ranging from ‘He was a great hero’ to ‘He was a power grabbing politician who set our country on its present course of government control’ I’m in the middle, by the way. ;P and 2. Who was responsible for the Trail of Tears and why did it happen? This one is indicative of whether the author has a knee-jerk Andrew Jackson was an uncultured red-neck who was racist viewpoint or whether he studied and evaluated all the parties involved and looked at their intents and motivations. If either of the subjects are messed up, I know that the whole book is suspect. The author either has an ax to grind or didn’t do his work.

The point is that if you can’t sit at your table (or in front of the History Channel) and know what happened and why, your children will probably never learn real history. It is the exchange of facts and ideas that makes history exciting. This takes an immense amount of time, both to learn and to implement, but its rewards are invaluable. But I would guess that I’m preaching to the choir here. :D

I read through that questionnaire of young Fundamentalists composed by Jeremy Sweatt. I was struck by the fact that these respondents, mostly seminary students and young pastors, read no classic theology. In the recent books section, there was not a single theological work from before 1900, only a few biographies. That’s beyond disappointing. It’s absurd. It would be like a philosopher not reading Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, etc.