Sometimes we Christians find ourselves wondering at the foolishness on display in our society. Things which to us are so self-evident and obvious appear beyond the ken of the average Unbeliever. Take something as basic as whether depravity and perverseness is native to the human soul, or not. Christians, realizing that this is something about which we cannot be neutral, turn to the revelation of God to find that indeed we are all corrupt.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is often misunderstood. The Scriptures do not teach that man is corrupt as can be, but that every part of the human being is to some extent corrupted by evil. The “total” in Total Depravity refers to universality not degree. The poison of sin is traceable in every part of our being. In some times and cultures the poison is more advanced than in others. The ante-diluvian civilization, for example, saw a maturation and flowering of evil everywhere: every intent and thought of the heart of men was only evil continually, we are told (Genesis 6:5). But at other times the redemptive record reveals that Unbelieving cultures are a long way short of being filled up with evil (Genesis 15:16).
This being so, it is expected that children, for example, will manifest aspects and manifestations of self-will, disobedience, contumacy, stubbornness, and selfishness from a very early age. “I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me” says the Psalmist (Psalm 51: 5). The Borg is on-board the ship, as it were. Experience confirms the expectation in spades. Every parent would have to be blinded by some very opaque glasses indeed not to see this from the very earliest days of their child’s life.
Yet the general consensus is that children are born righteous and without sin and that it is society which corrupts them. Man is good and righteous, innocent; it is the environment which makes him evil. Thus it is generally held that crime is a social construct: if wages were higher, education more effective, and better television programming were to be had, crime would wither on the vine. The reason folk spend all their life on the dole is not that they are lazy or indigent, but because “society” has not presented them with the right employment opportunity.
The child-as-innocent view has won the ideological and religious battle in our country now for over fifty years. If society believes that children are innocent until made sinful by external conditioning parenting immediately becomes child-centric. The challenge is to impose as little as possible, and to allow the innocence within to come forth and flourish. Indulgence and permissiveness become the order of the day.
It is no surprise to Christians that the fruits will be forthcoming generations riven with narcissism, self-indulgence, sociopathic behaviours and dissipation. So it has come to pass–and we marvel at how society is puzzled by this, as if it were unexpected. It has led to what is now being called the “New Zealand paradox”: high teenage injury, death rates, and national debt in such a peaceful, ethical and developed nation.
Solving this paradox has become urgent. Now there are claims that research is beginning to give us the answers–at last.
Teaching self-control to children as young as 3 can set them up for healthy, wealthy and crime-free lives, researchers have found. Physical health, alcohol and drug addictions, personal finances and criminal offending in adulthood can be “significantly predicted” by how a child acts up to 11 years old.
The findings, part of a study of 1000 children born in Dunedin in 1972-73, have been released today by chief science adviser Sir Peter Gluckman.
Really! Apparently it is now statistically established that children who are taught self-control at a very young age are far more likely to be self-reliant, independent, productive and constructive members of adult society. Self-control means a child being taught and trained by parents to deny one’s immediate desires and preference, likes and dislikes, for a greater good which only the adult can see. It is the very opposite of permissive parenting.
Professor Poulton said that for young children self-control meant the ability to control emotions and persevere in the face of challenges. “If you hold off that chocolate now, in half an hour you can actually have two chocolates, for example,” he said.
“There is no time at which you can’t be thinking in terms of inculcating or teaching self-control skills. They are skills that you can learn – that’s the good thing about it.”
The study also found a “gradient” of success with children who had more self-control enjoying more health and wealth in adulthood than others who had even a bit less self-control.
This sounds a lot like discipling children–aka, disciplining them–from the very earliest ages.
Well, we are glad for small mercies. Apparently the Dunedin longitudinal study is unique in the world. We did not need all those millions of dollars and all those long years of labour to be expended to reach the conclusions. We Christians knew from the outset what the results would be. But, hey, it’s never too late.
What are the chances that Unbelief will change its view on the intrinsic goodness of man? Not good. Unbelief has too much at stake to let that particular bit of its perverse religious architecture to go.
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of the child, but the rod of correction drives it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15). That acute observation has been around for over three thousand years. But Unbelief tends to be blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to the really important things.
Cross posted at Contracelsum
Tags: Discipline · Self-Control · Total Depravity47 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Star trek reference!
Indeed, this is the sort of nonsense that has made alot of people question the role of faith in society. It belongs in the Readers Digest.
Well said Paul.
I kept expecting a punch-line, but then I realised the author of the post was actually being serious!!!
Foolishness in the comments above! Great post, as we parents are having more and more of our authority taken from us. NZ is becoming so UnChristian it’s scary. And look at the resutls…
Adam and Eve had the perfect environment, yet they failed their one and only test. Now, can Rousseau argue with that……..it is not about the perfect envrionment, but mans’tendency to follow his own wide path…
@Paul & Paul
which part didnt you like?
The bit that said teaching children self control was good for them?
@ Jeremy
After being in the teaching profession for almost twenty years and a parent for almost twelve, the reality is this.
Bad parenting OR Good parenting has nothing to do with being religious or not.
Unfortunately, even children raised well, may go off the rails at a later date and those children who poor quality upbringings can often go on to do well.
I have no problem with the self control idea, I just find the authors comments to be somewhat cliched, that’s all
“Bad parenting OR Good parenting has nothing to do with being religious or not.”
Just reread the article , couldnt find anywhere that made that claim.
Rather got the impression that this was the key paragraph…
“Really! Apparently it is now statistically established that children who are taught self-control at a very young age are far more likely to be self-reliant, independent, productive and constructive members of adult society. Self-control means a child being taught and trained by parents to deny one’s immediate desires and preference, likes and dislikes, for a greater good which only the adult can see. It is the very opposite of permissive parenting.”
And perhaps some cynical comments to the effect that this is hardly news to some of us.
@ Jeremy – ok, so let’s unpack that in Ben Goldacre fashion – we have ONE study being cited, with no link to the study itself and very broad conclusions are being drawn as reported in the popular press and those conclusions are being used to endorse a strict Christian upbringing.
Yup – that’s Readers Digest territory.
The argument seems to rest on the fact that if people believe their children are born innocent they will be allowed to run riot and set their own rules: “and to allow the innocence within to come forth and flourish. Indulgence and permissiveness become the order of the day.”
I’m not defending permissive parenting, but I think you’re confusing innocent with angelic. The fact that a child could be born innocent does not mean that the child knows how to act. In-fact, it would mean that although the child hasn’t committed any grave mistakes, they are innocent of what is or isn’t wrong and very prone to making bad decisions ie, they do not know the evil/good they do. Selfishness is quite understandable. Herein lies the importance of good parenting.
A parent who is permissive may like to let a child discover the boundaries themselves. A parent who has a more proactive approach endeavors to train the child and set clear boundaries on what is and is not acceptable.
Take the example of the hot stove… an innocent child may hurt themselves in their curiosity and needs to be taught.
With respect to self control, an innocent child will still need to be taught the benefits of delayed gratification – ie, hard work, study etc.
While permissive parenting may be the current fad I’m sure that the tide will swing the other way in NZ with all sorts of TV shows highlighting the dangers of taking this method too far.
What worries me is the the tendency of some believers to believe that they have the right to use violent punishment to teach their children self control. JT, I hope that you realize that the “rod of punishment” is now illegal in New Zealand and I hope that you’re not promoting it.
The thing is that you’re not actually talking about the sort of innocence that most unbelievers are talking about. I believe you may be talking about the spiritual innocence of the child’s soul.
I, for one, see no reason why as Christians we should believe that the child is depraved at birth and think that this is a dangerous teaching. What is even more worrying is the belief that physical discipline can remedy this.
You see things in black and white. Permissive, or “the very opposite of permissive parenting”, teaching self control. I put to you that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Let me share with you a personal story about the type of parenting you’re advocating. When I was a paper boy while growing up, I went to one house early in the morning to find it surrounded by police tape. Apparently the mother at this property (from the local church in our small town) had seen it fit to drive the evil and demons from her child with a paving stone. The evil was gone and so was the poor kid.
I admit this is an extreme example but while I plan to teach my children self control, there will be no way I’ll be hitting my kids and i sincerely hope you’re not promoting that. They’re innocent. Believing your children are evil from birth is an evil proposition and an insult to Christians everywhere.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/7/2693
Experience only confirms this expectation in spades if one operates under the presupposition that manifestations of self-will, disobedience, contumacy, stubbornness, and selfishness represent some sort of metaphysical “depravity” or evil.
@John
“They’re innocent. Believing your children are evil from birth is an evil proposition and an insult to Christians everywhere.”
With all due respect John you are doing the same with this article as you did with the Flood Story, picking on a bit you didnt like and ignoring the introduction..
JT started by saying
“The doctrine of Total Depravity is often misunderstood. The Scriptures do not teach that man is corrupt as can be, but that every part of the human being is to some extent corrupted by evil. The “total” in Total Depravity refers to universality not degree. The poison of sin is traceable in every part of our being.”
this does not mean
“Believing your children are evil from birth is an evil proposition and an insult to Christians everywhere.”
but it does recognise that even innocent children are not born perfect, … innocent chidren do not have the purity and holiness of God…to misquote Isaiah
“We all, like sheep, WILL GO astray, each of us WILL TURN to his own way; .”
To believe otherwise of your children is to delude yourself. I loved my kids when they were little, i still do now they are adults, but self will, rebellion showed up very early. Recognising the truth helps you to raise them well, not hinders.
Paul
Sir Peter Gluckman is a well respected scientist, well known in NZ. Not part of any “Christian” fringe in case you are worried).
I dont know for sure but i would guess being based in Dunedin that this study was down under the auspices of Otago Medical School at Otago Univesity. It may be just one study, but following 1000 kids for 40 years is one BIG reputable secular scientific study.
@jeremy, I think I commented on a lot of what was said Jeremy. JT has the mistaken belief that nonbelief gives rise to the perception that children can do no wrong and permissive parenting while those who believe their child has ‘the Borg onboard’ will teach self control. Look, Adam and eve were able to rebel without having ‘The poison of sin is traceable in every part of our being’. Why can’t we believe the same of our children? Of course they are fallible. Or is that a sin these days?
I’m not objecting to JTs assertion that children should be taught self control rather his belief about the reason it is needed.
Surely rebellion and self will are vital and positive traits in a child and they need to be taught how to use them correctly not squashed.
Of course children are wicked little runts.
@ Jeremy – making specific assertions based on the conclusions of one report is not something that I would do regardless of the standing of the persons or group involved. In order to make the sorts of assertions that John is doing I’d think you’d need to see a long term series of studies together with one or two meta studies too.
Ben Goldacre makes a good living out of debunking these sorts of news stories, and with good reason judging by the OP.
http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/we-should-so-blatantly-do-more-randomised-trials-on-policy/
Seriously guys, this sort of OP damages your reputation.
A default assumption of wicked wilfulness in children is not only dubious theology (dubious because we don’t find it in Jesus’s words or dealings with children).
It is also very detrimental to children whose “bad behaviour” comes from fear, hunger, deafness, insecurity, autism and many other disabilities that are only just being understood.
How many millions down the ages have been unfairly scolded or beaten, leaving lifelong scars of mistrust and bitterness?
After all, none of them asked to be born, when and where they were, or to the parents and with the genes they have.
Compassion, not dogma, should be our guide on such sensitive matters.
Sproul prefers the term “radical corruption”, as it’s a better description of the problem.
It may be just one study, but following 1000 kids for 40 years is one BIG reputable secular scientific study.
It’s an extremely famous, to the point where I believe it’s been on the cover of Time a couple of times.
Oh, look – it’s even got it’s own Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Health_and_Development_Study
@ Jeremy – ok, so let’s unpack that in Ben Goldacre fashion – we have ONE study being cited, with no link to the study itself and very broad conclusions are being drawn as reported in the popular press and those conclusions are being used to endorse a strict Christian upbringing.
Yup – that’s Readers Digest territory. I agree, now look at the huge number of secular blogs that have done the same, thing with one study suggesting crime rates and religion correlate.
Here is a good summary of the tu quoque fallacy.
@Peter D
You say, “A default assumption of wicked wilfulness in children is not only dubious theology (dubious because we don’t find it in Jesus’s words or dealings with children)”
Your canon within a canon is the words of Jesus? What about the words of those who recorded his actions? What about those whom the Holy Spirit spoke toward and guided their teachings? I think your hermeneutic will make discussions with those who view all Scripture as “God-breathed” difficult.
@Peter D
Why should “compassion” be our guide on sensitive matters? Why should I tell all to be “compassionate?” Why should they care? What moral imperative do they have to inspire them toward compassion, and wouldn’t a moral imperative be a dogma of sorts?
Kyle,
I’m sure you value the words and actions of Jesus even above those of his followers. And I’m sure you are a compassionate father above all else.
So I believe we are in agreement on the essentials, despite any theological differences we may have about the Bible.
@ Ryan, yes I found that funny. For a professional philosopher to lecture everyone else on logical fallacies and then to commit one himself did seem a bit odd.
Nonetheless that doesn’t address the underlying criticism – basing public policy on one study is dangerous.
What happens if next year there’s another study that reaches a different conclusion based on slightly different parameters ?
The Ben Goldacre page I linked to was worth reading in that regard.
@ GKE
Jesus words do seem to form a canon within a canon for most people. I suspect that it is because it is more difficult to discount the words of Jesus than other writers. Paul, for instance, is often thought to be speaking to the culture at the time whereas people tend to think Jesus’ words more encompasing. So much so that they are often highlighted in red. (wrongly so I think).
I’d have to agree with Paul though. The bible doesn’t lay out the ten commandments of good parenting so love (compassion) is a good candidate for being guide. I don’t think many people would disagree with that but may give differing sources for the inspiration or imperitive to act as such. The bible is one of those cited but surely not the only one.
@Matt
“‘Yup – that’s Readers Digest territory’. I agree”
I remain curious why you let this anonomous blogger continue…
Your own posts (which is why I visit the site) have a lot more thought put into them.
@ John – I’m not anonymous.
@ John, sorry – you were talking about John Tertullian.
I agree – the guy is inflicting some damage on this blog.
So far, it seems pretty clear to me that the most common fallacy pertaining to the posted article, so far, is the straw man. Some other brave commenters here have provided links in defense of the study cited, but nobody’s really mentioned that. The article itself might come off a bit preachy but I haven’t seen any of the dissenters here address the main thrust of it. All the negative comments here have been so wide of the mark, going on about whether or not children are actually wicked, whether or not public policy should be changed (when the article was questioning its being changed in the first place, no doubt as a result of similar studies), and whether or not Jesus’ teaching should be interpreted in the light of its biblical context. I think that the article’s sarcastic tone was bothersome, and has obviously caused more sensitive readers to miss the point.
@Matt – studies are published everyday.
It’s the way that a study is used/misused that matters.
@matt it’s probably because most of us can’t but agree with the studies findings. Most of us already believe in appropriate discipline and teaching self control.
What we have a problem with is JT appropriating it to support a belief in a particular brand of theology
I agree with John’s last comment,
and disagree with the opening of the post.
Surely total depravity is in fact degree and not universality.
If being “utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.” is anything to go by, It seems that to the degree of being totally depraved we can’t chose to accept Salvation. Coupled with Calvin’s other heresies such as irresistible grace, it’s hard to see how he could have possibly meant it as a corruption of ‘universality’ as opposed to degree.
“What are the chances that Unbelief will change its view on the intrinsic goodness of man? Not good. Unbelief has too much at stake to let that particular bit of its perverse religious architecture to go.”
I’m sure I am misunderstanding what you are saying because I find this offensive, first of all it is Christians who believe in the inherent goodness of man, does “Behold it is very good” ring any bells? How about “in the image of God he created them”?
If man is not intrinsically good, why bother with the anti-slavery laws? Why change the pro-abortion ones? Why try to stop euthanasia laws coming in?
It is because ‘unbelievers’ deny that man is good and have let that particular bit of its religious architecture go that these evils exist in the world today. If man was intrinsically evil, these things would be good.
@Paul Baird
Do you actually think that teaching children self control at a young age would be to the detriment of their “health and wealth”?
John,
Ryan, I suggest you re read that post on the tu quoque fallacy, the tu quoque occurs when someone tries to refute an objection to their position by noting the problem applies to their opponent’s position. I did not do this, you’ll note I granted that citing a single study was problematic. I explicitly said “I agree” and that Paul’s objection on this point was correct.
I simply pointed out the special pleading involved in Paul’s something Paul often does.
I reject selective studies from both sides the question is does Paul?
John, I am sorry but your suggestion that doctrines like original sin or pervasive (total) depravity are merely “particular brands of theology” is really rather inaccurate. These are mainstream doctrines of Protestant thought, and also to a large extent Catholicism and Eastern orthodoxy. This is actually a mainstream idea. It might be useful to try and paint certain views as minority extremist positions but its not accurate.
Rosjer, all your comments do is caricature the doctrine of total depravity, which is not about degree, as almost any Calvinist exposition of the doctrine will explain.
Moreover, you confuse the claim that people good, in the sense that they have intrinsic dignity, which requires respecting with the claim that people are good, in the sense that they have a good moral character.
Take a serial killer in jail, we don’t torture him to death. Why ?because to do so would violate his human dignity. Does it follow he is morally perfect and his character is not grossly wicked, not all all.
Let me add that it seems to me this whole debate often hinges on confusion. Failure to distinguish inherent dignity of human beings, that humans typically have a being morally good character. And also failure to distinguish different senses of the word “innocent” and guilt. Traditional moral theology drew a distinction between formal and material innocence. Formal guilt, involves the idea of being culpable and responsible for wrongdoing. Material guilt involves merely engaging in wrongdoing. Take the case of an insane attacker, what he does is assault and a criminal act, and he is guilty of performing it, it’s not as if it’s permissible for insane people to attack others.
However, an insane person is not culpable for his attack, he lacks the mental capacity to be held fully responsible and accountable.
The claim children are born sinful is the claim the children’s character and actions are sinful, not necessarily the claim that they have full legal or moral accountability for there actions, nor is it the claim they lack dignity or rights.
@Matt – studies are published everyday.
It’s the way that a study is used/misused that matters.
So Paul is that a yes or a no, do you accept the citation of a single study in these other contexts?
It’s not as if its a doctrine held by the minority, now. It doesn’t seem fair to me to fault the article for assuming a broadly held Christian belief about human persons. Also, I’m not a calvinist by any stretch, but its news to me that he taught heresies. If it is the theology of the article that is bothersome, then how about some focused, theological arguments. I’m not just saying that, I’d very much enjoy reading a well constructed case against the things assumed in the article, rather than assertions and anecdotes about crazy mothers (who would be crazy with or without corrective legislation). It does seem to me that there is some understandable worry being expressed though, that children should not be treated as wicked beings, and their natural human qualities should not be dismissed as bad outright. The doctrine assumed by the author does not entail such treatment of children at all, though. Any valid objections would need to involve the defense of a doctrine that could serve as an adequate replacement for total depravity (without continuing to misrepresent it). Of course the atheists objection is understandable, but it is hard to see what that would add to a discussion of church doctrine, given that the atheist would see it as meaningless to begin with. So, what does the bible, church tradition, etc. say about the human condition and how might the article be wrong? Or is it that we really just don’t like the delivery of the content and confused one with the other. Its perfectly fine to just say, “the tone of the piece was smug and smugness is bad and so is star trek, so I don’t like the article.” Of course, I’d have to defend the good name of star trek then.
@ Matt
“So Paul is that a yes or a no, do you accept the citation of a single study in these other contexts?”
No. As I’ve said many times already – the use of a single study to draw a conclusion upon which you wish to base changes to public policy is dangerous.
Misuse of statistics and reports is not confined to the world of faith so your accusation of special pleading is wrong – an apology would be nice. As a skeptic in other fields I do comment on those instances.too. You only see my comments here.
Sorry, Matt, but if you are seriously defending this OP on that basis then do let me know. I would be interested to see how your defence changes in the light of any past, current or future reports that provide different conclusions.
Paul, I did not defend the OP on the basis of the single study, I have twice clarified this already.
“Behold it is very good”
Actually God is recorded as saying that about the whole of creation [ not about the moral character of men]. But yeas , this was pre-fall’ While i’m here i must point out that “good” doesnt mean “perfect” or “holy”.
“first of all it is Christians who believe in the inherent goodness of man, ”
uh no we dont, only God is good in that sense. In as much as we are all deserving of judgment and have all fallen short of the glory of God, then we have no basis for pride and must all stand humble before God. No man more or less deserving of God’s mercy. If we were inherently good then there would be the possibility of salvation through works, apart from Christ.
“Let me add that it seems to me this whole debate often hinges on confusion. Failure to distinguish inherent dignity of human beings, that humans typically have a being morally good character.”
Great! thanks for the clarification.
““first of all it is Christians who believe in the inherent goodness of man, ”
uh no we don’t, only God is good in that sense”
But in Philosophy we use the word goodness in a way that is closer to what you are calling “inherent dignity.”
And in this sense God is good, He is the ultimate good.
Other things are good to:
Life is good. It is good to exist, food is good, the truth is good, love is good, and it is good for man to be alive.
However on the other hand,
are you trying to say that no atheist has ever done anything good?
I would say that we have a tendency towards sin, and selfishness, but to say that we are incapable of making a single moral correct decision is another.
Even an Atheist is able to fall in love, wish for the flourishing of others or even lay his life down for his friends this does not necessarily require a special grace from God.
@ Matt – I think that I’ve made my point clearly and repeatedly. If you are criticising secular bloggers and commentators for using single studies to justify their points then you have my support. Bad use of stats is bad use of stats.
@ Rosjier
“@Paul Baird
Do you actually think that teaching children self control at a young age would be to the detriment of their “health and wealth”?”
I’m open to persuasion – do you have a case to make ?
@matt. Fair enough. I wasn’t meaning to say these were the minority views just not the only view. I’ll be the heretic here then as history also shows that they often turn out to be right as well. 🙂 while I’m happy to admit that all have sinned I just can’t stomach the original sin / born condemned theory. I note that you don’t believe in the latter but would question that if one can sin without being judged for it when little are you then judged for it when you reach the age of reason? Do you have the potential at all for holiness without christ? If so to the first one and if not to the second do you really have a choice and how is that fair?
I don’t think one could be holy, unless Christ’s holiness is accounted to them. I also don’t see why it would not be possible that God could have different standards of judgement for different age groups and degrees of disability (which seems to be biblical enough) and the doctrine of total depravity could still be true. John, you seem to be so strongly conflating several ideas here that you believe you are disagreeing with a notion that does not exist on this holodeck. I don’t think that the article itself is suggesting anything about the ultimate fate of children, nor has anyone else here. Furthermore, if we accept Christ and follow him we are free from the rightful judgement of our sin, no matter what our age or ability. So, again, judgement is not the issue here, human nature is.
@ Matt – ok this blog entry is a really good secular example of one case being used to propose a change in public policy.
http://angel14.com/2011/06/15/socialised-medicine-claims-yet-another-innocent-life/#comments
I think the viewpoint is nuts, regardless of whether the advocate is secular or religious.
I think that there is even a case for calling Poe on the whole blog it’s that bad.
Linkathon 6/15, part 1…
John Tertullian says foolishness is bound up in the heart….
Things aren’t much better in Australia.