by Ninos Hadjirousou
(continuing from our previous article)
Borrowing, but not validating.
Fields has identified part of the problem as he wrote “The incivility of one to another” “Increasingly infant school teachers report how, over quite a short period of time, their new pupils come to school more brutish” He added “the failure of families, huge and increasing pressure is put on schools to play the role of civilising children and teaching them basic skills that, not so long ago, would have been taught automatically and almost universally at home.” May I add that the reason why this was so in the past centuries, in the Victorian era and later on until the 1960’s is because Britain held to its old British values, which were founded by a Christian Worldview? Let us think this through a little. If the success was due to as Fields says “to the nurturing of children” then ought we not to identify that cause of that success? Fields wrote “Evangelical religion” played a “huge part”. Thus, we ought to go back to the old ways in which society hold on to. Why so?
Most people in those centuries held to a Christian worldview. Which is the ethics and values which we have explained earlier. And whatever values and ethics parents held to, was passed on to their children and children’s children. These families, who held truly to their Christian values had a multigenerational vision. They were more alarmed and aware of their responsibility, as parents, how everything they teach here and now will affect the lives of their children and grandchildren in the decades and centuries to come.
When we say to a child ‘not to be harsh to his brother’, we tell them because God commands it. God is perfect and we are not and one day we will give an account for the wicked things we have done. Also, bear in mind that while we are all sinners (Romans 3:23), deserving God’s wrath (Romans 1:18), He is infinitely merciful to us all even when we are regarded by Him as his enemies, for he gives rain, food, clothes and breath, even to us His enemies. What could this promote to teach the child? Humility. Children learn to respect one another. There is no boasting about our greatness, as humanism teaches, ‘I am the captain of my own life’! No, God created you and you are responsible to obey Him and love others and He is loving you. Even your enemies. Again that promotes, unconditional love. Christ told the story of the Good Samaritan, again another Christian lesson from God’s Word. This promotes, equality, humility and compassion for those weaker than us and even for our enemies. If children can learn in what ways can someone become compassionate unconditionally, then we will return back to the old ways.
Some at this may say, we value those Christian values but we exclude the commitment to obey what God wills.
In that case, you will create a society with no foundation to stand upon those values. The problem that I see today, is that in order for the humanist to make sense ethically and morally of why are we loving our neighbour and those who are sick, without becoming boastful and proud, is to borrow from the Christian Worldview. Yet at the same time, when they claim that those values are good, they see them as not valid. They choose because of preference and not according to principal. At this point you see how inconsistent this mixed worldview of humanism and Christianity will become.
Why should we not accept the humanistic basis of morality in order to educate and nurture our children?
First: the facts that Fields mentions over the last decades have proven it to be unsuccessful. Crime rates have heightened rather than lower down. The way that children behave uncivilized in the past decades has increased.
Second: Man is the Measure. Dr. Geisler explains “The morally right thing to do is what is morally right to me. What is right for me may be wrong for another and vice versa”. But there is a problem as you may have noticed. It implies therefore that what may be ‘good’ for little Jack (rape, hate, and cruelty) is right because Jack says it is morally right. This obviously is unacceptable in the guidance of teaching children. It promotes self-privacy and selfishness. We would all desire to do whatever we want to do, yet in the real world, a society that lives under that principle is not a community.
Third: humanism, man’s basis for moral judgement is man himself. How does the Humanist determine ‘good’ or ‘evil’? If someone says ‘this is good’, then it implies that they are following a moral standard. What is it? Is it the human race? Yet could it be that the human race is totally wrong? Yes. The majority of a nation like Nazi Germany killed millions of Jews by exterminating them. The fact that the majority feels a certain way does not make it correct and good. And so this leaves us to believe that goodness evokes one’s approval or personal preference. Because after all ‘man is the measure’ of all things and he decides his own morality. It is the classic ‘why do you say it good? Because I said so!’. But there is a problem with this also. It makes our ethical decisions and moral values subjective. Logically, as the late Dr. Greg. L. Bahnsen wrote, not “only would this view make it impossible for two people to make identical ethical judgements, it would likewise (absurdly) imply that a person’s own ethical judgement could never be mistaken, unless he happened to misunderstand his own feelings!” Is this appropriate for children to learn and grow up living by those rules? Not so.
Fourth: Can the humanist and the Christian believe that child abuse is wrong? Yes. Absolutely. Yet the question we should be asking is: does Christianity and Humanism teach us differently on how to take evil seriously? Yes. Let me explain. For the Christian, he has a meaningful reason why evil is evil, because God said so, because God is our creator He has that right to say so, He is also Holy, Just and is by nature absolute Goodness. So child abuse and murder are always absolutely evil for man. On the other hand, if the Humanist says ‘this is evil!’ let us ask him: sir, is that a meaningful statement you are making? Logically speaking he would have to say no. Because humanism, in its basic core belief, has no good reason to say that anything is evil in nature, for it is determined by personal preference. Jack may say ‘lying is evil! Murder is also!’ but Stanley says ‘no, lying is not evil and murder is not so bad, because I say so’ !. Moreover, Dr. Bahnshen explains that when the non-Christian “professes that people determine ethical values for themselves,” he “implicitly holds that those who commit evil are not really doing anything evil, given the values which they have chosen for themselves.” So in the humanistic atheistic worldview, evil is evil only when Bob says it is and good becomes good when Bob says so. This means that before anyone was born, there was no good nor evil in itself. There was no truth, no false, no purpose and no meaning, because according to atheism, something came out of nothing. There was no purpose for the universe in the beginning. Logically inconsistent and radically dangerous for children.
But the Bible says “In the beginning God”(Genesis 1:1) there was purpose and meaning in the entire universe.
My thought is, that even if children did learn from Christian values, that would solve one problem in society, but not the whole. The greatest problem according to the Bible is man’s heart. The heart of man has a problem.
All of humanity is wrong and we can all get it wrong (Romans 3:21). Unlike us God is good, He cannot be inconsistent, and He is unchangeable and cannot do what is contrary to His nature. As Fields wrote, we are born with sin, original sin, and we have a natural desire and hunger in our hearts to do what is selfish and morally evil. We are evil. Where is the proof? Look at Human History to find out. We all have that potential to become like Hitler was. Because we are all naturally the same. But God is good, merciful, loving and just and most importantly, He is righteous.
If humanistic teaching believes that all human beings are important and are good, then why is it; that on the one hand child abuse is evil and on the other abortion is legally called ‘morally good’ when in fact it is the murdering babies? What a contradiction! It simply proves that the non-Christian worldview is inconsistent and cannot sustain or make moral judgement for any evil. Man’s heart is desperately sick and wicked from within (Jeremiah 17:9) and all the intentions of the heart are always for evil (Genesis 6:5). You see, even if I would train a child to say the right things, his natural tendency to disobey and do evil is always going to be inside him because he dresses up nicely on the outside to look morally ‘good’ but on the inside, the child will grow into a man who will become a religious hypocrite like the Pharisees in Jesus day. This is man’s dilemma, man is evil and God is good and righteous. God will do justice to man, because God sees wickedness in man. And what could a good God do to immoral creatures like us? As a good judge would punish and judge justly a criminal guilty of a crime, so will God do to sinners who rebel against Him. The answer to the problem is Christianity and the Christian message of the Gospel. The Gospel changes a man’s heart, literally, as if they are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17).
 Ibd p.18
 Dr. Greg.L.Bahnsen, Always Ready, Covenant Media Press, 1996, p168
 Ibd, p.170