Sarah Roorda takes a stab in the dark. (And uses italics more than she should)
When you hear “Old Testament” Bible stories told (often for children, although not always), they’re often told as though they were quaint morality plays with a cute, clear-cut moral at the end. David and Goliath is about how God will back you up against your personal enemies, Esther gains courage and self-confidence, Joseph is a good boy and gets rewarded, etc. These may or may not be correct interpretations of the stories (and in the David case I would say
not on account of it being a story about Israel, and I suspect any kid that tried to apply it in a simplistic way in regard to a bully or something might get beat up), but I am doubtful that this approach is really helpful.
After all, at the end of each story in the Bible there is no general sum-up. I can just hear the song from Veggie Tales “What we have learned applies to our lives today. God has a lot to say in his book.” And in the case of Veggie Tales they will pull a verse (or half a verse) from the NT out of context and we’ve all been inspired.
But the question is, what all those “stories” are for. Well, first off, they’re actually true, which often is downplayed or outright denied. I’ve visited churches where the Old Testament was spoken of as “stories” made up by “the ancients” apparently to teach us some kind of deep truth. The one problem with this is that truth must be, to put it simply, true. Why have a book full of weird stories to illustrate abstract truth? If you don’t think it matters whether the stories are true, chances are you don’t think stories are as good as intellectual discussion, or you’re awash in a sea of postmodernism and really can’t see that being true in an objective sense has much to do with anything. So these stories are told because they’re what God actually did.
One thing to remember about the Bible is that, excepting the last Testament (there were four testaments roughly given in four ages: the priestly testament, the kingly, the prophetic, and that of the Final man, our prophet priest and king; this last being generally know as the “New Testament”, but more on this another time, eh?), the majority of it is not exposition but narrative, or law, or prophecy, or meditation. So what does this tell us about how God wants us to learn? I think sometimes it means learning by absorption. Knowing the stories is more important than knowing the “moral” of the story, maybe when you’ve learned all the stories you’ll better understand God, in a way that all the theological treatises in the world could not help you to do. But do meditate on them, try to understand. That’s how Moses wrote Deuteronomy. He meditated on God’s law, and wrote a book with it. That’s how David wrote the Psalms, he knew the law, and he knew the stories, and knew they were part of The Story God was telling.
So maybe these “morals” are given as meditations and are wholly within the spirit in which the stories are given, but that’s not how it appears to me. It looks to me like part of the general effort to wrap up God’s story in neat little parcels and sell them in Christian bookstores as part of the good life which some of their customers are trying to buy. And the morals can really distract from the story, turning everything into exposition, when it was meant to function differently. This seems to me like skipping a step; first you must know the story, then you can look for what it means. I think everybody agrees that reading literary criticism or Cliff’s Notes is no way to read a book even if it will help you after you’ve read. And why would you study a book you don’t care for (other than for school or scholarly purposes)? But if you already know and love The Lord of the Rings (for example) it will be your delight and a great benefit to you to learn more about it.
|
Posted at 4:13 pm EST on the 29th of January 2010 by S. A. Roorda. Under Essays as Christian worldview, Scripture There are 14 replies. |
 |
| Pontification Ad Nauseam | ||
Is a blog of developing Christian writers, their minds, and their ideas.
Copyright MMIX. All Rights Reserved by Pontification Ad Nauseam And Its Respective Contributors. Powered by Wordpress. Pontification Ad Nauseam uses advanced web technology. For the best user experience please use Safari or Firefox 3.5+. |
I certainly agree that the Old Testament isn’t primarily a set of fables to draw neat morals from. That are certainly lessons to learn, but if that’s the only thing going on, there’s a lot of filler. What are all the begats for if not to place the stories within a context of reality? As mere abstract illustrations of metaphysical truth, they wouldn’t be particularly gripping…
I know what you’re pushing at here, and agree. Although I think, if you don’t love a story, but understand that it has something good in it, studying it after reading it can give a better understanding and therefore give more respect/love for the story or author.
Of course, you may not exactly have been saying that. And, also, your point is definitely more applicable to the Bible. Taking little stories and using them as fairytales to teach children lessons. The Bible, as a whole, is a tale of redemption. You can’t understand the whole if you take little bits and preach them without knowing the rest. It’s like reading a little bit of LotR (since you mentioned it ;)), such as Gollum’s selfishness and taking that as a tale against being selfish. Even though that is part of LotR, it does not fully make sense without the rest of the story.
I agree with what you’re saying about the story being the main thing, not the platitude. You mentioned that *perhaps* these meditations are valid, but that realistically, the intent was to simplify. What difference do you then make between a ‘real’ meditation, and a ‘poser’ meditation — i.e, a platitude? I often find myself studying a specific book, and my ‘note’ for the verse has a tendency to be a ridiculously simple moral. It is about as unsatisfactory as a stale crust, but isn’t it still valid?
I agree with you, Sarah. Compartmentalizing each story as a separate entity is killing our understanding of the history of the Bible. The tendency to draw simple morals is “iffy” because that veers towards moralism: that is, finding abstract principles of “good” rather than understanding our actions in relation to God’s law.
For example, many people have fallen into the platitude rut of cherishing polite speech, and have actually come to think of Christ as being, well, un-Christlike: just because he talked to the Pharisees the way they deserved. Moralism draws up nice, neat conclusions that don’t mess with our current way of thinking, whereas reading God’s word as a whole, with stories, law, prophecy, and the rest, tends to transform our understanding of it for the better: and usually challenges unfounded beliefs along the way.
Just to be contrary (and because I’m a huge fan of VeggieTales ;p) I must say that sometimes having these “morals” is a good thing.
Our church divides the children up into different groups according to age (infant, toddler, Pre-K, K-1st, 2nd&3rd, 4th&5th, Junior High) so that we can adjust teachings so that each age group can get the most out of it as they possibly can. (After all, what kindergartner would really learn anything from a teaching on adultery?)
Now, for the younger sets of these kids (let’s say toddler-1st grade, and possibly the less bright 2nd&3rd graders as well) if you read them a passage of the Bible (assuming they were attentive) they will often be able to tell you what it said. That’s good. But if you then ask them “So, what does this mean? What do we learn about God from this? How should we live according to what this tells us?”, you will almost always get something along the lines of “Ummm….” and then an almost verbatim restatement of the passage. In other words, they don’t really understand the passage, and they haven’t developed the capability to delve into it and attempt to figure it out on their own. (Granted, plenty of older people don’t seem to be able to do that either, even though they ought to be able to…)
So, obviously these younger kids need help. We have to give them the tools to understand the Bible- and I think the best way to do that is to demonstrate it. Read the passage. Ask if anyone has questions (and answer those as best you can). Ask your own questions, ones that are key to understanding it.* See if they have any answers. Discuss how plausible any of their answers are. Then, show them your answers, how you came to those conclusions, and make sure that they know that there is always more to be gotten from the Bible, that you don’t have all the answers.
And I must say that VeggieTales does do a decent job of this- remember, it’s geared towards younger children. (Plus, it also does a fantastic job of making the fundamental facts of the story engraved into your memory forever:)
*Such questions would include but are absolutely nowhere near limited to “Why did this happen?” “What were everyone’s motives for doing what they did?” “What does this tell us about the nature of God?” “How then ought we live our lives?”
But, Lucie, that kind of approach often leaves the kids stuck in ignorance. I’d rather assume kids are more capable, and expect much of them. As a kid, I sat through lots of teaching on adultery and other subjects considered too above children, and I received from them. I may not have always known exactly what the sin of adultery was, but I understood it as unfaithfulness to your spouse and unfaithfulness to God. This way, I grew up knowing how serious it is, and knowing to appreciate faithful marriages.
What’s wrong with a kid repeating a Bible verse? That’s fantastic… hiding God’s word in their hearts! And if you expect of them to do more, even better. I think a child should be able to do more than that. It’s only low expectations that keep them from that. And if they can’t explain, and only memorize, just have them memorize!
Veggie Tales comes as close as possible to taking the potency out of the Bible. The Bible isn’t just a collection of cute moral tales– what a waste. If your kid knows the Bible, even if he can’t articulate the meaning of everything, he will know it. The stuff he doesn’t know, that’s what parents are for. As my dad says, we tell the child not to stand on the table. We don’t have to explain why. It will dawn on him eventually, and for now, that’s why he has parents! It is enough to know that Mom told him not to.
“Knowing” and “Understanding” are two different things. Knowing is just memorization- while I agree that it’s fantastic, it’s not enough. My point, rather poorly articulated, I’m afraid, was that we can use these “morals” to teach children how to understand the Bible (and btw, I do believe that children are capable of understanding much of the Bible- they just often haven’t been taught how to think critically yet. We have to teach them.) We can start teaching them how to think by working backwards from these “morals”.
One such moral (which happens to be this month’s story for the toddler room, which I help in) “Jesus loves even bad people and wants them to know him” (the story of Zaccheus). Once we read the passage, we told the kids that, and pointed out, “See, Jesus wanted to talk to Zaccheus, even though he took people’s money” “Some of the other people were upset that Jesus wanted to talk to Zaccheus, but He wants everyone to come to know him.”
Yes, Veggietales does to some extent mute the importance of Scriptures, but it’s a much more wholesome show than others. Kids learn something from it, at any rate. (and may I remind PAN readers of a certain other children’s show that goes by the name “Boobah”?)
I think, personally, from what I remember of seeing of Veggie Tales (though our parents never let us watch it, we just saw a few at church once in a while), I never really got much out of it. I more thought it was funny than actually got anything out of it. I prefer Bible stories themselves. Also, I don’t like the talk-at-you type tone the guys have when explaining the story (or whatever it is they do at the end or beginning ^_^ I can’t remember). I think, if I had watched that stuff a lot when I was little, I wouldn’t have paid attention to the preaching, but just watched the funny story.
Also, I think kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. You can get a lot out of random stories, even if they’re not explained. It’s kind of like an adult saying, “I liked this movie,” but not being able to explain. They know something good was in it, but they aren’t sure what until they really think it through. I think kids are able to do this, too, with just the Bible itself. The Bible is written in a way so that you know, without morals explained, that certain things are evil, and certain things are good. Also, the best way to learn morals, I think, is from good (Godly) parents. It’s much more personal (and especially better for you if you respect the people you learn it from–I don’t really respect tomatoes and cucumbers) and sticks in your brain more than moral tales glossed over with lots of goofy humor (not that I don’t enjoy watching Veggies Tales–they are funny. I just don’t think they’re a good tool to use to teach proper morals).
My point was that you would be able to teach kids how to understand the Bible with morals, by using backwards reasoning to show them how you came to that conclusion. Mostly I’m thinking of 1-4 year olds, because that’s the age group I’ve babysat for the most. I’m most familiar with the minds of children kindergarten and younger. [Other than my siblings. But they go into a completely different category (;] While they’re all brilliant, they still need help to understand stuff. Sometimes there is information overload. (and the amount that constitutes an overload differs in each individual, so it’s not always predictable) So it’s important to make sure they understand the main point(s), so they ought to be emphasized. Tell them everything else that goes along with it, of course, and hopefully they will be able to comprehend it, but make sure that you make it clear which stuff is more important. (Example: probably the most important thing to know in the Bible is that Jesus died for our sins, and he was resurrected, and that He wants us to be His children. Closely related is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead 3 days after he was crucified. The number of days is not quite as important. Nor is the fact that this happened in roughly 30 AD. I think every kid should be able to remember all that, but it still ought to be made clear that the first part of what I said is by far the most important.)
I think anything that could possibly be used to help bring people to Christ ought to be used. VeggieTales (while it is certainly not the best tool, nor is it the only one that can be used) can be a helpful tool.
I do agree with what Sarah’s fundamental point was. I just wanted to be contrary so that this wouldn’t merely get a bunch of “Oh yes, I completely agree with you” posts. ^_^
Veggie tales as a tool for understanding the Bible is about as helpful as a correspondence course on swimming. You want the kids to learn? Hold them in the water, and eventually let them float. True, you can make it easier for them, but they should always be striving for a greater goal.
Veggie tales never motivates children to strive for higher goals, for one reason. With Veggie tales, the kids cannot see the rich tapestry of the rest of the Bible in connection with the particular passage they have heard about. Therefore, they will probably not be motivated to search further up and further in. But, reading to them from the Scriptures themselves will show them how much further they have to go, and all the things they can still learn.
Of course, an even more fundamental problem with Veggie Tales is that it treats the Bible like it should be read at the level of kids, linking vegetables and Truth itself. The children should always feel that they are not there yet, that they are dipping into things far deeper than they can currently comprehend. And that will never happen with Veggie Tales, which will probably be consigned to the pig trough of history.
And yes, I know that the post was not about Veggie Tales. But I wanted to talk about them, so there.
Never say never, Carson. I went and read the book of Esther on my own after seeing the VeggieTales version. (;
Granted, there might be a tiny number of kids who would do that, but I think that anything that can help bring people to the Bible is a good thing.
Kid’s shows such as the new Scooby-Doo ones are slowly being filled with protect-the-environment garbage and mysticism.(nowadays, not all of the monsters that the gang runs into are people dressed up in costumes.) It seems pretty clear that most American children are going to watch some television on a regular basis. Isn’t it better that they watch something that is directly connected (however loosely) to the Bible, rather than political propaganda under the guise of Scooby-Doo?
Wow. There’s a lot of discussion here. I don’t know where to start in response.
Philip, your question is the very problem that I more or less avoided when writing this post, because it’s hard. :) I think what would want to say is that often these “meditations” are in fact, valid, but are insufficient, and so when they effectively replace the actual story being told in the Bible, there is definitely a problem. I guess the other thing is, with the Bible examples (Deuteronomy and the Psalms) I used, you could say if you’ve really gotten the story, you don’t tack on a moral, you go on and sort of expand the story itself. The fruit is a greater complexity, rather than simplicity.
Lucie, I appreciate your comments. I think it’s kind of a difficult balance. The stories do mean something so sometimes they may need to be explained, but on the other hand, I think sometimes it can be learned another way. Parables and proverbs are dark sayings or riddles and they are meant to be puzzled over. So ideally, whether a story is explained to a child or whether it is not, the goal would be I think to present it in such a way that they hide it in their heart, and ponder over it, instead of accepting the little nugget at the end as the “real” story. A lot of this is not so much what you do as what your attitude is while you do it.
One of the other problems with the moralistic method of story-telling is that it leads (unintentionally) to Scriptural illiteracy because there are many Bible stories that are unpleasant, hard to understand, or both. And I think if we really, really knew the Bible they might become plainer to us, but we don’t, and so we don’t teach them to our kids, and so you have a vicious circle, because we don’t know the Bible. And the abundance of versions of children’s stories on David and Goliath don’t really help, because we know that story already. Maybe we could use a Veggie Tales version of Elisha and the Two Bears.
I agree with what you’re saying, Lucie and Sarah. We should always try to spread the Gospel. However, the point I was challenging was the idea that anything was expedient to do so, which Paul denied in 1 Cor. 6:12. We are talking about the living God. Ananias and Saphira were killed for making a mockery of the Holy Spirit. Uzzah died for merely touching the Ark of the covenant. He is not a God to be trivialized or cheapened. Is it truly respectful or proper to put His Word into the form of a cartoon – and about vegetables? And while some children may be drawn further into Scripture, how many adults look at how we package the Gospel as a cartoon and turn away?
Sarah- A Veggie Tales version of Elisha and the Two Bears? XD
I think the problem with turning Old Testament stories (they never did New, did they?) into moral tales is the fact that these stories are all rushing toward something that culminates in Christ. So when they make a Old Testament story with no reference to Christ other than “it pleases Him when you act/don’t act this way,” they’re missing the point.