If Bush could run again...

I remember a pretty popular Baptist Evangelist saying much the same thing.

 

Just curious as to how many Abeka history books you have actually read.

 

There is no singular interpretation of history, period.

I've been a student in Christian elementary and middle school, a student at a Christian college (minored in history), and a one-semester graduate student in history at a state university.

I've seen many different perspectives on many different historical issues. There is not a major secular agenda to denigrate Christianity all throughout the curriculum. Some authors (especially Marxist authors) do attack religion. Others recognize the positive contributions of religious people. Resources used as textbooks, however, must go through an editor, and they typically do not greatly emphasize a certain historical approach.

In a church history course at a Baptist college, the professor assigned a book from a secular perspective and taught us from a faith perspective in his lectures. He did so in order to force us to recognize the differences in presuppositions. Some students, in their essays, simply blasted the author for his methology, claming he was trying to destroy Christianity. They were misguided. The author was merely presenting his case from his perspective. IMO, his slant toward pluralism forced him to interpret church history through secular goggles. As the historical evidence decreased, his slant grew more evident. Much of his work, however, was "spot-on," as it reflected accurately his evidence. Even a person of faith could agree with his conclusions at times.

I also used "secular" textbooks in my history courses in college, and I never saw an evident bias against Christianity. If one means that there wasn't a flag-waving, Decatur-esque appeal to "My country, right or wrong," then the assessment is fair. Otherwise, I saw even handed methdology.

One major exception is the era of pre-history. Chapters on the origin of man in secular textbooks universally present an evolutionary methodology. I, however, believe that this is not appropriate for a history course because it does not depend on written records at all. One must learn to "chew the meat and spit out the bones."

 

I was not talking about secular history books denigrating Christianity.
I was talking about History books that try to put a spin on what happened. Ones that give their opinion of the times rather then just telling the facts. Yes, this happens in Christian curriculum as well. We tend to tell the "story" from our own point of view no matter who we are.

There is nothing wrong with that I guess. I would just rather MY children get their history from a Christian perspective then from a homosexual, treehugger, or Marxist or America hating point of view.


But hey, we are a little off course aren´t we?

YES! I think I would vote for just about any BUSH if they would run!

:tongue3: (That ought to spark a few more comments on the subject!)

 

Some years ago I taught in a private church school, and much of our curriculum was Abeka. I was never impressed with their books. We also use material from Bob Jones University. It seemed to be written better to me.