Homeschooling: Why We Did It, Why We Stopped

69 replies [Last post]
Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090

If you’re a parent wrestling with the pros and cons of educational options for your children, my wife and I can sympathize. A few weeks ago we officially enrolled in a local Christian school (a classical academy). It will be the first year our children have attended school outside of our home.

So why have we quit? Why did we choose homeschooling in the first place? Perhaps the answers to these questions will be helpful to some parents who are trying to sort out what they ought to do.

Why we homeschooled

Four reasons come to mind when I look back on why we chose homeschooling.

Reason 1: the extreme moldability of very young minds

Our children are now ages nine and twelve. But when we began homeschooling, our oldest was five. We were not about to place them under the tutelage of adults who hold to views completely different from ours on who we humans are, how we got here, what life is all about and what distinguishes right from wrong.

An old adage says the important things are more caught than taught. It’s an oversimplification, perhaps, but there is a lot of truth in it. Attitudes, values, priorities, the often-unstated principles we base our evaluations and choices on—these are the most basic and pervasive components of thinking Christianly, and they are more observed and absorbed than studied. (I realize you can think Christianly without being born again and loving the Lord. Neither of these is a substitute for the other.)

My wife and I continue to believe that placing young children in a godless environment for 35 hours a week 9 months of the year and planning to counter that influence at home and church is naïve. Parents have enough of a challenge dealing with the sinful inclinations that are standard equipment with kids.

When it comes to shaping how kids look at the world and their place in it and how they view God and their relationship to Him, their first “thinking years” may well be the most important ones of their entire “educational experience.” If that’s the case (and I make no claim to having proof that it is), it makes sense for parents to handle that early education process personally if they can.

Reason 2: “because we can”

I don’t know what adventurer is supposed to have been the first to say “because it’s there” when asked why he wanted to climb a high mountain—and in reference to mountain climbing, that never seemed like much of a reason to me! But when it comes to homeschooling, a variation of that reason is a strong justification: “because we can.”

Not everybody can homeschool. For some, just keeping food on plates and clothes on backs requires dual incomes, and neither parent can stay home and teach. I believe there are far fewer of these than make the claim, but I accept that they exist.

Others have the time but simply lack the skill. It’s hard to imagine a parent who cannot handle kindergarten and first grade, but I’ve met a few whom I would not advise to attempt homeschooling beyond that point. Doing the job well requires personal discipline, a solid grasp of reading and writing, and at least a willingness to learn a bit about “how to teach” (if the parent doesn’t already grasp that intuitively).

And it requires a solid understanding of the basics of “how to parent” as well—a skill set that seems to be on the wane. Parents who do not understand that they are in charge and also understand how to behave like they’re in charge cannot operate an effective learning environment.

In the case of our family, my wife was apprehensive. But we were pretty sure we could do it for a few years. We both have college degrees and experience working with children in teaching situations. And though being in charge has never been easy, we understood what it meant and the basics of how to carry it out.

Reason 3: the non-problem of socialization

It’s a common stereotype that homeschooled kids are isolated and, as a result, do not learn how to relate to their peers. The stereotype is not entirely unwarranted. I’ve met some very shy and backward homeschooled kids. But when I reflect on the most socially unskilled kids I’ve known over the years, many of them were not homeschooled.

If isolation is the cause of social backwardness, how can it be that any public or Christian school educated kids are socially clumsy recluses? The situation must be more complex than that.

It’s been my experience that homeschooling intensifies both the strengths and the weaknesses of the homeschooling family. So, in addition to genetic factors and who knows what else, kids acquire distant and awkward social habits because they are members of families that are socially distant and awkward. And in many cases, no school can do anything about that.

In our case, we found that our children quickly made friends everywhere they met other kids, whether at playground visits, libraries, clinic waiting rooms or church activities. Though our church hasn’t provided a large number of opportunities to interact with other children, it has provided some, and the homeschool years have included frequent visits from neighborhood kids who came over to play—usually several times a week for several hours.

I don’t personally believe that “socialization” is the great evil that many homeschoolers seem to think. The term is widely misunderstood. But “socialization” in the sense of “learning how to behave in groups of people who are not your family members,” is not inherently prevented by homeschooling. A little extra effort is required for homsechoolers to accomplish that kind of socialization, but not much. In any case, the practice of bunching kids with other kids exactly their own age for just about all of their waking hours is way overrated.

Reason 4: lack of alternatives

My wife and I both attended Christian schools for most of our own education. Our parents made major sacrifices in order to accomplish that. Now it’s our turn. But when our kids first reached schooling age, the only Christian schools we were aware of (that were even sort of nearby) were just not a good fit with us philosophically. Though we both experienced some years in schools with very legalistic environments (“legalistic” here means “resembling legalism”) and came out of those experiences mostly sound in heart and mind, a legalistic environment wasn’t an option that commended itself as long as homeschooling was possible.

The cost of Christian school tuition appeared to be impossible for us to handle as well.

Why we stopped homeschooling

A combination of factors brought us to the decision to enroll the kids in a Christian school. For one, it became increasingly difficult to keep them at grade level in a couple of important subjects. For another, our oldest has reached an age where the parent-child dynamic is sufficiently challenging without being within the same couple thousand square feet of living space all day every day. Since both kids are now older and thinking more independently, the urgency of shaping attitudes and values personally isn’t what it was either. Of course, we don’t expect to delegate that to others entirely any time this side of their adulthood, but we do expect to do so increasingly as they mature.

These factors prompted me to take a look at the educational-options landscape again and see what might be available. When I discovered a Christian classical academy thirty minutes from our home, things appeared to be coming together. Meetings and interviews grew our confidence that this was worth a serious try. The school is small enough to have many of the advantages of the homeschool, but staffed well enough to offset the weaknesses of our particular homeschool. The idea of even older old-fashioned learnin’ than what I received growing up added to the appeal.

We still don’t really know exactly how we’re going to pay for it (let’s not tell the school board about that, OK?). But sometimes you decide first what you value and commit to it, and figure out the financing on the way.

We continue to believe homeschooling—even through high school—is a great option for many families. And I’m convinced that even though homeschooling has become very popular, it is still an underused option for kids’ early years. But schooling at home “all the way” isn’t for everyone. We’re looking forward to working with our new educational partners.


Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 367
Thanks for Sharing

Aaron,
Thanks for sharing. We have provided home education for our children until this year. On September 9, our 3 school-aged children will all be attending a Christian school for the first time. Our son will be in 8th grade and we just felt the need for him to be in a school. After visting a Christian school in February, we liked it, and my son wanted to attend there. The problem for us was money. So, my son and I would get on our knees regularly and pray about this. Too make a long story short, God provided the funds for all 3 of our school-aged children to attend there this year.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Skills

One of the things that being a school teacher did for me--and the education that preceded it--was make it unmistakably clear that there really is a teaching skill set. It is not just "Well, you know the subject and you communicate what you know" or even "You just follow the curriculum and stay one lesson ahead." You can get by that way to a point, and the advantages of the small, highly personal environment of homeschooling help it along, but there's nothing like a teacher who is just really good at teaching. Put that skill in someone who shares a biblical view of the world and who loves what he/she is doing--and who understands his/her relationship with the parents (in a school that does as well)--and you have something really priceless.
This whole thing is new to us and we'll see how it works out, but I'm very optimistic. My oldest will be learning a good bit of Latin this year and my youngest will be introduced to it soon. The Saxon math is far superior to what I received in school. The writing curriculum looks very thorough and well thought out. And seventh grade studies logic (probably eighth, too, but I don't one in eighth grade yet). So the grammar, logic and rhetoric paradigm is becoming a reality (the elementary and jr high did not 'go classical' until pretty recently).

Edit: one more thing I like about this school... though I haven't seen them put in these terms exactly, it's clear from how they do things (chapel is only once a week, for example) that they do not view themselves as primarily a disciple-making institution. To me, that's a huge plus. We already have the home and church for that purpose. All a school needs to do is mesh with (rather than conflict with) those efforts at home and church and with that as a constraint, provide a really good education. Of course, looking at all subjects through the lens of biblical principle does contribute to discipleship--more than folks might think--but I believe many schools stray by taking on themselves too much of the burden of trying to spiritually nurture students. It's not what a school is for. It shouldn't be like revival meetings with some readin' ritin' and 'rithmetic tacked on.

Dick Dayton
Dick Dayton's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Mar 24 2010
Posts: 106
Aaron. Great post. I was

Aaron. Great post. I was raised in an unsaved, secular home by parents who beleived in the high value of education. My teachers taught me, but Mom and Dad reinforced and inspected my work. They did not do the work for me, but expected my best performance. My experience as a public school math teacher many years ago, and now as a volunteer tutor show how far our public system has changed. Now, if there is a problem, the parents automatically seem to assume the school did something wrong. There is little sense that the student and the parent are responsible for the education process. By the way, it seems the same in church far too often. People come as consumers rather than as participants, and are unhappy when "their needs are not met."

I have told our people, and it is my firm conviction, that the parent is the key to the education process, and that the parent has the primary responsiblity before God. Regardless of where you choose to have the formal education of your children take place, you cannot "pass the buck" of responsibility. There is no perfect system, but God has established the family and the church for our spiritual growth.

__________________

Dick Dayton

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 377
Good post. We stopped

Good post. We stopped homeschooling 6 years ago. It was a tough decision for us because we had no Christian schools in our area that we thought ideal. We ultimately stopped becuase our youngest had autism and took too much time away from homeschooling our kids. At the time we found a LCMS school that has been the best alternative for us. But that school only went to the 8th grade. So now my oldest is a sophomore in the public high school. That has been scary for us but the Lord has been gracious. Our youngest, with autism, his in public school because of all the services he needs (full-time aid, occupational therapy, speech therapy). And our two middle ones are still thriving in the LCMS school.

I have learned over the last several years that all of the options (homeschool, Christian school, and even public school) can be the best option. There is no cookie cutter solution.

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Ed Vasicek
Ed Vasicek's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 777
Good Post

Dear Aaron,

We homeschooled our children all the way through. But we were blessed with a great support group, and that made a big difference. We also paid a fee to have Dr. Paul Kates tailor make the curriculum based upon the style of learning and proficiency of our two children. That helped a lot. So did co-op classes.

But having been in the home school world since 1990, it is amazing what I have observed, which echos what you said:

Quote:

It’s been my experience that homeschooling intensifies both the strengths and the weaknesses of the homeschooling family. So, in addition to genetic factors and who knows what else, kids acquire distant and awkward social habits because they are members of families that are socially distant and awkward. And in many cases, no school can do anything about that.

I have seen some of the kids of control freak and stubborn families turn out terribly. Homeschooling is not the "guaranteed" method it is cracked up to be. Healthy, balanced, fun-loving families experienced generally good results; crusaders, extremists, and obsessives, not so much. Control freaks often end up alienating their children in the latter teen/early young adult years. I have seen kids with involved parents in decent public schools and Christian Schools turn out well, and I have seen kids with everything against them turn out well, too. Still, all in all, I have to say that I think the home-schooled kids did better as an average, both academically, socially, and spiritually. But not by the margins that are claimed. I also know how one bad kid can damage many others.

I think my kids would have done well in a Christian school, but I do not think we would have the bond we have. And I do not think they would have had time to develop specialized areas of interest that they have developed (they are both amazing artists, for example, and my son became cadet commander of the Civil Air Patrol chapter). But, on the other hand, if we were a sports bunch (which we are definitely NOT), a school would have been better for them.

All that to say that it is not a matter of one size fits all.

__________________

"The Midrash Detective"

Jonathan Charles
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 299
Our children attend a small

Our children attend a small Christian school. It has seemed at times like the school would not survive another year which leads us to think about homeschooling. This would not have been an option for our older child (14 yrs.). Maybe its my fault, maybe it is his, or both, but we don't get along doing school work together, and I think his mother would have been only slightly better. Thankfully, we haven't had to cross that bridge. If we didn't homeschool, then the only other options would be cyber-schooling through state of PA or public school.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Parenting skills
Quote:

Others have the time but simply lack the skill. It’s hard to imagine a parent who cannot handle kindergarten and first grade, but I’ve met a few whom I would not advise to attempt homeschooling beyond that point. Doing the job well requires personal discipline, a solid grasp of reading and writing, and at least a willingness to learn a bit about “how to teach” (if the parent doesn’t already grasp that intuitively).

And it requires a solid understanding of the basics of “how to parent” as well—a skill set that seems to be on the wane. Parents who do not understand that they are in charge and also understand how to behave like they’re in charge cannot operate an effective learning environment.

It's really sad to think that there are parents that have attended our churches for years that still do not possess the basic parenting skills. And what's worse is when a Christian parent realizes that they lack parenting skills, but shrug their shoulders and thank God that 1) they can send their kids to school for someone else to deal with 2) they are counting the years and months until their kids turn 18 and can be legally kicked out of the house. It is not coincidental that parental involvement is a meaningful component of a child's educational success, regardless of the institution or method.

Quote:

...it became increasingly difficult to keep them at grade level in a couple of important subjects.

In what way, if'n you don't mind my askin'.

Thanks for posting this, Aaron- it's good for people to understand why different families have chosen different options.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Thank you............

Thank you for an open and candid post on your homeschooling experience. Although homeschooling is a fine viable option, it is not for everyone. And it may or may not be the best option under specific circumstances at a given time. Your post opened the door for others to share. This thread, I think, exposes the fallacies of the enthusiasts who would make homeschooling a mandate for all Christian parents. One size doesn't fit all.

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Thanks, Aaron. What you

Thanks, Aaron. What you posted is familiar ground to us, too, in many ways, since we often stop and evaluate the very same issues, give or take a few, that you've articulated. We're still on the homeschooling track, and do plan to stay there throughout the kids' educational process, unless something major happens to make that course an impossibility. I really do think you'll like the "classical" approach...I have learned SO much myself simply by taking that general approach with the kids. (I'm currently working my way through Plutarch's Lives to prepare for discussions with my seventh grader...and actually enjoying it!)

Hey, I'm just curious...Do you happen to know what curricula your kids' classical academy uses? You mentioned Saxon math (which we really like, too), but what about logic, history, Bible, literature and science?

Thanks again for your post. God bless you and your family as you make this transition.

Bob Hayton
Bob Hayton's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Mon, Jul 27 2009
Posts: 470
classical education and other thoughts

Thanks Aaron for a great post.

We were exploring options for our kids a few years back and Christian school was so expensive. And with so many little ones around (we have five girls the oldest is 7), it made homeschooling a less likely option. We found a classical charter school and were blessed to have our admission accepted (through the random draw process). Next year our oldest will start Latin. The school is a public school but they emphasize a "virture" each month (chastity, fortitude, temperance, etc.) and require parental involvement at every level.

As one who was homeschooled or in various Christian schools my whole life, the public school idea was at first scary. But both my wife and I feel that we were so sheltered that we can hardly relate to people in the world at all, and a public setting where parents can shepherd the child through various discernment issues as they grow up can help counter that. Obviously, the quality and other factors about a particular school can vary widely. So it isn't a one-size-fits-all approach by any stretch.

Another observation about Christian school is that far too often small churches cut corners on kids education. I saw more than a few schools run on a shoestring budget that were frankly awful. Some kids did well, but they were self-motivated. Christians need to do Christian schools well, not just put anything together that flies. And I also found the Christian curriculum to be quite slanted when it comes to American history too. I used to think Washington and Lincoln were closet IFBs who wore shirts and ties with a big Bible under their arm to every Sunday service!

__________________

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7

I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

A. Carpenter
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 82
Just took the plunge

We just jumped in with both feet this year with our oldest (1st grade) for the simple reason that there is no Christian school around. We're praying about starting one, but, as you know, the obstacles are huge. We live in the Deep South, where private schools were started about 50 years ago for the purpose of continuing segregation. To this day, they seem to have succeeded, mostly, and there is actually an all-black public school in our area. Anyway, while the majority of public school teachers are professing Christians, and the environment tends to defy the IFB boogeyman stereotype, the idea of truly "Christian education" is practically unheard of and even unimagined. We're trying to convince people that we're talking about something they have probably not seen or heard of.

So, with no other viable option, we have begun homeschooling. I do have a couple of questions, though, for those who have been through this:

1. How do you integrate Latin and other classical components into an otherwise traditional curriculum?

2. Any advice for the homeschooling mother, who also must tend to a 1 and 3 year old?

__________________

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

Bob Hayton
Bob Hayton's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Mon, Jul 27 2009
Posts: 470
The Well Trained Mind
A. Carpenter wrote:

1. How do you integrate Latin and other classical components into an otherwise traditional curriculum?

I would recommend the book The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home.

__________________

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7

I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
TWTM

That's a great recommendation, Bro. Hayton. I would also recommend Cathy Duffy's curriculum reviews. Trivium Pursuit is a good blog about classical homeschooling.

Homeschooling with young children requires an extra degree of discipline and creativity, but if children are trained to sit still and listen, to play quietly for reasonable periods of time, and even to get involved to some degree, it isn't all that difficult. It helps if you have a dependable but flexible routine- which sounds like an oxymoron, but a solid schedule IMO is serves as a framework on which I can hang tasks and activities in a shape that works well and makes sense for us.

I think for children it is important they have a good stick-to-your-ribs kind of breakfast, and plan short breaks throughout the day with healthy snacks and plenty of water to drink. Spend some time with the little ones first, doing household chores together, perhaps to music or an audiobook. When it is time for the older ones to have some instruction or quiet time to work, younger ones can color their own 'school' pages, and bitty ones can play in an enclosed area.

Also, don't feel as if all educational activities must happen during traditional 'school hours'. We often have history after dinner, sitting around the living room, reading biographies, watching a DVD, and talking about what we've learned or what we'd like to know more about. We have science class once a week, spending about two hours reading, watching DVDs, doing experiments, working on projects or presentations, or going on a nature hike.

Our goal has always been to get away from the idea that learning is something you only do a few scheduled hours a day. Instead, our philosophy is that learning is something that you do constantly, and what's more, it's FUN.

BTW, Bro. Hayton, I agree that many Christian schools (while their intentions are good) often are poorly organized and lack academic discipline and quality. Others are merely public schools with a cross on the door and Chapel 3 times a week so everybody can feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing anything either spiritual or educational.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Curriculum?

Why are we studying Latin?

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Latin

Cultural literacy, mental discipline, etymology- for starters. We study Greek and Latin briefly every year until high school, and then more intensely, adding on other languages such as Spanish, Hebrew, and Italian. And it's fun.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Justification.............

At one time, I was an advocate for Latin in the curriculum based on some intrinsic value idea. However, I fail to see its value now. It seems that physics, mathematics, and other rigorous disciplines easily surpass Latin for mental discipline, problem-solving, and cognitive training. Furthermore, with the diminishing of structure and grammar in our language, I see a declining role for Latin in language studies. I think modern languages are more relevant. The problem, as I see it, is Latin takes up too much needed space in the curriculum.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Latin etc

My connection is really spotty right now so I have to be quick (get a few things done on the public wifi)

The rigor of mathematics is not verbal like the language disciplines, so one cannot really replace the other... though my daughter and I were observing the other day that there is a whole lot of language involved in math.
What I see in Latin mainly is the resulting attention to grammar and the logic of language. But it also has a huge payoff in giving students direct access to a large body of western thought written in Latin.
But it's enough for me to have the attention to grammatical concepts (and vocabulary roots) that put a student in a good position to learn many other languages as well as understand Greek better and the whole process of exegesis.

About curriculum... someone asked. I've looked at it all but can't remember now. I remember one of the major high school texts because I recognized the editor: Doug Wilson. They call it "Omnibus," and what it apparently is is a study of history and literature in one package. There are several massive volumes.
I remember the Saxon math because I've been doing catch up math teaching for one of our kids out of one of the textbooks for the last week. Wish I'd had books like these when I was in school.
But I might have ended up an engineer if I had half understood math in 6th grade... so perhaps my elementary math ed. failure was providential.

About parenting skills... Susan observed how sad it wd be that their church didn't teach them. I mostly agree, but a) the parents have to be interested in learning and accept that they do not know what they need to know. The main problem I'm seeing is parents are philosophically confused about what the essence of parenting is and so, while they are frustrated with some of the results they are seeing, they do not think it has anything to do with their parenting skills. b) Much of the skill of parenting is not spelled out in Scripture. In fact, very little of it. We have principles in Scripture but the nitty gritty is all application and there is much more application involved in parenting skill than there is principle... once the philosophical stuff is sorted out. So if a church focuses on exposition of Scripture it's difficult to find a venue for teaching things like "how to use the power of routine to build good habits in your children" etc. Has to be special classes. And then again you run into the "those who need it most are not interested" problem.
I really think parenting ought to be learned from parents but once that cycle breaks, it does have to be restarted somewhere and it makes sense for church to be the place.

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
A. Carpenter wrote: We just
A. Carpenter wrote:

We just jumped in with both feet this year with our oldest (1st grade) for the simple reason that there is no Christian school around. We're praying about starting one, but, as you know, the obstacles are huge. We live in the Deep South, where private schools were started about 50 years ago for the purpose of continuing segregation. To this day, they seem to have succeeded, mostly, and there is actually an all-black public school in our area. Anyway, while the majority of public school teachers are professing Christians, and the environment tends to defy the IFB boogeyman stereotype, the idea of truly "Christian education" is practically unheard of and even unimagined. We're trying to convince people that we're talking about something they have probably not seen or heard of.

So, with no other viable option, we have begun homeschooling. I do have a couple of questions, though, for those who have been through this:

1. How do you integrate Latin and other classical components into an otherwise traditional curriculum?

2. Any advice for the homeschooling mother, who also must tend to a 1 and 3 year old?

Re. 1: What "classical components" (besides Latin) are you hoping to implement?
Re. 2: Oh, man. Been there, done that! Like Susan, I'd recommend a reasonable routine/structure/curriculum which takes into account the needs of everybody, including Mom--so that everybody stays sane and happy, and the ship stays afloat. When I plan my schedule, I make a list of everything I'd like to accomplish in a normal school day (I know there is actually no "normal" anything when you have young kids). I brainstorm and plan things for the younger ones to do, and try to look at the day from their perspective...Do they have adequate time with me? With each other? alone? naptime/afternoon quiet time? What independent activities do they enjoy? etc. After the list is made up, you can begin to piece together a routine, mostly by trial and error at first. The "school" part is easy compared to juggling the little ones, at least for me.
Whatever you do, don't fret if things don't seem to be working...I've felt like throwing up my hands and calling the school bus more than a few times. Just be patient with yourself, and things will most likely eventually fall into a rhythm...just in time for changing needs. Smile

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
In addition to
RPittman wrote:

At one time, I was an advocate for Latin in the curriculum based on some intrinsic value idea. However, I fail to see its value now. It seems that physics, mathematics, and other rigorous disciplines easily surpass Latin for mental discipline, problem-solving, and cognitive training. Furthermore, with the diminishing of structure and grammar in our language, I see a declining role for Latin in language studies. I think modern languages are more relevant. The problem, as I see it, is Latin takes up too much needed space in the curriculum.

Latin is in addition to other studies, such as physics and math, not in their stead. We study Greek and Latin for about 6 weeks each year. We also spend about 6 weeks on English grammar at the beginning and end of each 'year' (ours begins in August and ends in June). Most of our language studies are accomplished by reading interesting and well written books, and the older the book, the more Latin comes in handy.

How much 'space' do you think Latin takes up in the average homeschool curriculum? IMO it is a worthy discipline, and enhances every subject, especially science and history.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Not sure................
Susan R wrote:
RPittman wrote:

At one time, I was an advocate for Latin in the curriculum based on some intrinsic value idea. However, I fail to see its value now. It seems that physics, mathematics, and other rigorous disciplines easily surpass Latin for mental discipline, problem-solving, and cognitive training. Furthermore, with the diminishing of structure and grammar in our language, I see a declining role for Latin in language studies. I think modern languages are more relevant. The problem, as I see it, is Latin takes up too much needed space in the curriculum.

Latin is in addition to other studies, such as physics and math, not in their stead. We study Greek and Latin for about 6 weeks each year. We also spend about 6 weeks on English grammar at the beginning and end of each 'year' (ours begins in August and ends in June). Most of our language studies are accomplished by reading interesting and well written books, and the older the book, the more Latin comes in handy.

How much 'space' do you think Latin takes up in the average homeschool curriculum? IMO it is a worthy discipline, and enhances every subject, especially science and history.

Well, I had assumed that Latin was accorded a course slot for the whole year. Now, my question is how much Latin can one learn in just 6 weeks per year? Can students read Cicero or other Latin works? And do they ever use it in life (i.e. continue reading Latin? Most pastors who had Greek in college or seminary don't keep it up. I wonder about those who study Latin. Susan, I'm not opposing you; I'm just interested in your views.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Some may misunderstand.....................
Susan wrote:

BTW, Bro. Hayton, I agree that many Christian schools (while their intentions are good) often are poorly organized and lack academic discipline and quality. Others are merely public schools with a cross on the door and Chapel 3 times a week so everybody can feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing anything either spiritual or educational.

Susan, your statement is true but it is incomplete. There are poor Christian schools but their life-span is usually limited. I know you are probably not opposed to Christian schools but some people have a bias against them. These folks can and will use your statement in their opposition. I had the privilege of administering a school that averaged from the 88%ile to the 92%ile on nationally standarded tests in group (i.e. school) comparisons for a decade. Although we have no quantified spiritual scale for comparison, many of our graduates are serving God today. There are very good Christian schools.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Sundry thoughts...............
Aaron Blumer wrote:

My connection is really spotty right now so I have to be quick (get a few things done on the public wifi)

The rigor of mathematics is not verbal like the language disciplines, so one cannot really replace the other... though my daughter and I were observing the other day that there is a whole lot of language involved in math.
What I see in Latin mainly is the resulting attention to grammar and the logic of language. But it also has a huge payoff in giving students direct access to a large body of western thought written in Latin.

Does anyone read these works in Latin anymore? Most people read them in translation. Also, would not the study of modern languages accomplish the same ends with the benefit of a useful tool in a shrinking world?

Quote:

But it's enough for me to have the attention to grammatical concepts (and vocabulary roots) that put a student in a good position to learn many other languages as well as understand Greek better and the whole process of exegesis.

I'm not sure that I fully understand the importance of the Latin-Greek connection.

Quote:

About curriculum... someone asked. I've looked at it all but can't remember now. I remember one of the major high school texts because I recognized the editor: Doug Wilson. They call it "Omnibus," and what it apparently is is a study of history and literature in one package. There are several massive volumes.
I remember the Saxon math because I've been doing catch up math teaching for one of our kids out of one of the textbooks for the last week. Wish I'd had books like these when I was in school.
But I might have ended up an engineer if I had half understood math in 6th grade... so perhaps my elementary math ed. failure was providential.

Saxon math seems to be effective for HS but it is boring to teach.

Quote:

About parenting skills... Susan observed how sad it wd be that their church didn't teach them. I mostly agree, but a) the parents have to be interested in learning and accept that they do not know what they need to know. The main problem I'm seeing is parents are philosophically confused about what the essence of parenting is and so, while they are frustrated with some of the results they are seeing, they do not think it has anything to do with their parenting skills. b) Much of the skill of parenting is not spelled out in Scripture. In fact, very little of it. We have principles in Scripture but the nitty gritty is all application and there is much more application involved in parenting skill than there is principle... once the philosophical stuff is sorted out. So if a church focuses on exposition of Scripture it's difficult to find a venue for teaching things like "how to use the power of routine to build good habits in your children" etc. Has to be special classes. And then again you run into the "those who need it most are not interested" problem.
I really think parenting ought to be learned from parents but once that cycle breaks, it does have to be restarted somewhere and it makes sense for church to be the place.

Well, Aaron, you and I agree that parenting is learned from parents. The problem of the church teaching skills, as I see it, is that although skills are based on Biblical duties and principles, the individual skills are so highly variable according to temperment and personality. The danger is that young couples may try to implement techniques that are unsuited for them, their family, and their lifestyle. This, IHMO, is a formula for failure. Skills learned from parents are more likely compatible with family and personalities because children acquire significant parts of their personality from their parents.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Age appropriate

Latin studies should be age appropriate. I introduce Latin during the elementary years by learning the etymology of certain words we use frequently, like geography, philosophy, telephone, construct. Each year we delve a little deeper, and begin to read classical literature. Latin isn't confined to Cicero, but is used in law, medicine, biology, and serves as a good foundation for learning other Romance languages. I taught myself Latin and Greek because I was interested and I thought it was fun. My kids catch this enthusiasm from me. We aren't obsessed with Latin or anything- we haven't imbued it with magical powers like increasing IQs by 50 points. We also study Egyptian- again, we think it's fun to learn about ancient cultures and languages, and I don't have to make my kids read about Alexander the Great or Akhenaten or Homer's Odyssey. By the time they are in high school, they can handle Cicero, Petronius, Jerome, or Thomas Aquinas. Noah wants to be able to read De Bello Alexandrino by next year. Okey dokey.

I don't mind if they don't continue as an adult to pursue Latin or Greek or any other language they learn as part of their home education program, because what I'm giving them is a foundation- as broad and deep as I can make it. There are many things I learned as a child that I couldn't imagine ever using in the future, but those things in retrospect have lain the foundation for me in ways I couldn't have anticipated, and gave me an understanding of and appreciation for literature and music that I don't believe I would have had without them.

RPittman wrote:

Susan, your statement is true but it is incomplete. There are poor Christian schools but their life-span is usually limited. I know you are probably not opposed to Christian schools but some people have a bias against them. These folks can and will use your statement in their opposition. I had the privilege of administering a school that averaged from the 88%ile to the 92%ile on nationally standarded tests in group (i.e. school) comparisons for a decade. Although we have no quantified spiritual scale for comparison, many of our graduates are serving God today. There are very good Christian schools.

I'm not opposed to Christian schools- just those who can't seem to manage to operate with a basic degree of organization and decent academic quality. I'm glad you were involved with a good school. I haven't said they don't exist, even though I haven't personally experienced an interaction with one. I think we should have more Christian schools, but I'd rather we not have any than have Christian schools that are a bad testimony.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Parenting
Aaron Blumer wrote:

About parenting skills... Susan observed how sad it wd be that their church didn't teach them. I mostly agree, but a) the parents have to be interested in learning and accept that they do not know what they need to know. The main problem I'm seeing is parents are philosophically confused about what the essence of parenting is and so, while they are frustrated with some of the results they are seeing, they do not think it has anything to do with their parenting skills. b) Much of the skill of parenting is not spelled out in Scripture. In fact, very little of it. We have principles in Scripture but the nitty gritty is all application and there is much more application involved in parenting skill than there is principle... once the philosophical stuff is sorted out. So if a church focuses on exposition of Scripture it's difficult to find a venue for teaching things like "how to use the power of routine to build good habits in your children" etc. Has to be special classes. And then again you run into the "those who need it most are not interested" problem.
I really think parenting ought to be learned from parents but once that cycle breaks, it does have to be restarted somewhere and it makes sense for church to be the place.

I think the church can teach and model parenting skills, because the dynamics of appropriate relationships are spelled out in Scripture by command, principle, and example. Sure- it doesn't say "Kids should be in bed asleep by 9pm" or "One should only eat organic foods and wear natural fibers", but moderation and compassion and patience can be applied to any situation or personality type or family dynamic.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I don't see parenting skills as elusive or difficult to teach, or why would women be commanded to teach each other how to love their husbands and children? How do you teach a woman to "love" her children? That's a rhetorical question, btw- you teach people to love by showing them how to consider someone else's needs ahead of their own. Love is not an emotion, but a decision to sacrifice oneself for the good of someone else.

That's my 1/2 shekel, and I'm callin' it a day.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Aaron Blumer wrote: About
Aaron Blumer wrote:

About curriculum... someone asked. I've looked at it all but can't remember now. I remember one of the major high school texts because I recognized the editor: Doug Wilson. They call it "Omnibus," and what it apparently is is a study of history and literature in one package. There are several massive volumes.
I remember the Saxon math because I've been doing catch up math teaching for one of our kids out of one of the textbooks for the last week. Wish I'd had books like these when I was in school.
But I might have ended up an engineer if I had half understood math in 6th grade... so perhaps my elementary math ed. failure was providential.

Hey, we're using Omnibus I with our seventh grader...and we're loving it so far. It is indeed "three subjects in one": history, Bible, and literature. Great stuff!

Quote:

About parenting skills... Susan observed how sad it wd be that their church didn't teach them. I mostly agree, but a) the parents have to be interested in learning and accept that they do not know what they need to know. The main problem I'm seeing is parents are philosophically confused about what the essence of parenting is and so, while they are frustrated with some of the results they are seeing, they do not think it has anything to do with their parenting skills. b) Much of the skill of parenting is not spelled out in Scripture. In fact, very little of it. We have principles in Scripture but the nitty gritty is all application and there is much more application involved in parenting skill than there is principle... once the philosophical stuff is sorted out. So if a church focuses on exposition of Scripture it's difficult to find a venue for teaching things like "how to use the power of routine to build good habits in your children" etc. Has to be special classes. And then again you run into the "those who need it most are not interested" problem.
I really think parenting ought to be learned from parents but once that cycle breaks, it does have to be restarted somewhere and it makes sense for church to be the place.

Yeah. Every so often, our church offers a parenting SS discussion group that focuses around Tedd Tripp's Shepherding a Child's Heart video series. Even though Matt and I have already been through it a few times, we still look forward to attending and being reminded about the "basics" of parenting, and getting the chance to interact with other parents. I, too, have seen the problem you described (parents not making the connection between their poor parenting choices and the resulting issues with their children), and agree that the church (as in the pastor/the platform/official programs) can go only so far in reaching these people. But, as Susan said, informal (but intentional) discipleship among the members can often help those who seem to be falling through the cracks. Moms are chatty people, and it's not hard (at least not for me) to get into conversations with fellow moms about their kids. I've benefitted so many times from the wisdom of older moms, and I've also been able to pass on the things I've learned to younger moms. (Not just talking about "Scriptural principle" here, but also practical ideas that help develop character, etc.) Matt has done the same thing with the older and younger men in our church and at camp.
Is there a place for pastors (or other church leadership and even lay people) to simply take a brother aside and gently confront him and express concern about the direction his family is going, and try to enlighten him about the "disconnect" he is perceiving? I think so, but would you be more hesitant to endorse this, given your thoughts about Scripture and parenting? For sure, no one wants to do this, since parenting can be such a touchy issue, but I think there's a place for it, just like there's a place for any other kind of mutual help and encouragement among believers.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Caution: behaviorism alert
Quote:

Is there a place for pastors (or other church leadership and even lay people) to simply take a brother aside and gently confront him and express concern about the direction his family is going, and try to enlighten him about the "disconnect" he is perceiving? I think so, but would you be more hesitant to endorse this, given your thoughts about Scripture and parenting? For sure, no one wants to do this, since parenting can be such a touchy issue, but I think there's a place for it, just like there's a place for any other kind of mutual help and encouragement among believers.

Yes... there is a place definitely and, like you say, nobody wants to do it--especially if you feel like your own parenting is so far below what you'd like it me, KWIM?
Mostly, I have tried to emphasize--on special occasions and when it comes up in the process of preaching through a book (of Scripture)--that being parents means we don't have the luxury of seeking our kid's approval or avoiding their displeasure. We have the responsibility of command (just as they have the responsibility of obedience) and we'll give account for that. Seems like many parents are so afraid of having rebellious kids, they won't actually parent them (on the incorrect assumption that the way to avoid rebellion is to not tell them to do nor not do anything... nothing to rebel against?) But rebellion is in our hearts and it doesn't "come from" authoritative parenting.
Anyway, that's some of the foundational stuff. The nuts and bolts "skill," is another thing. But very little of what I believe in that department can be backed by Scripture. It's mostly observation, experience, reasoning, etc. Very human stuff. I believe in it, but it's not Bible except in the sense that much of it (I hope!) falls under the wisdom umbrella.
I don't believe any of it is unbiblical, but some folks do because some of it is behavioristic. Getting too involved for this thread, but I've always felt that behaviorism is fine as far as it goes, which is not far enough. It cannot touch the inner man. But when you're parenting (or running a classroom) you have to deal with alot of practical realities so that you can touch the heart. And good ol' operant conditioning can sure make your life easier!
But I think I better duck and cover now since I said something nice about behaviorism!

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Doesn;t have to be behaviorism.................
Aaron Blumer wrote:
Quote:

Is there a place for pastors (or other church leadership and even lay people) to simply take a brother aside and gently confront him and express concern about the direction his family is going, and try to enlighten him about the "disconnect" he is perceiving? I think so, but would you be more hesitant to endorse this, given your thoughts about Scripture and parenting? For sure, no one wants to do this, since parenting can be such a touchy issue, but I think there's a place for it, just like there's a place for any other kind of mutual help and encouragement among believers.

Yes... there is a place definitely and, like you say, nobody wants to do it--especially if you feel like your own parenting is so far below what you'd like it me, KWIM?
Mostly, I have tried to emphasize--on special occasions and when it comes up in the process of preaching through a book (of Scripture)--that being parents means we don't have the luxury of seeking our kid's approval or avoiding their displeasure. We have the responsibility of command (just as they have the responsibility of obedience) and we'll give account for that. Seems like many parents are so afraid of having rebellious kids, they won't actually parent them (on the incorrect assumption that the way to avoid rebellion is to not tell them to do nor not do anything... nothing to rebel against?) But rebellion is in our hearts and it doesn't "come from" authoritative parenting.
Anyway, that's some of the foundational stuff. The nuts and bolts "skill," is another thing. But very little of what I believe in that department can be backed by Scripture. It's mostly observation, experience, reasoning, etc. Very human stuff. I believe in it, but it's not Bible except in the sense that much of it (I hope!) falls under the wisdom umbrella.
I don't believe any of it is unbiblical, but some folks do because some of it is behavioristic. Getting too involved for this thread, but I've always felt that behaviorism is fine as far as it goes, which is not far enough. It cannot touch the inner man. But when you're parenting (or running a classroom) you have to deal with alot of practical realities so that you can touch the heart. And good ol' operant conditioning can sure make your life easier!
But I think I better duck and cover now since I said something nice about behaviorism!

Just because it's repetitive training it doesn't have to be behaviorism. Habituation or habit formation long predated behaviorism. I have an old tradition education text on habit formation in the mental discipline genre.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Reinforcement and such

Well, in that part I'm talking specifically about using reward and punishment in order to reinforce behavior. This is behaviorism, though I'd argue it's also common sense. Skinner--where he got things right--pretty much just did some laboratory stuff to try prove empirically what I suspect most people already thought. Once he got the ideas going in his head he ran wild with it and started getting utopian social ideas, etc. Obviously that won't work, since people do not really change when you condition their behavior with stimuli.
But there is nothing wrong with using reinforcement to control the behavior of children so that you can communicate with them and call them to higher motives. But there is real skill involved in using positive and negative reinforcement well.

Not entirely sure how I got myself on this topic. But anyway, there it is, fwiw.

RPittman
RPittman's picture
Offline
Former member
Joined: Tue, Sep 15 2009
Posts: 1170
Deuteronomy............................
Aaron Blumer wrote:

Well, in that part I'm talking specifically about using reward and punishment in order to reinforce behavior. This is behaviorism, though I'd argue it's also common sense. Skinner--where he got things right--pretty much just did some laboratory stuff to try prove empirically what I suspect most people already thought. Once he got the ideas going in his head he ran wild with it and started getting utopian social ideas, etc. Obviously that won't work, since people do not really change when you condition their behavior with stimuli.
But there is nothing wrong with using reinforcement to control the behavior of children so that you can communicate with them and call them to higher motives. But there is real skill involved in using positive and negative reinforcement well.

Not entirely sure how I got myself on this topic. But anyway, there it is, fwiw.

Well, isn't this the theme of Deuteronomy--blessings (i.e. reward) for well-doing and judgment (i.e. punishment) for wrong-doing?

Jay C.
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2107
Latin

FWIW, I took three years of Latin in high school, and although I've lost far more than I realize, it does help tremendously with my reading and comprehensive skills. Now my Greek, on the other hand...Well, I wouldn't be adverse to taking Greek again. From the alphabet forward, perhaps Smile

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
a little OT

well, i'm porbally going to get shot, but i do mean these things just tentatively from my own thinking and reading about parenting. . . .

it's really sticky when a church teaches about parenting IN THAT, they usualy choose a curriculum that's slated to be taught in a church/group setting, and they probably only teach one "style" or method or Expert-Person's stuff.

I'd think that ideallly (?), a church could have several styles of parenting taught b/c really, different people need different things. And because no one parenting expert has it all done right.

like theologically, i am OK with using "behaviorism" in some ways. but i do honestly try to avoid using the word "punishment" when dealing with misbehavior. (I know i'm going to be cremated for this.) I dish out "consequences." Because theologically, I am not punished for my sins . . . am I? Christ was punished for my sins, and if my kids become believers, He was punished for their sins, too. I have consequences for my sins, but not punishment. That statement could be incorrect, i have never picked it apart extremely, but i think that's the way it works theologically.

I grew up always thinking of God as this judging, condemning God, even after I was his child for so long, so i have had to think about that. (i'm not sure why i always thought that; my parents are not that way.)

Also, I think one hard thing about parenting is that you (and your kids) see you at your worst, or see who you really are. And that's hard to look at. So maybe parents run away from that, from the guilt of it or having to change. I know I had a lot more unpleasant thoughts and revelations about myself as a parent than pleasant, but that improves as the Lord transforms me. But it's not easy.

also, while i'm rambling on here . . . did you know that the average child receives 2,000 compliance requests per day? that is utterly amazing. That's a good thing to be aware of when going around the day with your kids. how would i feel if someone told me what to do 2.000/day? . . . how can i help my kid with this as his/her parent? . . . .

anyway . . .

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
styles and punishement

I believe there is a great deal that is style independent. And some of the trendier "styles" are not going to have much of a shelf life, because they're based incorrect beliefs about the nature of children and the responsibilities of parenting.
But when those things are understood, there is alot of room on details.
"Punishment"... I don't think it's a bad thing to avoid the term, especially for that reason. Though I don't have a problem with using it either. Though I am not punished as God's child because Christ took the punishment in my place, the parent-child relationship isn't the same relationship as the believer-God relationship.
But when I think about it, I don't think we have ever really called it anything. We just try to communicate that "If you do this, this is what will happen." So I guess I'm mostly a "consequences" guy after all.
But if the consequence is negative, proportionate, consistently employed and taught ahead of time, it'll have some desired effects even if we call it "fun time." Laughing out loud

This gives me an idea... (thanks Anne!). I always feel hesitant to do "how to parent" stuff because I feel like my own execution is so flawed. But I do believe I could do something along the line of "10 Most Common Parenting Mistakes" because I've made 'em all and I know.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
Aaron Blumer wrote: I believe
Aaron Blumer wrote:

I believe there is a great deal that is style independent. And some of the trendier "styles" are not going to have much of a shelf life, because they're based incorrect beliefs about the nature of children and the responsibilities of parenting.
But when those things are understood, there is alot of room on details.

so do you have examples of this? i would like to hear them.

Aaron Blumer wrote:

I always feel hesitant to do "how to parent" stuff because I feel like my own execution is so flawed. But I do believe I could do something along the line of "10 Most Common Parenting Mistakes" because I've made 'em all and I know.

um, i could probably list about 40 common mistakes, but i guess that's a little unwieldy for an article or sermon . . .

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Parenting style
Anne Sokol wrote:

well, i'm porbally going to get shot, but i do mean these things just tentatively from my own thinking and reading about parenting. . . .

it's really sticky when a church teaches about parenting IN THAT, they usualy choose a curriculum that's slated to be taught in a church/group setting, and they probably only teach one "style" or method or Expert-Person's stuff.

I'd think that ideallly (?), a church could have several styles of parenting taught b/c really, different people need different things. And because no one parenting expert has it all done right...

I don't think anyone should teach a parenting style- specific Scriptural commands first, then Biblical parenting principles, and then wisdom gained from personal experience- those are all important and beneficial in the right order of importance. But other than the obvious, I don't think anyone can really lay down a list of particulars that every family can or should follow. Some aspects of parenting must remain the purview of each individual family based on their needs, abilities, and resources.

It's true that some churches have that dynamic, where everyone lives on a farm and raises llamas, or folks believe children should remain at home until marriage. And that's not always bad- if we believe in freedom of association, it shouldn't be surprising the birds of a feather flock together, and it's nice to have the understanding and support of people who've come to the same conclusions in good conscience before God. As long as they don't harass people who've made different choices (that aren't contrary to Scripture), I enjoy hearing how families operate and interact.

That's what's nice about the OP- reading about a family that has made some thoughtful choices based on their goals, needs, abilities, and available resources.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
well

setting myself up for target practice here . . .

i'm not sure what we mean wehn we talk about style, which is why we should name specifics, i think.

another theological issue i have with some christian parenting experts: making obedience the main issue in parenting. This is very common and seems very biblical. but i really dont think it is. (disclaimer: I DO teach my children to obey.)

the logic seems to go this way: your children will obey God like they obey you, so teach them to obey. that's the #1 thing. And then there are various ways parents are trained to teach their children to obey.

but if i look at how God parents me now, today, as his child, is my obedience the number 1 thing to him? and then, how does he teach me to obey? for example, first-time obedience or whack for you?

my obedience is not the #1 thing to God. Also, he is the perfect combination of patient, merciful, gracious, yes-you-have-consequences,-but-I'm-here-with-you, and yes you can seek to understand me more through this, and yes, i will empower you to obey me even though it hurts, yes you can always trust God--your faith is what pleases him. your sin is not the end of the world, you can repent and i will redeem it. . . . anyone have a biblical parenting book or course teaching me more about this? i really need it.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Styles

I think this thread is headed off onto a bunny trail... but personally, when I talk about parenting styles, I would consider Dr. Spock, Gothard, Ezzo, the Pearls', and such like, to all be advocating a particular parenting style. Also quiverfull, crunchy, and patriarchal families- when they use those terms to define themselves. Some families may hold to the same beliefs as quiverfull, for instance, but do not embrace it to the point where they want to wear a 'label'.

Even though education is an aspect of parenting, classical education IMO is not a parenting style. The desire for one's child to be educated using the classical method, and having a foundation in Greek and Latin may be influenced and guided by the principles that the family believes are important. It is often assumed that homeschooling families are by default swinging off the same tree, but I don't consider it a parenting style any more than private or public schooling is a parenting style.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Research and some examples

A few years back I did do a series on Modern Parenting Myths. The stuff I found researching was amazing. A random sampling of ideas...

  • Kids should never be sent to their rooms or a place of solitude as discipline (this is banishment and it's evil)
  • Disagreements between parents and children should be resolved using a peer mediation approach (Now, junior, I realize that from your point of view, it's great fun to play ball on the highway, and of course your opinion is completely valid. It wansn't my intention to anger you when I yelled "Get out of the road!" at you. Will you forgive me? Perhaps we can work out our differences and arrive at an agreement that makes us both happy.)
  • Of course, there's the old never ever, ever hit a child for any reason. (This results in serial killers and school shootings... [never mind that we've had more school shootings since people stopped spanking than we ever had when kids got 'licks' for their offenses])
  • Children should be encouraged to freely express their feelings whenever they don't like what you are telling them to do/not do (That's right, sweetheart, just tell mommy how much you hate her and wish you could kill her. It's good to be honest about your feelings.)
  • You should not read your kids' emails because they have a right to privacy [I can buy this one, IF the child doesn't know ahead of time that you are going to monitor communication. They should know this up front or it's kind of a dirty trick. But apart from that, no, kids do not have a right to privacy from their parents. I do think it's prudent to give privileges in this area as they get older--but they are privileges, not rights. ]
On it goes.
Some of this can be answered from Scripture. Much of it just requires common sense and a little respect for history.

When I talk about things that should be same regardless of style, I mean things like:
1. Require child to look you in the eye and listen when you are instructing
2. Require child to verbally acknowledge instructions when the above isn't possible (too far away, or already doing something you told them to do, etc.)
3. Arguing not permitted (I've seen different approaches for making that work. Phrase I use quite often to end arguments between kids and their mom: "Accept your mother's instruction!" In our house, we're all headstrong, so we all like to have the last word. Smile But a child does not get to have the last word. Of course, the difference between argument and "I'm just saying" is often murky. But "Kid does not get to have last word" is one to live by, IMO)
4. Behavior that is rude/disturbing/irritating to surrounding adults not allowed to continue (it's amazing how many parents don't seem to believe this anymore). If necessary, remove child from the presence of those who are having to endure his/her behavior.
5. Absolutely never beg, plead or try to talk child into obedience. (Parent is in charge. He/she requires obedience and insists on it, doesn't beg and bribe and then shrug helplessly if kids are defiant.)

I'm also tempted to add that "Because I said so" is a really good answer. At some point we all have to learn that there are people who are wiser and better informed than we are, and if childhood isn't the time to learn that, when should it be learned? (Of course, I do also believe in having lots of open and honest "why" conversations, but not when I'm giving instructions. "Do it now--i.e., act like my being twenty years your senior means I know what I'm doing--and and we can talk about why later.")

I suppose all this sounds terribly harsh by today's standards, but there it is. I have a hat that says "#1 Dad" on it. It should probably say "Draconian Dad." I'd be OK with that. Crazy (Oddly, my kids don't think I'm a big meany. I have a theory--probably owe it to somebody I read--that when parents try to avoid being authoritative, what they really do is set up scenarios in which their frustration grows until it comes out in angry outbursts and other destructive ways. Better to be in control and diffuse a whole lot of the tension up front so that there is not so much conflict.)

We're a bit off topic here but I don't mind if nobody else does.

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Anne Sokol wrote: setting
Anne Sokol wrote:

setting myself up for target practice here . . .

i'm not sure what we mean wehn we talk about style, which is why we should name specifics, i think.

another theological issue i have with some christian parenting experts: making obedience the main issue in parenting. This is very common and seems very biblical. but i really dont think it is. (disclaimer: I DO teach my children to obey.)

the logic seems to go this way: your children will obey God like they obey you, so teach them to obey. that's the #1 thing. And then there are various ways parents are trained to teach their children to obey.

but if i look at how God parents me now, today, as his child, is my obedience the number 1 thing to him? and then, how does he teach me to obey? for example, first-time obedience or whack for you?

my obedience is not the #1 thing to God. Also, he is the perfect combination of patient, merciful, gracious, yes-you-have-consequences,-but-I'm-here-with-you, and yes you can seek to understand me more through this, and yes, i will empower you to obey me even though it hurts, yes you can always trust God--your faith is what pleases him. your sin is not the end of the world, you can repent and i will redeem it. . . . anyone have a biblical parenting book or course teaching me more about this? i really need it.

Anne, you won't get any potshots from me...I've thought along these lines as well, especially as regards your previous comments about "punishment." I have tried to avoid using that word with my own children, preferring words like discipline and...I really don't know what else, because, like Aaron, we don't really call "it" anything other than what the specific consequence is. The kids have just grown up knowing that their actions bring consequences, for good or ill.

I agree with almost all you've said about how God relates to us as his children...except I'm not sure about the idea that obedience to him isn't of primary importance. No, we are not saved or sanctified by obedience, per se...but, really, shouldn't our lives, out of love and gratefulness to our Savior, be characterized by obedience to him? The NT seems full to the brim of this idea...that, as God's children who have been redeemed from slavery to sin, we are willing bondservants to our Redeemer. I'm not talking about "do-it-yourself obedience," but obedience that is enabled only by God's grace. This is an idea that I think should be central in teaching our kids. No, it isn't the "end of the world" when they sin; there is abundant forgiveness at the cross, and, by extension, in the hearts of their believing family members. Grace is needed and given, sometimes in the form of chastisement. Why would God chasten/rebuke his children (Heb. 12; Rev. 3) if their living a life of obedience/fellowship/growth is not important to him? I'm not talking about "pleasing him" in some self-sufficient or "point-getting" way, motivated by inordinate fear and/or pride, but honest, zealous pursuit of purity and godliness for the sake of the one who died for us. To me, this idea provides the framework for how I view life: it is not to be lived for myself, my flesh, but for God. What you've said fits into this framework nicely: "he is the perfect combination of patient, merciful, gracious, yes-you-have-consequences,-but-I'm-here-with-you, and yes you can seek to understand me more through this, and yes, i will empower you to obey me even though it hurts, yes you can always trust God--your faith is what pleases him. your sin is not the end of the world, you can repent and i will redeem it."

The question, then, is this: how do we take these things and effectively apply them in our parenting? As you've said, the answers might look different for different families, based on a number of dynamics. I don't think that a preponderance of "behavioristic"-type applications go far enough to reach the heart and instill the kind of thinking I've described above.

Anne, if I may ask, is your objection to Tedd Tripp that he, in your opinion, uses the incorrect framework/paradigm in parenting (making obedience of primary importance)? Where, in your preferred framework, does "the battle against the flesh" come in? Do you think believers, on a practical, day-to-day basis, have to battle the flesh and choose, enabled by God's grace, to make choices that are in line with his will for them? If so, how do you communicate this to your children, and equip them for this battle? (IOW, are we merely playing games with semantics here? Are our parenting philosophies really more similar than different after all, when it comes right down to it?)

Again, not trying to take potshots...just seeking to understand and learn.

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
another thought

Another reason filial obedience is of primary importance: Isn't the only NT command given to children found in Eph. 6:1-2 (which echoes the OT command to obey/honor parents)? If so, doesn't that fact pretty much determine the framework by which we should be teaching our children? Children, obey...for this is right. Honor father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise attached to it: that it might be well with you, and you might live long on the earth (consequence). I'm not saying that this is the only passage which should inform parental "philosophy," but, as it is the only passage (again, to my knowledge) which speaks the mind of God directly and specifically to children, it certainly leaves no doubt in my mind that filial obedience is indeed of primary importance to God, and is indeed the basis upon which my instruction of my children must take shape.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
Hey all. Thanks for the

Hey all. Thanks for the niceness.

Conversations about parenting can be a bit frustrating because I think it’s more of an art than a science, and there are just so many variables.

I need to give a short answer right now b/c vitaliy is not home, maybe more later.

But I think the most important aspect of life and parenting is what one believes about God, my faith. And I mean that in more than just what I believe about salvation. I mean for all of life, every day, every encounter, joy, trial. What do I believe about God.

Obedience is important, but it’s not the bottom line. We’re all losers then. And that’s fairly performance-oriented, by-performance-I-can-please view of God. There’s a good Martin Luther tract about this, “Concerning Christian Liberty, part 2”

Ted Tripp is a big discussion I would have to invest a lot of time in and I’m not there right now. I could be if it’s really wanted to be pursued.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
running out the door

this is not fleshed out either, but about obedience there are several issues in the parent-child dynamic that need to be considered. like, is it causing adversarial relationships? a power war?

the command is given to children, and while i am influene #1 for obeying right now, in the back of my mind is that the command is given to my child, not to me. So i need, of course, by my methods, to be leading to this.

and my obedience training shouldn be considerate of ages/stages of development.

also, does God use force or his bigness to make me obey? . . . how does he work on my attitude? . . .

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Anne Sokol wrote: Hey all.
Anne Sokol wrote:

Hey all. Thanks for the niceness.

Conversations about parenting can be a bit frustrating because I think it’s more of an art than a science, and there are just so many variables.

I agree, Anne.

Quote:

But I think the most important aspect of life and parenting is what one believes about God, my faith. And I mean that in more than just what I believe about salvation. I mean for all of life, every day, every encounter, joy, trial. What do I believe about God.

Again, I totally agree...which would lead me to the next question: what is God's desire for me as his child? How does he want me to live? Maybe this is where we diverge, but I think that Scripture is clear that God has called me to a life of obedience to him while I am on this earth. My personal choices (including how I think in joys and trials) should be run through the grid of "Is this thought/action 'worthy of my calling'? Is it reflective of my Father's character? Is it indicative of God's work in me, or is it a warning that I am living life in my flesh and need to lean harder on my Father?

Quote:

Obedience is important, but it’s not the bottom line. We’re all losers then. And that’s fairly performance-oriented, by-performance-I-can-please view of God.

I don't think it is...since Scripture is clear that "it is God which works in me, both to will and to do his good pleasure." (Phil.) Here again, the focus is God's pleasure/pleasing God (the verse indicates that what we will and do pleases God)...but this pleasing isn't "me"...it comes as a result of his working in me. The "loser" part was taken care of at the cross, wasn't it?

Quote:

Ted Tripp is a big discussion I would have to invest a lot of time in and I’m not there right now. I could be if it’s really wanted to be pursued.

I don't have time, either. Considering the terms you used earlier in the thread, I'd guess that you're an advocate of what has been called "grace-based parenting." (I'm not trying to put you in that box, either, or say that you follow "a man-made system"...just going by what I seem to remember you saying in this thread as well as in others.) Hey, I'm all for anything that is "grace-based!"

I think we could go around in circles for quite a while, don't you? And that would just make me dizzy right now. Smile On my end, I think you believe obedience is important: as you said a few posts up, you are teaching your children to obey. And I hope you know that I think grace is foundational to obedience and everything else we do as believers. It might be that we're just looking at two sides of the same coin...

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Peformance

Well, we really are ranging wide now, topic wise, but by "performance" we really do please or displease God. Our eternal standing is unaffected, because we are "in Christ." But our choices matter and the NT is chock full of commands to obey because we are expected to actually obey them. There is simply no way to read the NT fairly and not conclude the obedience is primary. But this obedience includes obedience to the Gospel and obedience to the command to "Love the Lord your God with all our heart" etc.
So it's not merely external obedience.
But it is about making the right choices and behaving according to God's desires.

I think part of the confusing teaching that folks have put out on this topic is due to neglect of the passages that bring together the relationship between standing and "performance."

To be super brief, the relationship is this:
1) Because of who we are (union with Christ) we can obey/peform
2) Because of who we are, we must obey/perform
3) Because of who we are, God sees to it that we do

Philippians 2:12–13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Consider also, Eph. 4.1, Col1.9-10, 1 Thess. 2:10-12 (and all of Romans 6).
The Colossians one above is especially poignant.

Colossians 1:9–10
9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;

That's a call to "performance" if there ever was one (OK, 1 Cor.9.26-27 might be stronger, or 1 Tim.4:7-8).

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Expectations

There are lots of variables in parenting. Different methods work at different times. A young child that can't reason needs to be taught to obey without question or hesitation. This is not for the gratification of a control-freak parent, but for the safety of the child. As they get older, a parent can include more explanation about the foundations of certain requirements. I think parents get into trouble when they attempt to apply the same requirements and consequences regardless of the age and understanding of the child.

My kids can ask questions, but they aren't allowed to question. They are to obey without comment at the time that a 'command' is given- but they are free to ask questions before or after. Sometimes these rules are just practical- I am not going to have a 20 minute conversation about the need to get the yard mowed before it rains. But we often sit around the table or in the living room (in our house these are basically in the same room) and talk about expectations and needs and listen to the kids make suggestions. They are a respected part of the household too.

Personally, I think organization and planning does alot to preempt discipline issues. We have menus, so the kids know what they can and can't eat. We have a schedule, so they understand what is expected. The house has a 'place for everything' (or nearly everything) so they know where to put things away. I think of it as the up side to being seriously OCD- things I take for granted are often a major issue for some families.

One of the things I think Anne is getting at (correct me if I'm wrong, Anne) is our responsibility to model Godly behavior for our kids, and not just demand it from them. I can't teach the kids self control if I'm wigging out when they disobey, or when I drop a glass of milk on the floor, or when the dog pukes on the couch. They watch us handle adversity, and they take their cues from our conduct, regardless of the words that are coming out of our mouths. We also can't demand mental and physical purity from them when we tolerate or are entertained by perversion and lasciviousness. If we want them to be forgiving and compassionate in their dealings with others, then they need to see us doing this with our spouse, our relatives, neighbors, co-workers... Parenting is IMO about the most humbling and awe-inspiring thing a person can do, because in all things I am aware of God as my Father, and how I relate to Him and He relates to me. Yowzers.

As for Ezzo and Keller and the Pearls etc... I think it's great when we can take a nugget here and there, but I can't imagine attempting to apply someone else's lifestyle or methods wholesale. There is an almost idolatrous aspect to this embracing of one author's parenting theories over another, as if instead of "Thus sayeth the Lord" it's "Thus sayeth Ted Tripp".

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
parenting

For what it's worth, hands down, the most helpful book to me for day-to-day parenting is Ross Campbell's Relational Parenting. If someone were to ask me what to teach at church, I'd recommend that. For all that my measley opinion is worth.

About performance and obedience . . . I guess i see those as symptomatic. And any discussion I imagine at this point, just gets into somantics where we are both saying the same things in different ways.

I guess I don't look at my life right now in terms of obedience, where I am doing right and where I am failing. I get really stuck on the failing parts, then, and that morass doesn't help me grow at all in godliness. I have stopped listing ways in which i need to change, improvements, etc. because it simply does not profit me one inch spiritually. I am at a point where I have let go control of my sanctification and released the way I want to percieve myself and the rate at which I want to change. I have given it to God. I simply cannot help myself. He teaches me what to believe and the transformation that occurs in my life, while at some level, somehow, I am involved, it is all God. I still fail and am proud and get angry, but He takes his own time in changing things inside me. It's nothing like first-time obedience.

So I look at my dear children, who are so young, who understand so much less than I do about life and God, and I do have compassion on them, and the 2,000 compliance requests they receive a day, and how I handle their failures and my failure in helping them.

A man in our church, married, is struggling with some porn addictions. He really wants to stop. It's not a lot, but it's there. And I think, what can I give my children that will carry them through an experience of having a sinful addiction without losing their faith in God. "Just obey just because" doesn't help. This man wants freedom; he wants to obey. I want to obey. Will they feel that they are so disobedient that God is far away? Or will they be able to remain in the faith and know that God still accepts them and can work this for their good?

Christ lived for me the complete fulfillment of the law. I am free.

How I live, my performance, will always be flawed. Maybe we could call it "fruit" more than performance. I may do great and mighty things, like adopting an orphan, or training my kids, or helping ladies not have abortions, evangelizing people. But . . . I don't know. I don't focus on those things so much. They just come out of (the sinful rotten) me as am in christ.

I wish I were a grace-based parent. I am trying to learn what that means. But I still have a long way to go.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
sharpen your knives, and a little OT

today i started reading Kimmel's Grace-Based Parenting and Tripp's Shepherding side by side. I think it will be an interesting exercise.

since i dont' have the time or mental/theological prowess to analyze tripp, I googled some stuff on him, and I found a couple sites that do a pretty fair job of pointing out some flaws. This is not an endorsement of sites or everything written, but the insights might be interesting to someone somewhere, i dunno.

and it's just for what it's worth. i'm not really big on discussing stuff like this here. Interesting how it's come about that the grace-based (i hate the focus on non-spanking) stuff is so suspect by fundamentalists. I am surprised I have come to consider it myself.

Pls excuse some attitude--some of it's just blogging

gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=245342&highlight=SACH+Review

lutherama.blogspot.com/search/label/Punitive%20parenting

myblogginess.blogspot.com/2005/02/im-tripping-out.html

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Anne Sokol wrote:today i
Anne Sokol wrote:

today i started reading Kimmel's Grace-Based Parenting and Tripp's Shepherding side by side. I think it will be an interesting exercise.

since i dont' have the time or mental/theological prowess to analyze tripp, I googled some stuff on him, and I found a couple sites that do a pretty fair job of pointing out some flaws. This is not an endorsement of sites or everything written, but the insights might be interesting to someone somewhere, i dunno.

and it's just for what it's worth. i'm not really big on discussing stuff like this here. Interesting how it's come about that the grace-based (i hate the focus on non-spanking) stuff is so suspect by fundamentalists. I am surprised I have come to consider it myself.

Pls excuse some attitude--some of it's just blogging

Anne, I perused the articles you linked, and took a minute to comment on each one...

Quote:

gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=245342&highlight=SACH+Review

While I know that one of the tenets of the GCM site is that spanking is not an acceptable form of discipline, this article (out of the three you mentioned) had the least to say about the actual use of spanking...maybe because the "no spanking" idea is such a "given" over there that it doesn't need to be addressed. Anyway, the pith of this critic's argument is this:

Quote:

(quoted from article) I think his point is wrongly focused. It's true that God gave us the law in order to show us how short we fall from His righteousness. But the law has never been the focal point of God's message. It has always been love and grace. The emphasis in this book is more about authority and laws, and submission of the heart - which, IMHO, is entirely impossible without first understanding love and grace...You see, it's not about the sin that flows out of the heart. Recognizing our sin only leaves us hopeless and despondent. The reason the Gospel is "good news!" is because it is about love, grace, and forgiveness. Those are the key messages I want my children to understand, and I want them to experience and grasp those before they understand the depths of their sin.

I would counter that it is impossible to understand or experience grace and forgiveness if one does not first understand sin. Without this primary understanding, "grace" would be reduced (in the child's mind) to just "being nice"; he would never understand "grace" as unmerited favor unless he knew that he is unworthy and undeserving of it...and, in order for him to realize that, he has to know what sin is. He must feel the sting of sin in order to experience the balm of grace. As God's child, my appreciation of his grace runs only as deep as my understanding of my sin. So, what this critic says doesn't even IMO make sense in that she gets the cart before the horse. Maybe I'm missing something...

Quote:

lutherama.blogspot.com/search/label/Punitive%20parenting

This article was hard to take seriously because its author claims, "[Tedd Tripp] is nowhere near orthodox. Why? Because of this: Tripp claims that 'God commands spanking.'" That claim makes someone unorthodox? Really? Also, this article is heavy on rhetoric but light on substance, because it consists only of taking isolated quotations out of the book and countering with mere sarcasm (no Scripture, no thoughtful rebuttals), as if somehow the author's ideas are valid on their own merits. It wasn't so much "the attitude" (as you said) that bothered me; I kept reading, thinking that the author would actually have something to say, but was disappointed on that front.

Quote:

myblogginess.blogspot.com/2005/02/im-tripping-out.html

This article, while not as vitriolic, was almost as short on substance. Once again, quotations from the book are laid out, with a bit of commentary after each one. Here are the commentaries...
Regarding a quote taken from p. 109:

Quote:

So if I do not use spanking as a Christian parent, am I in sin? I guess I must be if God has mandated it and commanded it. By the way, he states this, but does not support it on this page with any biblical references.

Seems a little disingenuous...I don't have my copy of SACH handy, but I can almost guarantee you that Tripp uses Scripture as the support for his ideas. The problem is that people don't agree with him at the Scriptural level, and go to great lengths to make "the rod" mean anything else but "the rod." (I've been involved in plenty of discussions over at GCM, and have seen this over and over.)

Regarding first-time obedience:

Quote:

I do not want my children raised like this. Often I’ll tell my daughter who is 6 to come over to the computer room for her lesson (we home school). She might say, “OK, but can I go get a snack first..or can I finish coloring this last page”. Trip actually mentions “finish coloring this page”, as not acceptable. Why? My child is a human being who has a mind that can think. Maybe her body is telling her she is thirsty or needs a snack before we sit down to do school work. If you are like me, I know that when I am engrossed in a project and almost finished with it, and my wife calls for me, I will say I need 5-10 more minutes and I can be done. Why can’t we allow room for our children to express this same need? Although he does not state it on page 138, but I would surmise from reading his book, that this type of response does not met his definition of obedience and therefore should be dealt with by spanking

OK, I agree with the blogger that respectful appeals can be made; I let my kids do this, after they have reached an appropriate level of maturity (age 6 would be well within that level). I haven't read SACH lately, but, again, I am almost sure that Tripp would agree that this sort of thing is acceptable. What is not acceptable is for the child to continue to color the page with complete disregard for the parent's instruction. That's what he is getting at.

The next three quotations from the book have to do with spanking...and I think we'd agree that the article's responses are flawed here, so I won't comment on them.
Regarding listening to a parents voice:

Quote:

I hope Mr. Tripp and his devotees have not had children who truly have a hearing deficiency. I wonder how many kids have endured spankings due to this advise before the parents realized there is a genuine medical issue. Even if my children do not have a medical hearing problem, why would I spank them for this. If this was a repeated mantra of a given child, that would be dealt with, but why does it need to be dealt with by me hitting my child?

Again, the rhetoric gives away this author's bias, which is fine... but he/she doesn't offer anything of substance in the way of refuting Tripp's comments. The "hearing deficiency" argument is weak, since medically hearing deficient children are the exception, not the norm, and good parents who are in tune with their kids can and do ascertain problems of this nature before spanking...or at least before spanking the child enough to do any lasting damage. (What parent hasn't spanked "by mistake"? I know I have.)

The one remaining quote fusses at Tripp for not delineating "how sweet" a child has to be before the spanking is done, or "how many" swats should be given, and reprimands him for not giving Scripture to support the ideas that a child should be repentant after a spanking in order for the spanking to have benefitted him. These ideas are just common sense, right? If a child is stubborn and rebellious ("foolish"), then Proverbs is clear: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." If the rod has been applied, and the child remains stubborn, then the rod hasn't completed its work. In all my days as a parent of five children with very different personalities (including some pretty stubborn ones), I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to face this kind of thing. I'm not saying that others might not have kids who are really, really stubborn...I think Tripp is making general applications. His book isn't meant to address every personality quirk that kids might have, but to give a basic outline. Parents who abuse their kids in the name of Tripp don't correctly understand what he is saying.

Anne, I don't want to debate...I think your exercise of reading Tripp and Kimmel simultaneously will be an interesting study. I'd like to hear your insights. I'm sure Kimmel has some valuable things to say.

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
need to add

I don't want to appear as though I'm a "Tedd Tripp defender"; I'm sure I do disagree with him on some points. When we've discussed his ideas in SS, we've always talked through them, asked questions about them, disagreed on some things, etc.; we're not just copying down everything he says in our little notebooks. Smile No one man is going to say everything just right. I guess I would say that I don't see anything wrong with Tripp's basic framework of parenting, even if I would disagree on some of the particulars. And I do want to be a channel of God's grace to my children...Graciousness should definitely characterize my dealings with my kids. I don't find the idea of "grace-based" (at least in the way I want to be "grace-based") to be at odds with what Tedd Tripp says about discipline.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3214
Parenting books

I usually only read parenting books to review them, not to absorb them for myself necessarily. It's interesting to see how different people apply the same Scripture in different ways, and it tells me that I have that same liberty to teach my children as the individuals they are in a manner consistent with what we believe Scripture teaches; either by commandment, principle, or suggestion. So we have some commandments that are clearly directed at the responsibilities of parents and the expectations of children. We have examples, both good and bad to glean from, and we play 'connect-the-dots' so to speak in ways that lead us to believe that other things are implied, or at least that what we are doing is not a violation of Scripture.

The OP is just such an exercise- parents who chose an educational method that they believed was most beneficial to their family, and now- as both parents and children have changed- a different solution has presented itself, and they are going to take advantage of it. But nowhere should it be said that all families should homeschool for life, or only for elementary and then put in traditional school for their high school years, or classical education is superior... it's the decision making process that is IMO most beneficial, not always the conclusion.

I haven't read the blogs that Anne linked to- I'm not interested in anti-spanking rhetoric. Julie's assessment is consistent with what I've experienced when reading similar blogs- arguments tend to be weak and emotional and seldom based on comparing Scripture with Scripture. I think we'd all be better off reading the Bible more and parenting books less.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at Sunniemom's Survival Guide

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Why "grace based" concern

One of the reasons for suspicion toward new parenting strategies has to do with historical context. We have to ask, where did the impetus for new approaches to parenting come from? Up until the 1960's, many aspects of parenting that are now rejected or questioned were embraced by parents for many centuries.
So why all of a sudden (from a historical standpoint) do we feel like we don't know how to parent?
Much of the impetus in the US in the 60's arose from egalitarian philosophies. The same thinking that, in part, brought us the hippies and the sexual revolution.
But it really goes further back to at least the time of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who was among the romantics who began to present an idealized view of childhood. In Rousseau's thought, kids are innocent, good, free of the corrupting sophistications of adulthood, etc. (Emile may have been his pivotal work on this, though it was a novel).

Much of this thinking permeates popular culture today and trickles down even into evangelical parenting teaching.

As for "grace based parenting." I have not read about this and would like to. I suspect the problem there is a bit different. First, the Bible does not command us to parent our children like God "parents" us. Second, even if we accept that idea as a premise, what does it mean to parent like God parents? Grace occurs in the context of law and condemnation. There can be no grace without guilt first. So we see two general headings for God's grace:
a. Common grace: He sends rain (as blessing) on the just and the unjust, though the unjust do not deserve it (and really the "just" don't either). This expresses God's immensely generous nature.
b. Special grace: He offers forgiveness to the repentant.

So how would these apply to parenting? Well, certainly we ought to be generous as parents. And certainly we ought to forgive when our children are repentant. But the latter cannot occur apart from an environment where there are clearly communicated requirements, i.e., law. Grace happens after law is violated. (Much modern confusion exists on this point, supposing that grace is a new law-free way of relating to God, but this is not true. God still commands and requires but grace enters as a way of dealing with our failures.)

But perhaps "grace based" has more the idea of "parenting in a way that teaches grace? Most of the same points would apply in that scenario I think. We cannot understand grace accurately without understanding first how we offend by our disobedience to God's standards.

(Edit: there is a third huge category of grace for believers... the post-repentant--God's enabling and transforming. He empowers us and reshapes us to be more like Christ. Not sure how this would transfer into the parenting situation.)

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
stuff

been mulling this over . . .

read SACH intro and chapter 1 and GBP ch 1 and half of 2. There's a lot I agree with in both of them.

I'm working through a lot of issues to try and get to the heart of what's going on here, the supposed differences between these two "systems." I'm trying to find the right questions, I guess.

The mystery of parenting is that the exact things we want to have for our children actually have to be done by the Holy Spirit. My husband, for example, grew up in an alcoholic unsaved family with really skewed moral and material values, was a criminal, druggie, alcoholic, smoker, rebellious, yet when he became a christian at 16, and now a husband and father, he is a very godly person and example. Where did he learn it from? Not his family but from God. And really, that's the bottom line for every child is how he will respond to the Holy Spirit. God's the only one that can do the real work in a child's heart or an adult's heart. And that's the part of parenting we can't touch really, just by prayer.

(which, by the way, is what i like about Clay Clarkson's Heartfelt Discipline book. He talks about how God has designed children to be particularly open to their parents and that the parents' goal is to help their child have "good soil" hearts.)

So anyway, I'm trying to get around to what's the purpose of Christian parenting. Is it a means of grace for children? it certainly is more natural that children learn about God from their parents.

GBP and SACH agree that the parent is the the authority. Kimmel says, "Grace does not exclude obedience, respect, boundaries, or discipline, but it does determine the climate in which these important parts of parenting are carried out." (20) Chapter 2 is called "the truth behind grace" and he deals with ungrace (rules w/o grace) and permissiveness (relationships w/o rules) and "cheap grace" as problematical.

practically, another thing i like about gpd people is that they emphasize positive aspects of parenting much, much more. Ch 1 in gbp covers the basic needs of kids that need to be in the forefront: security (from love), significance (from purpose) and strength (from hope). (although ross campbell in relational parenting does a much better job at fleshing this out, not that he is gbd.) I think sach's approach is more that the basic need of a child is to have an authority. I think there is something incomplete in that.

it's funny julie that you disliked this section in the gentle christian mothers:
(quoted from gcm) "I think his point is wrongly focused. It's true that God gave us the law in order to show us how short we fall from His righteousness. But the law has never been the focal point of God's message. It has always been love and grace. The emphasis in this book is more about authority and laws, and submission of the heart - which, IMHO, is entirely impossible without first understanding love and grace...You see, it's not about the sin that flows out of the heart. Recognizing our sin only leaves us hopeless and despondent. The reason the Gospel is "good news!" is because it is about love, grace, and forgiveness. Those are the key messages I want my children to understand, and I want them to experience and grasp those before they understand the depths of their sin."

I acutally thought she put her finger on something i was feeling after reading the beginning of sach. It seems to focus a lot more on the child and his sin, although he talks about how this points to the need of a savior, yes. but it's so obedience-focused, which is me and my performace focused in reality. . . . i have thought for most of my life that i was in control of my sancification and it depended on my obedience. I think that is a fatal flaw. it seems that the child should be more filled with the hope found in christ. I can't obey as I should, but christ obeyed for me. that doesn't me i live purposeful or careless disobedience, but it does mean I am free from the requirements of the law/free from the salvific need to obey. God doesnt' get angry at me for disobeying the law.

I thought that some of this was insightful too:

gcm wrote:

First of all, I believe that being human in and of itself puts us makes us all sinners from birth. It's not the fact that children are born into a sin nature that I argue. The assumption that this sin nature is somehow worse in a child - more selfish, more defiant, more rebellious - is simply wrong. Sin is sin in God's eyes. The assumption that discipline can in any way, shape or form affect this sin nature is also wrong.

Mr. Tripp says, "One of the justifications for spanking children is that "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15). The point of the proverb is that something is wrong in the heart of the child that requires correction. The remedy is not solely changing the structure of the home; it is addressing the heart." (pg. 20-1)

Now, this assumption could easily be dealt with by studying that verse in context, in its original language, rather than proof-texting it. However, I'm going to deal with the general principle here, rather than the specific verse. First of all, the heart of every human being who ever has, is, or will be living has something wrong which requires TRANSFORMING, not correction. Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God." Jeremiah 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?"

that's a valid point about transformation. and that's really the only way we change--and i realize that it is even beyond my power to do this to myself; i can just open my heart for God to do it and use the means he's given me of bible study, etc.

i'm still a little uncertain about sach's extreme thrust on obedience. like it's the end-all of parenting. "as a parent, you must exercise authority. You must require obedience of your children because they are called by God to obey and honor you." (xviii) "You must require proper behavior. God's law demands that." (5)

it's to point to the gospel, i understand that, his logic being that one's lack of obedience points to the need of a savior. and he does constantly go back to the heart of the child.

but what if we turned it around a little: "God, You must exercise authority. You must require obedience of Anne and Julie because You have called them to obey and honor You. You must require their proper behavior. Your law demands that. You cannot, however be satisfied to leave the matter there. . . . How did their hearts stray to produce this [sinful] behavior? In what characteristic ways has their inability or refusal to know, trust, and obey You resulted in actions and speech that are wrong?" (rewording of p xviii and 5) And if that is God's parenting of me and you, then we are in a heap of trouble.

You say, yes, that's where the gospel comes in; that's the point of this. OK, but what's the end of the Gospel, so that we can obey God? Obedience is what God wants? . . . No, i really dont' think that is the end point of the gospel. I think obeying in what we believe is crucial to God. But our works and obedience are fruit, imperfect, and good only in as much as God does it through us.

But let's look at it this way:

"God, You have made Anne and Julie free because Christ met the full demands of Your law's requirements. He has lived on their behalf a perfectly obedient life. When they disobey, there are consequences, but You are with them still; You will never punish, judge, accuse, or abandon them for their sins or mistakes. You fill them up with security, significance and strength. As they abide in Christ, You transform them and work out in them the good fruits of Your will.

I guess I see sach, as much as he talks about the gospel, is really more focused on human behavior.

but i am still reading.

i would comment again on those blogs, but i think this is too long already for now.

PLewis
Offline
User
Joined: Sun, Jun 14 2009
Posts: 61
Good post Anne
Quote:

No, i really dont' think that is the end point of the gospel. I think obeying in what we believe is crucial to God. But our works and obedience are fruit, imperfect, and good only in as much as God does it through us.

As a Mom who is really more of "Grandma age" at this point I suppose I view things with a little less angst. All children are different - just as all adults are different. I don't believe any on "approach" fits all children. I remember being VERY frustrated at having two totally different boys to have to discipline - one could be handled with "the look" - I can count on one hand the times he needed a spanking .. I remember each of those spankings as clear as day. The other .. well we ran out of digits by the time he was 4 I think.. Wink He was and still is a challenge... even at 21 ..

I think often parents view obedience as a sign of their children's spiritual heart - which of course in a mature Christian it is .. but one can be obedient - while in their heart there is rebellion. We only can look at outward appearances to make determinations - and there is so much more than "just" obedience .. attitutude is SO important. As a mother I constantly have had to remind myself to parent in love and God's Word and let the Holy Spirit do the talking to the heart. That's all we really can do isn't it?

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Anne Sokol wrote:been
Anne Sokol wrote:

been mulling this over . . .

read SACH intro and chapter 1 and GBP ch 1 and half of 2. There's a lot I agree with in both of them.

Is it the "two sides of the same coin" thing?

Quote:

I'm working through a lot of issues to try and get to the heart of what's going on here, the supposed differences between these two "systems." I'm trying to find the right questions, I guess.

The mystery of parenting is that the exact things we want to have for our children actually have to be done by the Holy Spirit. My husband, for example, grew up in an alcoholic unsaved family with really skewed moral and material values, was a criminal, druggie, alcoholic, smoker, rebellious, yet when he became a christian at 16, and now a husband and father, he is a very godly person and example. Where did he learn it from? Not his family but from God. And really, that's the bottom line for every child is how he will respond to the Holy Spirit. God's the only one that can do the real work in a child's heart or an adult's heart. And that's the part of parenting we can't touch really, just by prayer.

ITA with this. And I would add that the 'flip side' of this scenario also happens: kids who are reared by godly parents, with every 'spiritual advantage,' chuck it all out the window when they leave home. I think you are right that "how the child responds to the Holy Spirit is the bottom line." But that doesn't make parenting irrelevant, or else we'd all go on permanent vacation and let the Spirit work, and just hope our kids respond to his voice. We need to discover and follow the directives that Scripture gives about parents and children. (I am just thinking along with you on this, not taking issue with anything you're saying here.)

Quote:

(which, by the way, is what i like about Clay Clarkson's Heartfelt Discipline book. He talks about how God has designed children to be particularly open to their parents and that the parents' goal is to help their child have "good soil" hearts.)

It has been a while since I've read the Clarksons, but this particular parental goal resonates with me. Surely, it is the task of the parents to tend and nurture the hearts of their children, while modeling receptivity to God's Word themselves.

Quote:

So anyway, I'm trying to get around to what's the purpose of Christian parenting. Is it a means of grace for children? it certainly is more natural that children learn about God from their parents.

(I'm sorry if you don't like my "quote-by-quote" format of answering. I don't want it to seem that I've "got an answer" for everything you say...but I get confused and miss stuff if I don't do it this way.) I'm not sure what you mean by "means of grace." The term seems theologically loaded, and I'm not informed enough to understand what you're getting at. Or, it could be that you're just saying that God, in his grace, has set up the family structure in such a way that parents are the primary "teachers of good things" to their children...that children learn primarily from their parents what God's Word says about himself.

Quote:

GBP and SACH agree that the parent is the the authority. Kimmel says, "Grace does not exclude obedience, respect, boundaries, or discipline, but it does determine the climate in which these important parts of parenting are carried out." (20) Chapter 2 is called "the truth behind grace" and he deals with ungrace (rules w/o grace) and permissiveness (relationships w/o rules) and "cheap grace" as problematical.

practically, another thing i like about gpd people is that they emphasize positive aspects of parenting much, much more. Ch 1 in gbp covers the basic needs of kids that need to be in the forefront: security (from love), significance (from purpose) and strength (from hope). (although ross campbell in relational parenting does a much better job at fleshing this out, not that he is gbd.) I think sach's approach is more that the basic need of a child is to have an authority. I think there is something incomplete in that.

I like Kimmel's thoughts as you've presented them here. It seems to me that material which covers the "basic needs" of children (such as security, significance, and strength) is more psychological than strictly scriptural. Not saying that's a bad thing, unless the framework of parenting which springs from these ideas finds its footing more in this kind of psychology than in scripture. (I'm not against psychology as far as it reflects and resonates with scripture, but being a human science, psychology is not the foundation upon which I want to build my parenting philosophy.)

Quote:

I acutally thought she put her finger on something i was feeling after reading the beginning of sach. It seems to focus a lot more on the child and his sin, although he talks about how this points to the need of a savior, yes. but it's so obedience-focused, which is me and my performace focused in reality. . . . i have thought for most of my life that i was in control of my sancification and it depended on my obedience. I think that is a fatal flaw. it seems that the child should be more filled with the hope found in christ. I can't obey as I should, but christ obeyed for me. that doesn't me i live purposeful or careless disobedience, but it does mean I am free from the requirements of the law/free from the salvific need to obey. God doesnt' get angry at me for disobeying the law.

God says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." This is the only command given to children in the whole Bible. I am sorry for your struggle; as you know, I have one child who I think might tend to struggle with this kind of thing. I've had good talks with him about it, assuring him that nothing he does or does not do will make us love him or accept him as our son any less than we do now. Matt and I have offered him biblically-based, "grace-based" hope in the best way we know how. We do still expect him to obey us. Do you think that your (and his) struggle is unique to people who have been reared in a certain kind of environment, or is it merely an inborn personality trait (like OCD)? Ha! Now I'm the one talking psychologically! Smile You mentioned anger...I don't think that any Christian parenting system OK's anger, do you?

If I could tease out your thoughts a little..."I can't obey as I should, but Christ obeyed for me"...What practical effect does this truth have on my parenting? IOW, how would my practice be any different than yours, considering this aspect of salvation/sanctification? Maybe we could use something that happened in my family today as a case study, to help me understand this. I took our four year old son up to a buffet line to get a brownie for dessert. I told him, "I need to throw away something; please wait for me and don't touch any of the brownies." I saw that he heard me, so I turned my back, threw away my stuff (trash can was just a few feet away), and started back toward the buffet...You guessed it: my son helping himself to a brownie. (Background: since we eat at this place often, he's familiar with the SOP...the reasons we don't want the kids to do this at the buffet; he knew he was supposed to wait...In fact, he had asked me to come up with him b/c he knew he couldn't go alone.)
Now, what would be a "grace-based" response to this situation? (This child is a "normal kid"...not saved yet, but interested.) When we asked him, just to make sure, he admitted that he had heard and understood my reminder not to touch the food, but had just decided to do his own thing.
I apologize for pinning you down, and I realize that parenting entails more than just one response to one isolated situation, but I guess I'm trying to see if we're really all that different in our perspectives/practices. (BTW, I wouldn't consider myself a "Tripp-ite" any more than you'd consider yourself a "Kimmel-ite." I just don't see the problem with Tripp's framework, or how it couldn't work together with and be informed by other concepts. I think of his stuff as pretty basic, not really encompassing "everything a parent needs to know" about parenting.

I thought that some of this was insightful too: [quote=gcm wrote:

First of all, I believe that being human in and of itself puts us makes us all sinners from birth. It's not the fact that children are born into a sin nature that I argue. The assumption that this sin nature is somehow worse in a child - more selfish, more defiant, more rebellious - is simply wrong. Sin is sin in God's eyes. The assumption that discipline can in any way, shape or form affect this sin nature is also wrong.

No, discipline can't affect the sin nature itself...Nothing on earth can. We all carry our sin natures to the grave with us. But I can think of several passages which enjoin believers to discipline themselves, fight against the flesh and the devil, discipline/exercise ourselves toward godliness, etc. Sanctification is obviously not passive, or else why would Scripture be giving us commands like this. I get the feeling that discussions about sanctification often go in circles because they are couched in "all or nothing" terms, depending on a person's particular perspectives, reactions, or personal struggles: it's either "all God" (and anything having to do with human effort is ignored/denied/disparaged) or "all human" (and anything having to do with God's work is de-emphasized). Isn't there middle ground here? Scripture commands obedience (using that exact term, no less, in regard to children and believers), so why should we shy away from it? Scripture also promises grace to obey. Maybe I'm simplistic, but I don't see how this is complicated, or how applying it in parenting is complicated.

Quote:

Mr. Tripp says, "One of the justifications for spanking children is that "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15). The point of the proverb is that something is wrong in the heart of the child that requires correction. The remedy is not solely changing the structure of the home; it is addressing the heart." (pg. 20-1)

Now, this assumption could easily be dealt with by studying that verse in context, in its original language, rather than proof-texting it. However, I'm going to deal with the general principle here, rather than the specific verse. First of all, the heart of every human being who ever has, is, or will be living has something wrong which requires TRANSFORMING, not correction. Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God." Jeremiah 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?" that's a valid point about transformation. and that's really the only way we change--and i realize that it is even beyond my power to do this to myself; i can just open my heart for God to do it and use the means he's given me of bible study, etc.

I think the idea Tripp presents here is that it's not just the outward behavior that has to be dealt with; it's the heart. A child must know that sin is a heart issue, not a surface, "behavior" issue. Yes, the heart needs to be transformed by God...I don't think Tripp views discipline as salvific. I can't address this particular quotation of his, since I don't have the book with me (can't find it), and can't see his remark in context.

Quote:

i'm still a little uncertain about sach's extreme thrust on obedience. like it's the end-all of parenting. "as a parent, you must exercise authority. You must require obedience of your children because they are called by God to obey and honor you." (xviii) "You must require proper behavior. God's law demands that." (5)

Yeah, I don't think of SACH as an exhaustive guide to parenting, either.

Quote:

but what if we turned it around a little: "God, You must exercise authority. You must require obedience of Anne and Julie because You have called them to obey and honor You. You must require their proper behavior. Your law demands that. You cannot, however be satisfied to leave the matter there. . . . How did their hearts stray to produce this [sinful] behavior? In what characteristic ways has their inability or refusal to know, trust, and obey You resulted in actions and speech that are wrong?" (rewording of p xviii and 5) And if that is God's parenting of me and you, then we are in a heap of trouble.

Yeah, as Aaron said earlier, I don't think this is a valid comparison. According to Scripture, God obviously wants, expects, and enables us to obey him. Unlike human parents, he already knows our hearts inside and out, and works in our hearts in ways that no human can (indeed, using the knowledge of how our hearts have strayed). He is not limited, as human parents are. He chastens us, according to Hebrews 12.

I don't necessarily like Tripp's use of "the law," as I think that can be confusing. But, again, I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't see his remarks in context.

Quote:

You say, yes, that's where the gospel comes in; that's the point of this. OK, but what's the end of the Gospel, so that we can obey God? Obedience is what God wants? . . . No, i really dont' think that is the end point of the gospel. I think obeying in what we believe is crucial to God. But our works and obedience are fruit, imperfect, and good only in as much as God does it through us.

So, obedience (which affects fellowship/relationship) is not what God desires?

Quote:

But let's look at it this way:

"God, You have made Anne and Julie free because Christ met the full demands of Your law's requirements. He has lived on their behalf a perfectly obedient life. When they disobey, there are consequences, but You are with them still; You will never punish, judge, accuse, or abandon them for their sins or mistakes. You fill them up with security, significance and strength. As they abide in Christ, You transform them and work out in them the good fruits of Your will.

Just as Tripp perhaps leaves out some important ideas, I see this perspective as off balance on the other end. Must it be either/or? And, more practically, what difference would this perspective make in the "buffet scenario" I described above?

ETA: I know this post is full of grammatical and syntactical errors...I am going to be lazy and not fix them. Also, this post probably doesn't flow very well. I started it this morning...worked on it five minutes here and there...and finally finished it this evening. My apologies if any of these errors confuse the readers!

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Susan R wrote: I usually only
Susan R wrote:

I usually only read parenting books to review them, not to absorb them for myself necessarily. It's interesting to see how different people apply the same Scripture in different ways, and it tells me that I have that same liberty to teach my children as the individuals they are in a manner consistent with what we believe Scripture teaches; either by commandment, principle, or suggestion. So we have some commandments that are clearly directed at the responsibilities of parents and the expectations of children. We have examples, both good and bad to glean from, and we play 'connect-the-dots' so to speak in ways that lead us to believe that other things are implied, or at least that what we are doing is not a violation of Scripture.

The OP is just such an exercise- parents who chose an educational method that they believed was most beneficial to their family, and now- as both parents and children have changed- a different solution has presented itself, and they are going to take advantage of it. But nowhere should it be said that all families should homeschool for life, or only for elementary and then put in traditional school for their high school years, or classical education is superior... it's the decision making process that is IMO most beneficial, not always the conclusion.

I haven't read the blogs that Anne linked to- I'm not interested in anti-spanking rhetoric. Julie's assessment is consistent with what I've experienced when reading similar blogs- arguments tend to be weak and emotional and seldom based on comparing Scripture with Scripture. I think we'd all be better off reading the Bible more and parenting books less.

Susan, you've made a valiant effort to get this thread back on topic, while Anne and I seem determined to keep hijacking it! I agree about parenting books; I've read a number of different perspectives, especially in my early years of motherhood; let's see..Tripp, Clarkson, Fleming, Scott, Ezzo, Priolo, Fugate, Pearl (!), Campbell, Dobson, Bradley, Whelchel, Farris, Vision Forum, and probably others which I can't remember now. It has been a while since I've cracked any parenting books open. As you've said, the best idea, hands down, is to stick with Scripture. As I've been telling Anne, my recollection of SACH is that it seemed like one of the most truly biblical and reasonable of all the parenting books I've read, in that it doesn't seem to have an agenda, or present gimmicky stuff like "five step formulas" and "biblical schedules," and it doesn't claim a faddish label, or make sensational promises. It just takes the Scriptures about the parent/child relationship and applies them. Maybe I don't remember enough about it. I'll be interested to hear more from Anne. In a couple of weeks I'll get a refresher course, since we'll be discussing the videos in SS.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
brownie scenario

i need to do this in fits and starts, so i'll answer the brownie question.

I would walk up to Vika and get down on her level. I would say, "Vika, when you disobey, there are consequences." as I'm taking the brownie plate away. "I'm sorry, but because you disobeyed mommy, you're not going to have a brownie today." (this goes for any desert at all, if she asks.) . . . as i'm holding her, carrying her back to the table . . . "God wants to bless you with happy things, but when we disobey, He can't do that."

In this particular case, I would also do this (I dont' always do this): "Vika, when you have consequences for disobeying, Jesus is with you and feels the sad part too. And Mommy is going to have your consequences with you, too, so I won't have desert either."

I would be holding her and comforting her. But . . . no desert.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
further insights
Julie Herbster wrote:

God says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." This is the only command given to children in the whole Bible. I am sorry for your struggle; as you know, I have one child who I think might tend to struggle with this kind of thing. I've had good talks with him about it, assuring him that nothing he does or does not do will make us love him or accept him as our son any less than we do now. Matt and I have offered him biblically-based, "grace-based" hope in the best way we know how. We do still expect him to obey us. Do you think that your (and his) struggle is unique to people who have been reared in a certain kind of environment, or is it merely an inborn personality trait (like OCD)? Ha! Now I'm the one talking psychologically! Smile You mentioned anger...I don't think that any Christian parenting system OK's anger, do you?

you know, it's very interesting. I was a very compliant child. It was very important to me to obey authority. I didn't push the rules, etc. If my parents, school, etc said to do something, then that was from God to me. And my parents are very gracious, non-overbearing people.

but i think that because it was easy for me to obey, that it actually fed my flesh and didn't moritfy it. that's one reason why i am concerned with this emphasis on obedience. When I moved to another country, got married, had kids, i was shocked at myself, the horrible monster that arose in me. That had always been there, of course. but certain things that were my weaknesses were not apparent or obvious b/c i was concerned to obey my authorities.

At the same time I wanted to please authority, I had this sense of God as my jugde, of his anger with me and my sin. Again, focus on my performance. And this wasn't engendered by my parents, it's just my spiritual make up.

Julie Herbster wrote:

No, discipline can't affect the sin nature itself...Nothing on earth can. We all carry our sin natures to the grave with us. But I can think of several passages which enjoin believers to discipline themselves, fight against the flesh and the devil, discipline/exercise ourselves toward godliness, etc. Sanctification is obviously not passive, or else why would Scripture be giving us commands like this. I get the feeling that discussions about sanctification often go in circles because they are couched in "all or nothing" terms, depending on a person's particular perspectives, reactions, or personal struggles: it's either "all God" (and anything having to do with human effort is ignored/denied/disparaged) or "all human" (and anything having to do with God's work is de-emphasized). Isn't there middle ground here? Scripture commands obedience (using that exact term, no less, in regard to children and believers), so why should we shy away from it? Scripture also promises grace to obey. Maybe I'm simplistic, but I don't see how this is complicated, or how applying it in parenting is complicated.

i guess i see it a little more complicated. i dont' want to make obedience a self-defeating or self-promoting concept for my kids. what I want them to have, in the end, is the desire to obey and the contact with the aspects of the Trinity that allow obedience to bear fruit. I'm not trying to get semantical here. for example, if obedience is my end goal, what have i accomplished? my children will never perfectly obey me or God. So while i do teach them to obey, there is a certain Christ-centered answer or hope that has to be given, not child-centered-obedience hope. this is subtle. Christ is the root of obedience, and it's not just that he was punished for my disobedience. it's something a lot deeper about Him already living the obedience of the law for me. I dont know much beyond that at this point.

keller and tripp are alike in several ways. they both discuss wrong goals and methods of parenting. they both emphasize the time, sacrifice, and closeness parents need to give out for their kids.

About God as parent, i think, on the other hand, that God is our example of how to parent.

more to say, but for another post. . . .

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Anne Sokol wrote:i need to
Anne Sokol wrote:

i need to do this in fits and starts, so i'll answer the brownie question.

I would walk up to Vika and get down on her level. I would say, "Vika, when you disobey, there are consequences." as I'm taking the brownie plate away. "I'm sorry, but because you disobeyed mommy, you're not going to have a brownie today." (this goes for any desert at all, if she asks.) . . . as i'm holding her, carrying her back to the table . . . "God wants to bless you with happy things, but when we disobey, He can't do that."

In this particular case, I would also do this (I dont' always do this): "Vika, when you have consequences for disobeying, Jesus is with you and feels the sad part too. And Mommy is going to have your consequences with you, too, so I won't have desert either."

I would be holding her and comforting her. But . . . no desert.

Thanks. This helps me understand the practical implications of your theoretical perspective. Here's how we handled the situation (and, yes, it's a bit different). The buffet was too crowded/noisy for me to talk with JonJon right away, so I waited until after we sat down to make sure he had heard me, etc. Like you, we (his dad, really) got down on his level and asked him questions to make sure we were right about what he was thinking. He's a big kid for age four, so I can't really carry him anymore, but I did have my arm around him and was holding his hand as we talked. Our conversation pretty much went the same way yours did. (Maybe not to the extent yours did at this particular instance, but I think the spirit was the same. And we often talk (in discipline situations) about God's blessings being a result of obedience...except--and I wonder if this is significant--I tend more to talk about "being happy inside" and "being sad inside," and "obeying God because we love Him," because I don't want them to expect showers of blessings, or obey just for "prizes from God," etc.) We both expressed sadness that he was going to lose his brownie...and he did get a spanking when he got home, which was about 10 minutes later. (That has been our agreed consequence for direct defiance.)

I'm not sure about the "sharing consequences." Do you do that to present a picture that Christ died for us, "sharing in our consequences"? Or is it to comfort the child? What scriptural principle(s) come into play here? What leads you to believe that God/Jesus suffers through our exact consequences with us when he chastens us? Would simply expressing heartfelt sadness be more like (or at least communicate the same idea as) the compassion God has for us? In the above scenario, neither Matt nor I had gotten a brownie, anyway...or maybe Matt had already eaten his.

Anyway, thanks again for thinking through this. I really do suspect that we are more alike than different.

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Quote:[you know, it's very
Quote:

[you know, it's very interesting. I was a very compliant child. It was very important to me to obey authority. I didn't push the rules, etc. If my parents, school, etc said to do something, then that was from God to me. And my parents are very gracious, non-overbearing people.

but i think that because it was easy for me to obey, that it actually fed my flesh and didn't moritfy it. that's one reason why i am concerned with this emphasis on obedience. When I moved to another country, got married, had kids, i was shocked at myself, the horrible monster that arose in me. That had always been there, of course. but certain things that were my weaknesses were not apparent or obvious b/c i was concerned to obey my authorities.

At the same time I wanted to please authority, I had this sense of God as my jugde, of his anger with me and my sin. Again, focus on my performance. And this wasn't engendered by my parents, it's just my spiritual make up.

Thanks for your transparency, Anne. I think I understand what you are saying. I wonder if various "horrible monsters" rear their heads in everyone to some extent as they become independent from parents and other external authority structures...For example, I remember struggling when, all of a sudden, the structure that had always been built into my life in high school and college was gone, and I was newly married, "on my own." What had seemed easy (quiet time with God, "being nice" to people, fulfilling the obligations of my authorities, etc.) in high school and at university was all of a sudden not easy anymore as I shared my house with a husband (who didn't turn out to be perfect, after all) and, later, kids and more kids. My selfishness and stubbornness (that have always been in my heart) are still constantly being revealed in new and ugly ways. I remember being surprised before I got used to it...I'm really not the "homecoming queen," the "honor student," and the "who's who" I thought I was. Painful discovery, but understandable, and indicative of a more mature perspective. I think that (in my case, anyway) this is just the process of "growing up" in the Lord, and is not due to any defects in my upbringing that could have been remedied in any way. I don't know...I could be wrong. My parents were actually pretty permissive, not letter-of-the-law people...We had very few rules (OK, I can't remember any actual hard-and-fast "rules"), but my sister and I loved and obeyed our parents.

Quote:

i guess i see it a little more complicated. i dont' want to make obedience a self-defeating or self-promoting concept for my kids.

Oh, neither do I!

Quote:

what I want them to have, in the end, is the desire to obey and the contact with the aspects of the Trinity that allow obedience to bear fruit. I'm not trying to get semantical here. for example, if obedience is my end goal, what have i accomplished? my children will never perfectly obey me or God. So while i do teach them to obey, there is a certain Christ-centered answer or hope that has to be given, not child-centered-obedience hope. this is subtle. Christ is the root of obedience, and it's not just that he was punished for my disobedience. it's something a lot deeper about Him already living the obedience of the law for me. I dont know much beyond that at this point.

I'm with you, Anne, in general. This is where ideas that are not addressed in SACH come in. (But I seem to remember Tripp talking like this; maybe not, though. Wish I had the book here.) I'll just say that I really benefited from reading SACH, and have always thought of the obedience emphasis as basic/foundational, but not exhaustive. A child who doesn't understand obedience/disobedience is in no position to understand grace and other things we need to teach them.

Quote:

About God as parent, i think, on the other hand, that God is our example of how to parent.

I don't know if I agree with this idea...Right now I think along the same lines as Aaron described earlier:

Quote:

First, the Bible does not command us to parent our children like God "parents" us. Second, even if we accept that idea as a premise, what does it mean to parent like God parents? Grace occurs in the context of law and condemnation. There can be no grace without guilt first. So we see two general headings for God's grace:
a. Common grace: He sends rain (as blessing) on the just and the unjust, though the unjust do not deserve it (and really the "just" don't either). This expresses God's immensely generous nature.
b. Special grace: He offers forgiveness to the repentant.

So how would these apply to parenting? Well, certainly we ought to be generous as parents. And certainly we ought to forgive when our children are repentant. But the latter cannot occur apart from an environment where there are clearly communicated requirements, i.e., law. Grace happens after law is violated. (Much modern confusion exists on this point, supposing that grace is a new law-free way of relating to God, but this is not true. God still commands and requires but grace enters as a way of dealing with our failures.)

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
Julie Herbster wrote: I'm not
Julie Herbster wrote:

I'm not sure about the "sharing consequences." Do you do that to present a picture that Christ died for us, "sharing in our consequences"? Or is it to comfort the child? What scriptural principle(s) come into play here? What leads you to believe that God/Jesus suffers through our exact consequences with us when he chastens us? Would simply expressing heartfelt sadness be more like (or at least communicate the same idea as) the compassion God has for us? In the above scenario, neither Matt nor I had gotten a brownie, anyway...or maybe Matt had already eaten his.

Anyway, thanks again for thinking through this. I really do suspect that we are more alike than different.

i actually have never read about this anywhere, it's just something vitaliy and i do sometimes when we are disciplining our kids. because christ is still with us when we are in the consequences of our sin. so we want to show our children that we are with them when they are suffering from the wrong they've done. also, that their choices will have effects on others in their lives.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
more stuff

we probably do have a lot of similarities Smile i have a friend who's done sach for yrs (tripp was their pastor and did their premarital counseling), and there are felt differences. and i am certainly not any professional at gbd. i make mistakes a lot and am a ungracious person still. Learning, learning . . . .

Julie Herbster wrote:
Quote:

About God as parent, i think, on the other hand, that God is our example of how to parent.

I don't know if I agree with this idea...Right now I think along the same lines as Aaron described earlier:

Quote:

First, the Bible does not command us to parent our children like God "parents" us. Second, even if we accept that idea as a premise, what does it mean to parent like God parents? Grace occurs in the context of law and condemnation. There can be no grace without guilt first. So we see two general headings for God's grace:
a. Common grace: He sends rain (as blessing) on the just and the unjust, though the unjust do not deserve it (and really the "just" don't either). This expresses God's immensely generous nature.
b. Special grace: He offers forgiveness to the repentant.

So how would these apply to parenting? Well, certainly we ought to be generous as parents. And certainly we ought to forgive when our children are repentant. But the latter cannot occur apart from an environment where there are clearly communicated requirements, i.e., law. Grace happens after law is violated. (Much modern confusion exists on this point, supposing that grace is a new law-free way of relating to God, but this is not true. God still commands and requires but grace enters as a way of dealing with our failures.)

smile Laughing out loud I'm reading a book called Parenting the Way God Parents by Katherine Koonce. God does call himself our father and he compares aspects of his relationship to us as a mother. So i think there are very valid connections or parallels we are allowed to draw between our parenting and God's parenting of us.

i've read a lot more in sach and gbp, and the thrust of sach, which im sure you know already, is that 1. parents are the authority. 2. authority is as a shepherd. 3. shepherding is done through communication and the rod.

i don't agree with his rod part, and i think it unbiblically binds the consciences of parents to believe that you must spank in every occasion as he describes. Ross Campbell has a healthier view of this how/when to spank, imo. But we probably part ways there. I think, too, that we can, in certain circumstances give our kids options to disobey or do what displeases us, which tripp would probably not agree with. "I want you to have a great time,but you can choose to obey and have abc, or choose to disobey and have xyz." We do that on rare occasions. i'm not into the first-time obedience per sach, either.

but i think sach's good emphasis on spending time with kids and not being a selfish, angry power-monger is great.

i like what you said about the blessings b/c really God still does bless us in certain ways when we sin, and we shouldn't obey for selfish reasons, like you said.

GBD/keller has this rubric: combine safety (he describes safe and unsafe love), purpose (significance), and strength (hope), (each has a chapter) with the freedoms to be different, vulnerable, candid and make mistakes (each with a chapter). im not sure he even talks about spanking; he does talk about punitive parenting in there, but more in the overbearing, exasperating sense.

i am still trying to figure things out when ppl ask about grace-based parenting or what b/c there are aspects of it that i myself to not understand or know how to put into words, so it's interesting talking about it.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Area of real need

This thread has stirred me that there is a real area of need here. Some folks to read several of these books and evaluate them thoroughly from a biblical standpoint and historical standpoint. It's important to do both because much of what we're talking about is applicational and applications are heavily influenced by cultural factors... which is its strength and its weakness. There is much more of the human in it.

As for the topic wander in the thread here, not a big deal, but once it's run it's course, we may want to take posts number whatever through whatever and put them in a diff. thread.... so it's easier to find in the future or easier to continue.

Let me throw this into the current discussion, though. Do we need the Holy Spirit to parent well? This may seem like a shocking question. But stick with me a second or two. I'll ask the same question a little different way: can unbelievers raise unbelieving children and "parent well"?

The question is important because parenting involves both special grace and common grace, and has overlapping objectives between homes of believers and homes of unbelievers.
When it comes to building character (the virtues), unbelievers can do this--and it's to all our benefit if they do because our kids and theirs etc. (until Christ returns) will have to grow up and live somewhere. A decent society is a way better place to live than a decadent lawless one.
So if we accept the premise that "character" can be built via the parenting process without born again parents or regenerate children or a direct ministry of the Holy Spirit, what methods do that? Whatever they are, they are common grace.

Put that question hold and contrast the task of the Christian parent.
As believing parents we want to do more than build character. But we do want to build character. The huge difference is that we want to build faith. We want our kids to believe and be made new. And having been born again, we want them to grow in "the virtues" as Christ sanctifies them through His word. So we are called to a higher goal and also called to avail ourselves of Special Grace, not merely Common Grace.

To bring the case of the unbelieving parent and the believing parent together: Does God normally expect us to "rely on Him" to do what He has already provided the means for us to do "ourselves"? That is, does He expect us to seek Special Grace from Him in order to do what He has already given Common Grace to us to do?
(As an extreme and kind of silly example, does God expect me to pray that He will levitate me across the street when I can simiply walk?)

So really, our task as believing parents is find out what we have in common grace and what we have in special grace and employ the two wisely. When it comes to parenting, there is much "wisdom of the ages" in the realm of Common Grace. Boatloads of stuff that works pretty well whether you are a pagan or a devout Christian.
Nothing in the realm of God's Special Grace is going to contradict what He has provided in Common Grace (though we actually work in the reverse order to tell which is which: that is, we go to revelation and use what we find to narrow down what is wise and good from other sources).

I'm getting long and complex here, but need to focus it just a wee bit more before I can rest. Smile
When it comes to Special Grace and the higher goals of Christian parenting, how much is there that human parents can really do? That is, if we're going to look at how sanctification works, it's the people of God, the Spirit of God and the Word of God He employs to transform us (and our children) into His image. We cannot make them believe. We cannot make them yield to the Spirit's convicting voice. We can expose them to the Scriptures and the fellowship of believers, but ultimately, they will have to decide whether to be "open" to these things and seek them on their own.

What I'm suggesting here is that the margin between what God has given us as parents in Common Grace and what He has given in Special Grace may not be as immense as many writers of books assume. Most of the unique goals of Christian parenting are beyond our reach to produce. We can influence and nurture, but not create.
To put it another way, when it comes to what parents actually have the power to do, perhaps 90% of it is in the realm of Common Grace and only 10% in the realm of Special.

In any case, I think it's really, really important not to quickly dismiss what parents have understood about parenting for centuries and which has only recently become controversial. It may be that just about all of what God has to say to us about parenting was correctly understood millennia ago and that modern tweaking is actually departing from the wisdom He gave us.

Julie Herbster
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Jun 8 2009
Posts: 50
Quote:Put that question hold
Quote:

Put that question hold and contrast the task of the Christian parent.
As believing parents we want to do more than build character. But we do want to build character. The huge difference is that we want to build faith. We want our kids to believe and be made new. And having been born again, we want them to grow in "the virtues" as Christ sanctifies them through His word. So we are called to a higher goal and also called to avail ourselves of Special Grace, not merely Common Grace.

To bring the case of the unbelieving parent and the believing parent together: Does God normally expect us to "rely on Him" to do what He has already provided the means for us to do "ourselves"? That is, does He expect us to seek Special Grace from Him in order to do what He has already given Common Grace to us to do?
(As an extreme and kind of silly example, does God expect me to pray that He will levitate me across the street when I can simiply walk?)

I was following you up until this point...and then I think you lost me. I don't think that all unsaved parents have equal "dosages" of common grace to parent well. IOW, using your funny example, not ALL people are given the ability to walk across the street. Many stumble across the street, and many get hit by a car in the process, or cross the wrong street and get lost, or don't even try to start across the street (failing altogether). So, is the kind of grace you are describing here really and truly "common grace?" Or is it just some people being informed/well bred/smart and others being uninformed/poorly brought up/dumb? IOW, let's say that, as an unregenerate person, I would have been one of those who was not given the common grace to parent well...I would have stumbled and gotten hit. I wouldn't have valued the right character traits, or understood how to produce them in my kids even if I did value them. I was an angry person, or perhaps an alcoholic. So, what does that mean for me now as a regenerate person? I'm not equipped by "common grace" to parent well. I need some kind of help. What shape will that help take? Will it be under "common grace" or "special grace"? You might answer that my help will come by eventually learning the "common grace" stuff that is available to everyone...like "pragmatic and practical parenting techniques" or something. But what enables me to learn those things, since I was unable to understand them or assimilate them, and/or was resistant to them as an unregenerate person?

Quote:

What I'm suggesting here is that the margin between what God has given us as parents in Common Grace and what He has given in Special Grace may not be as immense as many writers of books assume. Most of the unique goals of Christian parenting are beyond our reach to produce. We can influence and nurture, but not create.
To put it another way, when it comes to what parents actually have the power to do, perhaps 90% of it is in the realm of Common Grace and only 10% in the realm of Special.

Again, I'm not sure that all people are given the common grace to parent well. For the person I described above (the formerly unregenerate "me" who has not received the common grace to parent), it's going to take a whole lot more than 10% special grace to make me a successful parent. I've never thought about this before this moment (so thanks for being thought-provoking), but I'm thinking now that everything a Christian does is either "in the Spirit" or "in the flesh", IOW, all of the right things that we do are enabled by the Holy Spirit and therefore are in the realm of special grace...because we are enabled to do everything in a way that pleases God, whereas before salvation, nothing we did could please him. And, all of the things that are done "in the flesh" are not enabled by the Holy Spirit. So, the whole common grace vs. special grace comparison seems confusing to me, and irrelevant. Again, I'm just now thinking through this, so help me understand what I'm missing.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
some thoughts

I have been thinking about this a lot, as i have been reading sach and gbp. First, Aaron, I understand what you are saying, but when i try to think in terms of common and special regarding parenting issues, i end up confusing myself. There certainly are common elements of good parenting that are not limited only to believers, but how to categorize this eludes me. Part of the prob is that we can't always judge the quality of the parenting by the outcome.

About Shepherding a Child's Heart, I love Tripp's stuff about communication and his obvious love for his kids. I do see a few overriding ideas that are a little troubling to me, and I'll type them out briefly here.

1. Parents must use the rod (to him this is always spanking) in each case of disobedience or they (the parents) are in disobedience to God. I.e., God commands parents to spank and in every case.

2. Spanking (the rod) has power from God that no other form of discipline has to change a child's heart. I would go farther and say that he gives the spanking some level of salvific power as he constantly repeats that it saves him from death.

3. The child must be spanked in order to return to favor (the place of blessing). No other form of discipline (or just repentance) is capable of this.

Quote:

The rod returns the child to the place of blessing. p 115 under section "The Fruit of the Rod"

This troubles me most b/c it teaches the child that he must be punished in order to return to fellowship. And I would argue that returning to the place of blessing isn't so much what a parent wants, as much as we want our child to repent. He talks very little of repentance. Anyway, I'm just not sure of the biblicalness of his paradigm here.

anyway, there are many excellent things in the book and i'm glad i reread it! those are just a few concerns i have about what he's communicating.

also, i have another thought, but no time to get to it now, maybe later.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Julie Herbster wrote: I was
Julie Herbster wrote:

I was following you up until this point...and then I think you lost me. I don't think that all unsaved parents have equal "dosages" of common grace to parent well. IOW, using your funny example, not ALL people are given the ability to walk across the street. Many stumble across the street, and many get hit by a car in the process, or cross the wrong street and get lost, or don't even try to start across the street (failing altogether). So, is the kind of grace you are describing here really and truly "common grace?" Or is it just some people being informed/well bred/smart and others being uninformed/poorly brought up/dumb?

Good question. I don't think I was clear on that point. First, I'm not sure that "common grace" has to mean that absolutely everybody has it, because the ability to walk is a case of common grace even though some don't have that ability. So "common grace" is kind of a catch all for blessing God bestows widely regardless of a persons standing as righteous or wicked (to use sort of OT categories) or regenerate/unregenerate.
Second, what I mean by "common grace" in this case is mostly the grace of information. The ideas are "out there" accessible to just about everybody. But yes, there are people groups who have not had the influences others have had and are isolated, etc.
I've heard of tribal groups where the village raises each child and nobody even bothers to keep track of who the actual parent(s) are. It's not hard to imagine the disadvantages of that, though some fiction writers think it's the coolest thing ever. Anyway, in its isolation, the tribe does not have access to the parenting principles that are easily found in "western civilization."

So what I'm suggesting is that it may be that the bulk of "good parenting" information may be available to the just and the unjust and that much of it also is in the realm of general revelation rather than Scripture.
It may be that 'common grace' isn't the best term. But I'm talking about something that unregenerate people have the ability to do if they avail themselves of the information... and though much of the information originated from Scripture, it's now "all over the place" and can be arrived at through reason as well.

Julie wrote:

IOW, let's say that, as an unregenerate person, I would have been one of those who was not given the common grace to parent well...I would have stumbled and gotten hit. I wouldn't have valued the right character traits, or understood how to produce them in my kids even if I did value them. I was an angry person, or perhaps an alcoholic.

Well it's possible (even likely) that all the information is right in front you in that scenario, and you choose to ignore it.
To use the rain example, in common grace God sends rain to the just and the unjust, but He doesn't plow the field and plant the seed for them. So it's possible that the rain falls on more weeds than seeds. But the grace of the rain is still there. (And the grace of the information that cultivation is required is also freely available)

Julie wrote:

So, what does that mean for me now as a regenerate person? I'm not equipped by "common grace" to parent well. I need some kind of help. What shape will that help take? Will it be under "common grace" or "special grace"? You might answer that my help will come by eventually learning the "common grace" stuff that is available to everyone...like "pragmatic and practical parenting techniques" or something. But what enables me to learn those things, since I was unable to understand them or assimilate them, and/or was resistant to them as an unregenerate person?

Again, appreciate the questions. It's true (and overlooked) that when people become believers they don't all have the same starting point when it comes to character and Christian living. Some may already have years of living well ordered, moral lives because Christians ideas were liberally distributed in their environments growing up, etc. Others come to Christ a complete mess. Of course, we're all a complete mess in terms of merit or our real nature, but not equally a mess in our conduct or beliefs.
So will the one who comes to the faith a complete mess learn parenting under common grace or special? Well, part of my larger point is that we should make full use of both.
It's folly to reject the wisdom God has "rained" on the general population and try to come up with an approach to parenting that is only doable by regenerate people with regenerate children.
I do believe that believers have profoundly different parenting goals, ultimately. But those goals kind of subsume all the "good parenting for everybody" type goals and redefine their ultimate purpose (the glory of God, the redemption of His chosen). But the common grace stuff still works for believers even while believers have the additional "resources" of the people of God, word of God and Spirit of God to accomplish both sets of goals (the "all good parents everywhere" goals and the unique "Christian parenting" goals).

And there can certainly be overlap between common grace and special grace. Even though we can reason with an unbeliever that he ought to quit doing drugs (the wisdom of that is pretty common grace stuff), the same guy could come to Christ and now have the indwelling Spirit. The result is that the same reasoning we gave him for quitting drugs is still true and he has even more reason to believe it and try it, but he has additional reasons for quitting drugs that he didn't have before.
But the common grace/general revelation in the equation is never reversed by the special grace/special revelation. They function separately or together but are never at odds because they are both Gods gifts.

That's the relevance I'm trying to bring out. Folks who write books about parenting that ignore or even reject what has worked well for centuries in favor of a theoretical strategy that can only work for believers are, IMO, barking up the wrong tree.
Instead, we ought to take everything Scripture offers and apply it along with everything wisdom offers and give the wisdom of the past a generous role in informing any new strategies that we come up with today.
I'm just deeply skeptical that the nature of children or the nature of adults has changed a whole lot since Cain and Abel. So how much "new" teaching of value could there possibly be now, some 5 thousand years later?

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5090
Tripp on the rod

Anne, FWIW, I disagree w/Tripp about spanking, assuming his views are as you've understood them.
I think understanding what a Proverb is pretty much eliminates "always" from the picture. Proverbs do not express what we should do or what will happen in every case (for example how many Proverbs express the principle that the wise prosper and fools fall into poverty? But the rest of Scripture is clear that this is a rule of thumb, not an absolute promise. All Proverbs work that way.)
So the "rod" principle is that are times when we can and must use pain (and sometimes physical pain) as a teaching and habit forming/character building tool. I don't personally think use of pain in these ways has a whole lot to do with the "heart" directly. But it does supplement the heart-work that happens before and after it--which is the teaching and preaching.

But it sounds like Tripp highly values consistency and I do think he's on the right track there. If kids always know what will happen if they do X, I think that's hugely helpful even if "what will happen" isn't all that well thought through (obviously better yet if it is well thought through!).

I haven't read his case for the idea that spanking has some special power over the heart, but I suspect there must be some pretty major leaps going on there. I don't know of any Scripture that makes that connection. Maybe somebody can post the essence of his argument on that. I'm curious.

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
obedience

Well, I sat down today with Martin Luther's article Concerning Christian Liberty, part 3, and I wrote out the gist of what I want my kids to understand about obedience. The reading of the actual tract is excellent, but it is extremely deep and this type of thread is not really condusive to heavy reading. If wanted, i can paste some of his actual thoughts here.

A letter to my child, to be discussed throughout your young life, on why you should obey me:

Dear child:

You should obey Mommy and Daddy because God commands and desires it of you. Christ has alreay completed your obedience--He lived a perfect life that is now accounted to you, and He died to be punished for the sins (of disobedience, etc) that you do.

This is vital for you to believe--that in Christ, God is perfectly satisfied with you. You are free now to serve God with joy and love, not out of any fear.

Being in Christ means that you are now a servant, like Christ was for you. And this is the main way God has asked you to serve right now--by obeying your parents.

And this obedience takes work, but God has put His Spirit in you to help you and give you power. You won't ever be perfect, but God will forgive you when you fail, and the more you understand your faith in Christ, the more God's power will be in you to obey.

love,
mom

OK, that's as far as I got.

Charlie
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 824
A Luther Mom?

Anne,

I know nothing about parenting, but the thought that there is a mom in this world reading Luther and thinking about parenting makes me smile. This quote seems appropriate:

I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.
Martin Luther

__________________

My Blog: www.sacredpage.wordpress.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
power of the rod

Kids are asleep and Vitaliy's on the train to Kharkov, so I have a little midnight oil to burn here.

Aaron Blumer wrote:

I haven't read his case for the idea that spanking has some special power over the heart, but I suspect there must be some pretty major leaps going on there. I don't know of any Scripture that makes that connection. Maybe somebody can post the essence of his argument on that. I'm curious.

Chapter 11 "Embracing Biblical Methods: The Rod" [the two Biblical methods according to Tripp are 1)communication and 2) the rod.]

Quote:

God has ordained the rod of discipline for this condition [foolishness bound in a child's heart]. The spanking process (undertain in a biblical manner set forth in chapter 15) drives foolishness from the heart of a child. Confrontatino with the immedieate adn undeniably tactile sensation of a spanking renders an implacable child sweet. I have seen this principle hold true countless times. The young child who is refusing to be under authority is in a place of grave danger.

The rod is given for this extremity. "Punish him [a child] with the rod and save his soul from death" (Proverbs 24:14). Your children's souls are in danger of death--spiritual death. Your task is to rescue your children from death. Faithful and timely use of the rod is the means of rescue.

This places the rod in its proper setting. Use of the rod is not a matter of an angry parent venting his wrath upon a small, helpless child. The rod is wielded by a faithful parent, recognizing his child's dangerous state, employing a God-given remedy. the issue is not a parental insistence on beign obeyed: the issue is the child's need to be rescued from death--the death that results from rebellion left unchallenged in the heart.

. . . God has commanded the use of the rod in discipline and correction of children. It is not the only thing you do, but it must be used. He has told you taht there are needs within your children that require the use of the rod. If you are goign to rescue your children from death, if you are going to root out the folly taht is bound up in their hearts, if you are going to impart wisdom, you must use the rod.

The rod is a parent . . . thus rescuing his child from continuing in foolishness until death. . . .

The use of the rod is an act of faith. God has mandated it's use. The parent obeys . . . because God has commanded it. The use of the rod is a profound expression of confidence in God's wisdom and the excellency of His command. . . . Recognizing that in discipline there is hope, refusing to be a willing party to his child's death, the parent undertakes the task [Anne: i.e., of spanking]. It is an expression of love and commitment. . . . I knew that failure to spank would be unfaithfulness to their souls.

. . . It [the rod] is the parent determining to obey. It is the parent, as God's representative, undertaking on God's behalf what God has called him to do. He is not on his own errand, but fulfilling God's.

. . . The rod is a rescue mission. The child who needs a spanking has become distanced from his parents through disobedience. The spanking is designed to rescue the child from continuing in his foolishness. if he continues, his doom is certain. The, the parent, driven by love for the child, must use the rod.

pp. 106-110

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
I *heart* M. Luther
Charlie wrote:

Anne,

I know nothing about parenting, but the thought that there is a mom in this world reading Luther and thinking about parenting makes me smile. This quote seems appropriate:

I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.
Martin Luther

Vitaliy started me on this tract, and it came at a time in my life when I was really thirsty for God's grace in my mothering. So what I wrote to my child, I probably wrote first to myself:

. . . God is perfectly satisfied with me as a mom. Though I will always fail, Christ was already the perfect mom on my behalf. The more I understand my faith in Christ, the more I will have power to be the mom God wants me to be. . . .

Now, my challenge is, as Luther says, how to "increase this faith till it be perfected" and hopefully bring my children along in that process.

Laughing out loud you prob'ly know more about parenting than you think.