Parenting

Parental theory has undergone a paradigmatic shift in the last half century or so. Older baby-boomers in particular bear witness to the wide pendulum swing in our society’s prevailing opinion concerning acceptable parental expectations for children.

Older Americans remember maxims of the bygone era to the effect that children were “to be seen and not heard,” and were “not to speak [to an adult] unless spoken to,” and then only with deference and respect. In stark contrast, the prevailing persuasion of our times is that children are to speak whenever they wish, and to say just about whatever they want, whenever they choose to say it.

Some will remember a day when calling one’s parents by their first names was to risk great bodily harm. I remember the braggadocio of the bravest rebels of my peer group who dared, in a moment of unbridled irreverence, to launch such a sortie against parental authority. But today, increasing numbers of parents invite such first-name familiarity as an expression of their freedom from the dictates of authoritarianism.

In the older era, parents tended to unabashedly make decisions for their children. They set firm rules and enforced them—often harshly by today’s standards. They regularly told their children “No,” and suffered little embarrassment from doing so.

With rare exception, parents are not wound nearly so tight these days. The prevailing culture encourages parents to regularly defer to their children’s opinion, to withhold as little as possible, to keep rules to a scant minimum, and to specialize in overlooking or downplaying infractions. Children may be taught good manners, but only by way of gentle suggestion. Parents have generally evolved past the primitive days of asserting and enforcing strict standards of behavior for their children. read more

Spring is close at hand! Though the winter was mild, we find ourselves yearning to shake the bonds of our winter domiciles and romp free in a sun-bathed world of lush vegetation and balmy temperatures. The heavens locked in wintry gray are already giving way to azure skies arrayed with billowing clouds of cottony-white. This means that prime exploration season is just around the corner!

I now refer to excursions into nature as “field trips.” Years ago I referred to them as “family vacation.” But with three teens and a tween in our home, I’ve learned the importance of truth in advertising. The kids protested that dad’s definition of “vacation” left scant room for lazy repose and frivolous entertainment. Our so-called “vacations” were chock-full of things like forced marches, challenging sleeping conditions, and unmitigated exposure to fresh air and rugged earth. Guilty as charged! So I changed the nomenclature to “field trips,” which I contend offer substantial benefits. Tremendous rewards accrue to those willing to leave behind the hustle and bustle of everyday life and explore the wild wonders of nature.

God’s glory

First, exploring nature is a singular means of witnessing the glory of the God who created heaven and earth. From pole to pole “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (ESV, Psalm 19:1). Nature is a canvas on which God reveals His splendor and power (Rom. 1:19-20). To explore nature is to cavort in the cathedral of God’s creative artistry and design: climbing mountains and basking in the vistas below; hiking rugged trails under the leafy boughs of towering trees; exploring waterfalls that tumble with violent force into murky basins; frolicking in the ocean’s surf to the symphonic strains of crashing waves and screeching gulls; watching the sun set across a placid lake as loons echo their haunting cry; trudging upland against the flow of a gurgling creek; exploring the dank, earthy splendors of a cave; star gazing in a remote field unspoiled by the glow of city lights; being mesmerized by the dancing flame of a cracking campfire as the wind stirs the chords of pine needles overhead. Such explorations into nature enrich and stabilize the soul, particularly when such wonders are received as a gift from nature’s Artificer (Gen. 1:31). read more

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

The previous installment discussed three questions and their answers in Proverbs 22:15. (1) What is a rod (shebet)? (2) What is the purpose for using the rod? (3) Does this verse indicate when one should stop using the rod?

Proverbs 29:15 provides important additional information regarding the use of the rod: “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother”(NASB).

The purpose of discipline is to give wisdom (yiten chakmah). Importantly, Solomon defines wisdom in Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10 as the fear of the Lord. Biblical parental discipline is designed to instill the fear of the Lord in our children. To some readers, that might sound awful (putting the fear of God in our kids is so 20th century, right?), but either we are operating from a biblical platform or we aren’t. The fear of the Lord is a centerpiece of what God demands of His children (1 Pet. 2:17), and without it we can’t begin to think or act properly.

It is not enough to understand fear as simply respect. The word is much stronger than that—the Hebrew is yirah, and is often invoked when people fear for the lives (e.g., 2 Kings 10:4). The Greek is phobos, and is used in the same way (e.g., Matt. 28:4). I would suggest the idea is that we should have the proper, lofty, perspective of God—understanding who He really is (in all His greatness, His ability to execute judgment, His sovereign rights over His creation, His holiness, etc.)—who He reveals Himself to be. This is the goal of biblical parenting.

Proverbs 29:15 describes two tools that work together—interdependently, it seems—to help achieve that end: the rod and reproof. The rod without reproof seems cruel (could that be what Paul was warning against in Ephesians 6:4? Notice his inclusion of the two terms discipline [paideia] and instruction [nouthesia]). Reproof (Heb., tokahat) correction without the rod may be totally ineffectual. Ever watch a parent try to reason with an angry, willful, impertinent child? It is a sight to behold—and a mournful one at that. read more

Previously we examined Proverbs 13:24, a passage from which we understood three powerful principles: (1) proper discipline is associated with the use of the rod, (2) proper discipline is associated with love, and proper discipline is not described here in terms of abuse or causing harm, nor is it described as punishment.

While 13:24 is clear in regard to these principles, there are some important details that are not so easy to discern from that passage alone. Among them is the exact nature of the rod itself. Is the rod to be taken literally as referring to an implement for inflicting physical pain as a part of discipline, or is it instead a metaphor for general (non-physical) guidance and correction? Proverbs 22:15 is a helpful verse for helping us understand the meaning and application of the rod in Proverbs: “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.” (NASB)

Before discussing the specifics of the verse there is some important hermeneutic (interpretive) groundwork that must be considered. On this and other challenging passages we often see two competing methods of interpretation employed. On the one hand, is the literal grammatical-historical method of interpretation. This approach is literal, in that it seeks to understand the natural or literal meaning. It is grammatical, in that it follows the rules of grammar of the language used. And it is historical, in that it recognizes the importance of historical context of the grammar and other aspects of the writing. The literal grammatical-historical approach seeks always to find the intended meaning by looking for the plain sense of a passage. This methodology recognizes there is figurative language used in the Bible, but waits for the text itself to announce when figures are being used.

On the other hand is allegorical interpretation or spiritualization. Allegorical interpretation often either seeks a deeper meaning or seeks to resolve perceived conflicts in the text by interpreting in a non-literal way. This approach is not as concerned with rules of grammar and context, but gives the interpreter instead more influence in determining the meaning.

In order to understand this (or any other) passage, it is important to first agree on a set of interpretive principles, otherwise we find ourselves speaking different languages (I say bad, but mean good; you say bad but mean bad—we won’t get very far without defining our terms). I find that most theological disagreements are rooted in interpretive method, and if we aren’t aware of our interpretive presuppositions and assumptions, then we are inviting irreconcilable differences. read more