Archived: The Simplicity of Biblical Parenting
Christian parenting experts often seem unable to see the forest for the trees. Whether it’s “grace based,” “gospel centered,” “heart focused,” or some other phrase du jour, many seem to begin with a lofty concept about what the Bible ought to teach about parenting then go to Scripture and—surprise!—find it there.
As a result, we have constantly clashing emphases—to the everlasting frustration of parents, who just want to know what God expects of them and how to perform those tasks more effectively.
My aim here is (1) to argue that all parents really need is a biblical theology of parenting, (2) to describe how we should go about building such a theology and (3) to identify several principles that must be foundational to it.
The sufficient Word
Does the whole idea of having a “theology of parenting” sound novel? It shouldn’t. Those who firmly believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for faith and practice should also believe that a matter as important as Christian parenting is sufficiently addressed in the Bible. The essentials are all there. Though human wisdom—Christian and secular—may offer some useful advice on the nuts-and-bolts level, all the major principles and purposes are in the Book. And, in the area of principles and purposes, those who do not embrace a biblical view of God and human nature can have nothing of value to say.
We need a sound theology, and a sound theology is pretty much all we need.
So how should we go about building a biblical theology of parenting?
The right texts
A biblically sound theology of parenting must derive its key ideas from Scripture passages that are actually about parenting and the family structure. But there are more foundational passages it must incorporate first: those that reveal the central human problem (which is also the central kid problem) and those that reveal what’s special about the nature of children.
First, let’s understand the central human problem. A good place to start is the beginning.
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (NKJV, Gen. 3:1–6)
It appears that the original humans chose to pursue the ability to judge good and evil for themselves rather than accept God’s judgment. They chose rebellion against God’s authority.
The NT describes the event more simply. Sin entered the world through “disobedience” (Rom.5:19). Though Scripture does not use the word “rebellion” in reference to the original sin, “disobedience” is a word that presumes a legitimate authority who has issued a command. Consequently, whatever else may be included in the concept of “sinner,” its basic idea is “a person who disobeys,” a person who rejects God’s authority (1 Pet. 2:7, Rom.11:30-32).
What ailed the children of Israel?
The testimony of Scripture regarding Israel’s central problem also strongly emphasizes the phenomenon of rebellion.
At Kadesh-Barnea, Joshua and Caleb warned the people that they should not rebel against God’s instruction to take the land of Canaan (Num.14:9). But rebel they did. Moses characterized their choice as “rebellion” more than once (Deut.1:26, 43). Later he suggested that Israel’s rebellious nature was at the heart of all their bad choices.
Also at Taberah and Massah and Kibroth Hattaavah you provoked the Lord to wrath. Likewise, when the Lord sent you from Kadesh Barnea, saying, “Go up and possess the land which I have given you,” then you rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God, and you did not believe Him nor obey His voice. You have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you. (Deut. 9:22–24)
God agreed with Moses’ assessment (Exod. 32:9). The pattern of rebellion continued through the nation’s history, with the result that God Himself frequently specified rebellion as the central malignancy of their hearts (Isa.1:2, 20; Ezek.2:3-4, Jer. 6:27-28; Hos. 4:16).
The depravity of sinners takes many forms, including twisted beliefs and affections. Pride, delusional independence, and many other ills live on, even within those who are being sanctified. Though other sin-related problems may be equally important, none surpass the problem of rebellion as a key to understanding the human condition.
So what’s wrong with kids?
As we move toward texts that focus more on the challenges of parenting, we find that rebellion also figures prominently. For example, the few texts that are directed specifically to children, share the same focus. Consider these examples:
Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord. (Col. 3:20)
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. (Eph. 6:1)
My son, keep your father’s command, And do not forsake the law of your mother. (Prov. 6:20)
Other passages single out disobedience in lists of especially egregious sins.
backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents (Rom. 1:30)
For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy (2 Tim. 3:2)
As rebellion is at the core of what’s wrong with humans in general, it’s also at the core of what’s wrong with kids. A biblical theology of parenting must address the prominence of this problem in the hearts of children.
Wickedness and weakness
Scripture affirms that we’re all born wicked (Rom. 5:12, Psa. 51:5), but it also attributes special weaknesses to children.
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. (Prov. 22:15)
Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat [nakah, strike] him with a rod, he will not die. (Prov. 23:13)
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Cor. 13:11)
In Scripture, the nature of children is pretty simple: they are immature versions of everything adults are. Since they haven’t had time to learn much, they’re foolish. Since they have not formed many good habits yet, they need correction. They speak, understand and think childishly. In a word—and a politically incorrect one at that—kids are inferior. They lack adult strength, adult intelligence, adult judgment. Accordingly, they are not entitled to adult privileges or tasked with adult responsibilities.
So our theology of parenting must account for the fact that children are both wicked and weak. Since they are sinners, they need to be evangelized or discipled. Since they’re weak and small, they need the additional protection we owe to the vulnerable.
What should parents do?
Though children are simply immature humans we should protect, evangelize and disciple, Scripture reveals that parents have a unique relationship with their own children. With that special relationship, they also have unique opportunities and responsibilities.
How does a biblical theology of parenting identify these responsibilities? It begins with the understanding that the essence of what God expects of them is fully revealed in Scripture. From there, it looks for passages that speak directly on the subject of what parents exist to do in the lives of their children.
Here are several notable examples, in outline form.
1. Parents should teach the faith to their children (teaching includes modeling).
And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. (Deut. 6:6–7)
My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother; For they will be a graceful ornament on your head, And chains about your neck. (Prov. 1:8–9)
And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (Eph. 6:4)
2. Parents should love and bless their children.
that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children (Titus 2:4. See also Matt. 7:11.)
3. Parents should exercise authority over (make binding decisions for) their children.
one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (1 Timothy 3:4. See also 1 Tim.3:12, Eph. 6:1.)
4. Parents should restrain their children by means of discipline that hurts. The “rod” in Proverbs is both literal and representative of a larger category. It’s literal in the sense that people of the day would have would not have been squeamish about using some kind of actual stick at times. But proverbs are compact expressions of patterns and principles. The main idea is that parental discipline requires pain—sometimes physical, sometimes more emotional, as when we remove privileges, etc.
Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat [nakah, strike] him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell [sheol, the grave or death]. (Prov. 23:13–14)
He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Prov. 13:24)
5. Parents should require respect from their children.
Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and keep My Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:3. See also Eph. 6:2.)
6. Parents should serve their children in all the ways believers are to serve one another.
Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing. (1 Thess. 5:11)
For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13)
Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2)
forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. (Col. 3:13)
(See also Heb. 10:24, James 5:16.)
Simple, but hard
Christian parenting is parenting according the Word of Christ, a Word which is sufficient for understanding what our Lord expects from us and, generally, how to be effective in it. So parenting in a biblical way involves building our understanding of the task from Scripture—from the ground up. When we do this, we discover that parenting is hard to do—but not hard to understand.
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second 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, GA and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.
- 1 view
[Julie Herbster] I don’t have a romanticized/idealized view of children either, Susan, but I sure don’t understand where you’re coming from on this. I agree that people are born sinners…and I agree that as infants and children develop, they will begin to sin. It’s inevitable. But the particulars of this idea belong to a whole ‘nother discussion (“age of accountability,” culpability of infants, etc.) that has been tossed around a few times on SI, right?I didn’t get into imputation and accountability because addressing every single possible aspect of every point would result in VERY long posts. I did say that just because an infant doesn’t know it is sinning doesn’t mean it doesn’t commit sin per se- as Bro. Johnson said.
I agree that the context is talking about enemies, but were they really enemies ‘from the womb’? Even Hitler was a cute little crumbcruncher once, and his mama loved her little boy. I think sometimes we just don’t want to accept the notion that our little darlings were shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin. (Ps 51:5) It is our job to reprogram them- you don’t have to teach them to lie, be angry, or use violence. Oh, those lovely days of working in the nursery where the cute little babies beat the snot out of each other with toys and bite hard enough to draw blood. Yeah- they are just normal babies expressing themselves the only way they know how- and what they are expressing is “I’m wicked!” But since they haven’t yet reached an understanding of sin, it isn’t laid against their account. That doesn’t negate the source of their sinful instincts and our responsibility to condition them to obey until they understand their need for self control.
I was thinking last night about the “easy to understand and hard to do” conundrum. I think sometime we set our kids up for failure by not taking into account or just flat out ignoring their physical and mental makeup. I remember when the kids were little, and I planned all my errands so that the kids were fed, cuddled and played with, and well-rested. This greatly reduced misbehavior in public. If they went ballistic in the store or just wouldn’t behave, we left the store and came home, and they didn’t get to go out again the next time- I’d wait until Daddy was home and go without them. They made the connection and I didn’t have any trouble with them again. But boy-oh-boy, was that inconvenient. But kids are not there to be convenient- parenting takes oodles of forethought and flexilibity IMO.
Whenever I suggest that to a new mom expressing frustration about taking the crumbcrunchers out in public, I see the light bulb go on- it makes perfect sense. But doing it? Oy vey.
[Aaron Blumer] In Scripture, the nature of children is pretty simple: they are immature versions of everything adults are. Since they haven’t had time to learn much, they’re foolish. Since they have not formed many good habits yet, they need correction. They speak, understand and think childishly. In a word—and a politically incorrect one at that—kids are inferior. They lack adult strength, adult intelligence, adult judgment. Accordingly, they are not entitled to adult privileges or tasked with adult responsibilities.
[Susan R] Sure it’s a lie. Just because they don’t understand that it’s a lie doesn’t mean it isn’t a lie. I don’t hold to a romantic idealized view of children. They are wonderful and the joy of my life, but that doesn’t mean I can’t view them objectively as sinners whom I am responsible for guiding to salvation. If they reject God, they’ll go to Hell like everyone else who rejects God. And it starts in the womb, just as God said. No need to argue with me on that one. Tell the Psalmist he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.While the Scripture is quite sufficient for everything we need to know about salvation, faith, and obedience, it doesn’t mean that the Bible contains all truth about every topic. this is where people can err. just like atoms are not explained in the Bible, there are God-designed ages and stages that children go through that are not laid out in the Bible. Aaron might call it weakness and inferiority, Susan calls it sin, but others call it God-designed ages and stages of child development.
I will consider two cases in point:
1. Tripp talks about a struggling-during-diaper-change infant as expressing rebellion. Let’s look at it another way. Maybe it is unnatural for children to have to have their diapers changed; maybe it’s uncomfortable for them or they would, at that moment, rather be running around. There are whole cultures in Africa where children are diaperless. They ride on their mothers’ backs, and she understands the movemetns/sounds they make when they want to pee or poop, so she lifts the back of her dress-sling-thingy, the child pees or poops, then she returns to what she was doing… .
The point is, we don’t need to interpret automatically that a child is in rebellion when what is really happening is that an unnatural act is happening to him. Why not just play peek-a-boo with a blanket while changing the diaper?
2. Child sleep. I’m not sure why we assume that children should sleep alone. It is an unnatural condition for a child. Why would i assume it is rebellion if he is in a God-designed stage of child development thath craves, is almost entirely dependent, on loving contact with adults? It’s unnatural for a small child to go to sleep in the dark alone. This is how I can serve them in their inferiority/weekness/God-designed stage of devlopment. My children are 4 and 5. I still lie down with them when it’s time for them to sleep. There are times they go to sleep together with the overhead light on. I am mature in my faith and can comfort myself in the scary darkk with truths like “the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him.” My children are not at that level yet.
So, when a child balks at going to sleep alone, do I assume he is not obeying “without challenge, delay or excuse” (Tripp’s standard for obedience)? Or do I just understand that he is in a normal stage of growth where sleep, the dark, and being alone are fairly overwhelming?
I’m not saying all Tripp parents spank for that, I’m just saying this idea of God-designed child development is really a rather big factor in many small issues daily, and they are my oppportunties as a mom to serve them as Christ adapts Himself to us and serves us in our sin-effected world.
There is much that is left up to the parent. A family that lives in a rural area can let their young ‘un run around diaperless, but in a suburban or urban area, that would be a BIG NO-NO. So the child has to learn to conform to parental expectations, and fighting against their authority is still rebellion, even if it isn’t conscious with-malice-aforethought.
I think I said earlier that I’m not an enthusiastic advocate of parenting books. They usually are too formulaic, and depend greatly on the family dynamics of the author. It is better, as Aaron is proposing, to understand what Scripture clearly espouses, and go from there.
On a humorous note, I remember a preacher saying that childhood is a picture of life in the Garden- they run around naked and unashamed, they blame others for their faults, and they are always sticking things in their mouths that they shouldn’t. Now that’s funny.
I say: Who’s therapy? Mine or my kids’?!!!?
:)
a) What is the nature of the child and where do we go to find out? (The Bible or philosophers and psychologists or some effort to blend these?)
b) What is the role of obedience in sanctification? (I think the philosophers and psychologists are probably not much temptation here… but probably only because they’re not very interested in the question.)
There’s a third one not quite emerging from the fog for me yet… has to do with how our position in Christ as people credited with His righteousness relates to our relationship to Christ as a Lord whom we are committed to obey. But maybe that’s just a variation of the second question.
While the Scripture is quite sufficient for everything we need to know about salvation, faith, and obedience, it doesn’t mean that the Bible contains all truth about every topic.I don’t think anybody’s saying this.
Here’s what I am saying… and my reasoning:
- Parenting Christianly is an extremely important part of the Christian life (I think we all agree on this, don’t we?)
- Scripture is sufficient for the life of faith (also agreed, yes?)
- Therefore Scripture is sufficient for telling us what the goals for parenting are and what our basic approach should be
I think it’s pretty hard to deny ‘c’ if we accept the premises.
I’m actually not an anti-integrationist when it comes to relating Scripture to other fields of study. But “integration” is way easier to get wrong than it is to get right, usually because of two factors- The relationship between special revelation/Scripture and other truth sources gets muddled
- The full scope of truth Scripture provides gets short changed… usually by neglect.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Someone alluded to it earlier as being pivotal to whether one believes in firm discipline or not.
I’m not sure the article is clear on now I see that verse. It’s a mistake to take that verse as teaching that spanking accomplishes some kind of spiritual redemption. I’m not sure if anyone really teaches that, but Tripp certainly sounds that way at times.
The problem is that “soul” (נפשׁ) in the OT sense generally means something like “self.” It’s not the same as the Greek psuche and not the same as our English word “soul.”
Secondly, “Hell” is not a good translation of sheol here (it almost never is anywhere!). Again, sheol is not equivalent to Greek gehenna or hades. Sheol rarely refers to a place. Usually has the idea of the sate of being dead.
So what does the verse mean? It means simply that active, non-whimpy discipline—involving the intentional use of pain—generally helps kids develop the sort of character that will keep them from premature death-by-stupidity (folly).
So I’m saying it expresses a conviction parents have held for thousands of years.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Anne Sokol] While the Scripture is quite sufficient for everything we need to know about salvation, faith, and obedience, it doesn’t mean that the Bible contains all truth about every topic. this is where people can err. just like atoms are not explained in the Bible, there are God-designed ages and stages that children go through that are not laid out in the Bible. Aaron might call it weakness and inferiority, Susan calls it sin, but others call it God-designed ages and stages of child development.Hi, Anne. Don’t think I’ve interacted with you for a while…Hope all is well with you. I think the tension here is between what we know Scripture says about original sin (all men are born with a sin nature—Ps. 51, etc.) and what modern scientists/researchers/psychologists have added to the mix. Like Aaron, I’m not anti-integrationist…I think such studies can be valuable in helping us to understand our children. I’ve been through a couple of child psych classes myself, have read some other books on the subject, and have learned a lot of interesting stuff about cognitive, social, physical, and psychomotor development…and now I’m getting the privilege of actually watching five precious kids grow (way too fast!) through those developmental stages—a truly amazing process to behold! And, yes, I’ve played plenty of peek-a-boo games during diaper changes. It’s just too fun to pass up!
I think Aaron is right, though. The foundation for Christian parenting cannot be based first and foremost on psychological findings. Can those findings inform our parenting? Sure. But habitually making choices based mostly on what a person thinks is “natural” or “unnatural” for a child is misguided, IMO. The real question is, who defines “natural?” Who says it isn’t natural for a baby to be diapered or to sleep alone? Is something “natural” just because it has been practiced by ancient cultures, or primitive cultures in which it is beneficial in many ways to share a family bed, and in which diapers are nonexistent? Is something “natural” just because psychologists or advocacy groups have declared it to be so? Was it “natural” for Baby Jesus to be wrapped in swaddling clothes? (I’m getting a bit silly, here, but since when is “naturalness” a) defined for all people for all time and b) recognized as “the (nebulous?) standard” for infant care?) And, what makes something “natural” inherently “better” than something that has been developed by modern civilization? Who is to judge?
God—who is far and away the best one to consult about what is “natural”—clearly says that the “natural” state of men is sinful…that we are born sinners…and that, left to ourselves—following the “natural” course of things—we will perish. A child “left to himself” brings his mother to shame. The fact that we have to “train” children implies that we are working against nature, not with it. These thoughts, then (along with other Scriptural truth), should take primacy over man-made findings when Christian parents are evaluating how to deal with behavior, and what that behavior is saying about what is in the child’s heart. The other ideas certainly have their place, but they cannot displace Scripture in our thinking. This evaluation isn’t always easy to do; I’m not saying that everything is cut and dried. I’m just advocating that we allow Scripture to be the primary source of information in matters of the heart and of eternity, like rearing children.
Let me say, too, that I can sense that you are a gentle, gracious mom who truly desires the best for her children, and who is willing to invest hours of time in studying how to be the best mom you can be. I hope the same could be said about all of us.
[Julie Herbster][Anne Sokol] I think Aaron is right, though. The foundation for Christian parenting cannot be based first and foremost on psychological findings.I’m not sure where I have implied or stated this.[Julie Herbster] Can those findings inform our parenting? Sure. But habitually making choices based mostly on what a person thinks is “natural” or “unnatural” for a child is misguided, IMO. The real question is, who defines “natural?” Who says it isn’t natural for a baby to be diapered or to sleep alone?when a small infanct cries and cries at being left alone, it really is not a sign of his sin nature. It’s a sign of his nature. Instead of believing that a baby is being intentionally rebellious and manipulative, can we ask if perhaps he is trying, the only way he knows how, to communicate his need of closeness?[Julie Herbster] I’m just advocating that we allow Scripture to be the primary source of information in matters of the heart and of eternity, like rearing children.I would advocate the same thing. i just would not advocate that Scripture is teaching things that it really is not teaching about children. It really doesn’t teach anywhere that being scared of the dark and not wanting to be alone in bed is rebellious. Or that crying over a diaper change is rebellious. It really doesn’t talk about what kids think about that. It does give us many instructions about loving “each other,” loving our children, understanding the weak—and that can be applied to these situations, too.
Here’s an example of how “child development” knowledge can help a parent parent spiritually. This is in Your 4-Yr-Old: Wild and Wonderful by Bates:As physicians concerned about child behaviour are not pointing out, many foods harmful to the individual child may do no observable physical harm but may have disasterous effects on his behavior.About working against the “nature” of our kids, I think this is one bad way parents err in being more adversarial in their approach to discipline–More often punishing when something else would be more effective, something just insightful or kind even. Helping our kids unto obedience in nice ways, rather than thinking we are allowed to help them only by punishing to deter future infractions. Im not saying you do this, i’m saying in general, christian parents tend to be ungracious in this way and trapped in thinking this is the main biblical way we are to disciple.
Food or drink, or even things that are inhaled, may produce hidden allergies, which in turn, can cause extremely defiant behavior. in some children, dizziness, llistlessness, fatigue, irritability, violence, and hyperactivity all can be induced by foods liked best.
Doctors report many striking examples of this, like the boy at Five had for two years been wetting his pants several times a day as well as having to get up several times during the night. This urinary difficulty, as well as other symptoms of overactivity, cleared up when he stopped eating tomatoes. Unfortunately, in this case, as so often, the boy craved the very food that was harmful to him. For two years he had had tomato soup for lunch every day, and would eat five or six ripe tomatoes at a sitting… .
Or, even without there being an actual allergic reaction, harmful food products, especially artificial colorings and flavorings, have been shown to produce dizziness, listlessness, fatigue, irritability, violence, and hyperactivitiy, and, in school-age children, problems usually described as learning disabilities.
I don’t think anyone here is advocating that parents punish their children for being afraid of the dark or not wanting to be alone. What we should do is help our children deal with it appropriately. But much of what we do is why our kids react to things. They aren’t born afraid of the dark- they just spent nine months in the dark.
When they sense our anger, they feel frustration. If they sense fear in us, they respond fearfully. If we assume children are afraid of the dark and always leave a light on, then they might develop a fear of the dark that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. Or maybe they saw a Twilight Zone episode that will result in the dismemberment of all their babydolls and leave them scarred for life. :p
I know quite a few parents that inadvertently teach their kids attitudes and habits because of their own childhood experiences and phobias. We have to let those things go and give our kids a clean slate without imprinting our own history on their psyches. They are going to be enough of a reflection of us as it is. ;)
…the boy at Five…had had tomato soup for lunch every day, and would eat five or six ripe tomatoes at a sitting…Any mom who can get her five year old to eat so healthfully is already a success in my book. 8-)
[Susan R] They aren’t born afraid of the dark- they just spent nine months in the dark.susan, they just spent nine month “in the dark” hugged/held by a mommy with a heartbeat, warmth, closeness, etc. and probably not with the imaginary capabilites of a 2-3 yr old
in utero, babies can actually can discern light coming into the womb at some point in development, too, fwiw.
but anyway … . I’m just trying to emphasize that the more we understand them as children, the better we can serve them as adults, meeting natural needs (which in turn cuts down on a lot of discipline issues—instead of aggravating issues that will inflame sinful responses)
.
[DavidO]David, i was thinking the same thing! i would’ve just been so ecstatic that my kid was so “healthy.” my kids love carrots, but i can take no credit for it… . they also love cookie dough, and sadly, i have to take credit for that ……the boy at Five…had had tomato soup for lunch every day, and would eat five or six ripe tomatoes at a sitting…Any mom who can get her five year old to eat so healthfully is already a success in my book. 8-)
I don’t think there is any “biblical” position one can claim on that. That is, all views that accept Scriptures’ teaching that the infant is born a sinner are biblical ones.
I have some opinions that are biblically influenced, but that’s about all I’d venture to claim on this subtopic. Most of what I believe about crying infants is just based on experience and reasoning.
- - The child does have to learn to be alone eventually… so why not sooner?
- - I’ve seen young parents become completely enslaved to a little one and nearly kill themselves trying to leap to his side every time he utters a peep. Though it’s not in a baby’s best interest to “be lonely,” it’s also not in his best interest to have completely exhausted, emotionally frazzled caretakers. Sooner or later, there is great freedom for the parents and the baby if the little one learns to cry himself to sleep.
- - Ultimately, growing up is moving toward independence. Why would we work against that by protracting a dependence on adult presence and stimulation for the simple act of going to sleep? Step one in growing up: “I can go to sleep by myself”
- - Some parents really do get in the habit of being too sensitive to the baby’s unhappiness and then extend this into toddlerhood and young childhood and on up. What I mean is that what is good for baby isn’t always what makes baby happy. This is even more obvious when he reaches that toddler age and on up. This one does have some theology behind it: a sinner is a person who’s “wanter” is broken. He seeks a fleeting happiness in all the wrong things. So good parenting involves learning early that junior’s well being is very often at odds with junior’s happiness.
- - There’s no doubt in my mind that some writers/teachers take the “rebel in the crib” idea way, way too far. You can tell what’s motivating a tot when he says “No!” to a directive. You can’t really tell what’s motivating a tot when he kicks angrily at you while trying to change his diaper. (Though even in this situation, he needs to discover that he doesn’t get to make the decision.)
Part of my tilt in this direction is that I never could understand a thing any baby was trying to communicate to me. Maybe moms really do have a second intuitive language for this… I don’t know. It always just looks like guessing to me. (“Maybe he’s hungry, let’s try that. No? Maybe he’s too hot? Maybe he’s overstimulated… maybe…” How can any meaningful assessment of “disobedience” happen at this point? Seems ridiculous to me.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
“Natural needs.” Well, we know they need to be fed, protected from injury, clothed. It’s a scary world, and we know they need to be comforted.
Beyond that, we have some scientific studies, some psychological studies, a whole lot of speculation. Take or leave it I suppose.
But none of their “natural needs” really have anything to do with discipline… or with Scripture. The Bible doesn’t command “feed and clothe your babies” anywhere, because this is assumed to be obvious.
(It does say “don’t sacrifice them to false gods,” which, to sinners, is apparently not all that obvious)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Anne Sokol]It would be interesting to find out why some kids become afraid of the dark while others don’t. Kids are not ‘naturally’ afraid of the dark. As you said, it is usually the result of their imaginations. I have four kids, none of which were ever afraid of the dark. All of them like salads and fruit. I’ve never had to ‘make’ them eat healthy. The eating healthy problem is solved when parents eat healthy and the kids grow up with veggies on their plates and fruit for dessert, and it doesn’t have to become a discipline issue. Food is one of those areas where I think parents sometimes inadvertently set their kids up to fail.[Susan R] They aren’t born afraid of the dark- they just spent nine months in the dark.susan, they just spent nine month “in the dark” hugged/held by a mommy with a heartbeat, warmth, closeness, etc. and probably not with the imaginary capabilites of a 2-3 yr old
in utero, babies can actually can discern light coming into the womb at some point in development, too, fwiw.
but anyway … . I’m just trying to emphasize that the more we understand them as children, the better we can serve them as adults, meeting natural needs (which in turn cuts down on a lot of discipline issues—instead of aggravating issues that will inflame sinful responses)
.
The point that you are emphasizing- that we should understand our children as children- I’ve made at least a couple of times in this thread. But while I am understanding them as itsy-bitsy, vulnerable, impressionable and individual crumbcrunchers, I also understand them as sinners. It isn’t either/or. Just because I view them as possessing and exercising a sin nature doesn’t mean I don’t understand that they are children. Attempting to separate the two factors creates a false dichotomy and isn’t necessary. Viewing a child as a sinner doesn’t result in treating them cruelly or without affection.
Again to the point of the OP- I think some folks are intimidated by the idea of being parents, and they make things harder than they need to be. Too many people become disciples of the Pearls and Ezzo and such like, and because of their own spiritual immaturity and mental instability, they somehow manage to interpret the material in such a way that it can actually end up resulting in the death of a child. They don’t have any spiritual discernment because they don’t read and study the Bible or use it as their foundation. They are babies themselves that want to be spoonfed and told what to do. “Do this and your kids will turn out OK”. Well, it is never that easy, but it certainly isn’t all that mysterious either.
Discussion