A Biblical Perspective on Spanking, Part 1

Christopher,

I appreciate the essay and the series.

I’ve seen critics of this view make two claims regarding the rod:

a) It’s a metaphor for parental correction and doesn’t advocate physical pain

b) It refers to caning young men, not spanking children

Some even try to affirm both of these at the same time.

In any case, I’m interested in what you’d have to say in response to these views of “the rod” in Proverbs.

I, like Aaron B., am curious about how you (Christopher) would address the idea that “rod” is to be taken metaphorically and not as a literal rod. I am sure that unlike myself, Aaron has a solid, exegetical understanding of his own on this point, but I am still developing mine. I have an experiential answer, but all experiential answers are, of course, subject to the exegetical one properly arrived at. Thanks in advance!

Proverbs is poetic. My own view of “rod”…

1) It is a metaphor for discipline that is “not pleasant” (to borrow from Heb. 12.11… and since “painful” seems to make so many break out in hives).

2) The metaphor does not exclude a few whacks on the behind or going to bed w/out supper once in a while. Certainly, during the times when these passages were written (and for every century thereafter until the 19th and 20th), people would not have been squeamish about using a little pain to teach a child things that will save him or her enormous amounts of pain later in life.

I liken this to the Sword in Romans 13. In the time Romans 13 was written, a likely weapon for execution would be a sword. So it’s literal. But nobody would make the mistake of thinking that government always has to execute you. There are lesser penalties for lesser offenses.

The ancient mind would reason it this way: “If they have the authority to use the sword (that’s take a life in execution), they certainly have the authority to provide all lesser penalties as well.” So the sword is not only a literal sword, but also a symbol of the entire range of punitive options the government has.

Similarly, the rod is not only a literal rod, but symbolic of the entire range of disciplinary options. If you have the authority up to the rod for punishment, you have the authority to provide all lesser punishments.

Now, regarding ages involved, I think that SOME of the Rod passages use a Hebrew word that generally refers to young adults. Proverbs 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15 all contain a Hebrew word that should almost always be translated “youth”, with reference to young folks typically from ages 16-24, roughly. There are some exceptions, like when referring to “Jewish royalty” – people like Moses, Samson – the word can be applied to infants. But generally speaking, it applies to older teens and young adults. So, the majority of the verses that refer to the rod are with reference to ages far above small children. I’m not saying that’s always the case, but it’s a pattern that’s strong enough that it should give us pause.

In fact, the Jewish rabbis of ancient times frequently admonished people not to apply any verses about the rod to children before the age of 10. This does not mean they were right, but their perspective was probably influenced by these passages and the word used in them.

Misinterpretations also arise. The KJV’s rendering of Proverbs 23:13-14 refers to saving a child from Hell. The Hebrew is probably warning about saving a young man from death - as in keeping him from criminal acts that will result in his being sentenced to stoning under the Mosaic Law.

I am a traditionalist in the sense that I believe spanking, wisely applied, is an option. I simply believe it is not the only option. And that a lot of bad preaching has arisen on this under-investigated topic.

Haven’t had a chance to study out the age related words in Proverbs yet.

But speaking from experience, I think we may have some of this backwards.

By the time a kid is 16, he/she is able to understand far more sophisticated forms of discipline. But a three yr old cannot be reasoned with. This is one pt. where some of the efforts to develop parenting strategies from idealized theological premises (rather than from what Scripture actually plainly says on the subject) border on ridiculous. You can’t have a chat w/2 yr old junior about law and grace when you need him to stop hitting his sister or running off at grocery stores or screaming loudly at the table when adults are trying to converse.

He can’t understand that kind of reasoning. He can understand pain, whether it’s the pain of losing access to some cherished item he’s clinging to, or being removed from adult company or a slap on the wrist.

Though it’s true, as the critics say, the kid may think it’s all about Mommy and Daddy’s disapproval rather than being about sin and salvation, that’s really not a problem at that point. Abstractions are for later.

What they need to learn as small children is to begin to acquire clear distinctions between right and wrong, based very much on what Mommy and Daddy say. we learn a great deal on the basis of authority long before we learn it from personal conviction and reasoning.

You have to talk to kids at their level.

So I’m very skeptical of the value of corporal punishment for older kids. My son, who is 10 now, benefits from it once in a great while (I think I spanked him once in the last year and half—probably not enough), but he is old enough to look at his choices in terms of personal belief, love for God, honor where honor is due, and the gospel. The rod has become a secondary means of reinforcement—a dose of reality—when those ideas don’t yet seem real enough.

As for the parenting strategies extrapolated from theological ideals: even from that POV, you have to learn law before you can learn grace. Gal. 3.24.

[Aaron Blumer] The metaphor does not exclude a few whacks on the behind…

When a figurative vehicle (in this case, the rod) is included in the category for which it stands (discipline), it is more properly termed metonym than metaphor.

[Aaron Blumer] Haven’t had a chance to study out the age related words in Proverbs yet.

But speaking from experience, I think we may have some of this backwards.

By the time a kid is 16, he/she is able to understand far more sophisticated forms of discipline. But a three yr old cannot be reasoned with. This is one pt. where some of the efforts to develop parenting strategies from idealized theological premises (rather than from what Scripture actually plainly says on the subject) border on ridiculous. You can’t have a chat w/2 yr old junior about law and grace when you need him to stop hitting his sister or running off at grocery stores or screaming loudly at the table when adults are trying to converse.

He can’t understand that kind of reasoning. He can understand pain, whether it’s the pain of losing access to some cherished item he’s clinging to, or being removed from adult company or a slap on the wrist.

Though it’s true, as the critics say, the kid may think it’s all about Mommy and Daddy’s disapproval rather than being about sin and salvation, that’s really not a problem at that point. Abstractions are for later.

What they need to learn as small children is to begin to acquire clear distinctions between right and wrong, based very much on what Mommy and Daddy say. we learn a great deal on the basis of authority long before we learn it from personal conviction and reasoning.

You have to talk to kids at their level.

So I’m very skeptical of the value of corporal punishment for older kids. My son, who is 10 now, benefits from it once in a great while (I think I spanked him once in the last year and half—probably not enough), but he is old enough to look at his choices in terms of personal belief, love for God, honor where honor is due, and the gospel. The rod has become a secondary means of reinforcement—a dose of reality—when those ideas don’t yet seem real enough.

As for the parenting strategies extrapolated from theological ideals: even from that POV, you have to learn law before you can learn grace. Gal. 3.24.

Aaron,

Remember the famous caning case in Singapore a few years ago? An American teenaged tourist named Michael Fay committed the crimes of theft and vandalism there. He was sentenced to caning – being beat with a rod on the back 6 times. Americans were horrified. But customs in the east and in ancient cultures run to more stern treatment than we are used to.

Prov. 23

13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Again, the word “child” is the English translation, even though the Hebrew word probably is referring to a young adult male.

Read that way, he is saying if you punish your older teen or young adult with the rod, he won’t die – in fact, you’ll save his soul from death.

Here’s what I think is going on here.

In the Old Testament law, there was provision for an ultimately defiant young adult, wild, evil, drunken, violent, disrespectful. In extreme cases, the young adult might be executed by stoning.

So I’m reasonably certain that what’s in view here is quite literal: if you had a young adult who is so defiant and so wicked as to be in danger of that kind of penalty, you may have to take the matter very seriously, and provide serious punishment to correct that person before the town elders decided to execute him.

It’s important to remember it was a different culture. Many times the family patriarch was responsible for the sons well into what we would call adulthood.

Think of David’s son Amnon, who sexually assaulted his sister.

Think of David’s son Absalom, who stirred up a rebellion that cost thousands their lives.

Think of Jacob’s sons who murdered a whole village.

And not a sheriff in range for 1300 years.

Yes, the rod was appropriate in some extreme cases. And those guys still didn’t use it.

In our society, we have the police to serve the same purpose, and we don’t typically stone our young adults for being drunk and disorderly.

This is NOT to say that we shouldn’t spank kids. I’m just saying that a few verses typically used to justify spanking small children are probably about something else. There are still others in which a Hebrew word is used whose dynamic range would indicate that the spanking of small children is an appropriate option.

Most of our means of discipline are loss of privileges, imprisonment, and physical punishment but on a smaller scale than what adults experience. After all, what is ‘time out’? Or being sent to one’s room? Or being restricted from the use of a phone, computer, tv, car…? That’s what happens in the adult world when you break the law- you lose privileges, your freedom, and quite possibly your life.

Civil law/crime & punishment is quite a different thing from parental discipline.

I suspect some of the Proverbs may have the former in view, and some certainly have the latter in view. Prov.13.24 is certainly not about caning a criminal.

On metonymy… yes, that may be a better word. “Inclusive metaphor” might be a little more clear to most people though.

[Aaron Blumer] Civil law/crime & punishment is quite a different thing from parental discipline.

I suspect some of the Proverbs may have the former in view, and some certainly have the latter in view. Prov.13.24 is certainly not about caning a criminal.

I understand that, but I was speaking of the consequences themselves that we use to teach right/wrong, not the relationships or the motivations for doing so. When we ‘create’ consequences, aren’t we (along with the other bazillion reasons we discipline) also attempting to give kids some sense of what might happen if they don’t learn to respect authority? Even if they never embrace the concept of right/wrong itself, most people have enough of a sense of self preservation to not break the law.

Which is, of course, why Christ focused on the heart. The only reason some people don’t commit murder is fear of the consequences, not their own personal moral compass.

A recent piece in Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/january/editorial-spanking-abu…

Here is another perspective on the Proverbs matter, too; however he doesn’t get into the age-level question. JUst a much broader treatment of parenting advice in Proverbs. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-4/JETS_48-4_715-732.pdf

I also wish that fundamentalists would be more honest and academic about the Proverbs rod texts. Thank you, Mike Durning, for starting that.

About Aaron’s comments about spanking very young children—as necessary b/c they don’t understand reason yet—well, it’s just not necessary. It is pretty much behaviorism—do this, zap. do that, zap. There are tons of ways to teach small children to behave and that parents’ words have meaning w/o the use of pain infliction. People can use spanking if they want, they are free in the Lord to do that. But they are just as free in the Lord not to spank, too.

;)

But they are just as free in the Lord not to spank, too.

Of course they are. God doesn’t make people love their children, but He does command it. Obedience to God then requires it.

I’ve been saving this link for the next time this topic comes up on SI, so here we are!!!

This is an interview with Elyse Fitzpatrick, author of, among other things, a book called Give them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus, which she wrote with her daughter Jessica.

http://castroller.com/Podcasts/WhiteHorseInn/2639057?start=undefined

She talks a lot about coming to understand grace and then how that applies to discipline. It’s very good. She recalls overhearing this discipline moment with her daughter and grandkids. One little brother is beating up the other littler brother. Mom says something like, You need to love your brother! Brother says: I can’t! Mom says, That’s right; you can’t. You need a Savior.

And that’s the truth. Even when you’re an adult. I like too her explanation of grace and sanctification. I think this is one of the most misunderstood ideas in Christianity/fundamentalism.

In your story Anne, the brother getting beat up on learns that the parent has no concern for justice.

They don’t love their son enough to spank him.

They don’t love their other son enough to teach him that justice is good.

Double fail.

[Susan R]

[Aaron Blumer] Civil law/crime & punishment is quite a different thing from parental discipline.

I suspect some of the Proverbs may have the former in view, and some certainly have the latter in view. Prov.13.24 is certainly not about caning a criminal.

I understand that, but I was speaking of the consequences themselves that we use to teach right/wrong, not the relationships or the motivations for doing so. When we ‘create’ consequences, aren’t we (along with the other bazillion reasons we discipline) also attempting to give kids some sense of what might happen if they don’t learn to respect authority? Even if they never embrace the concept of right/wrong itself, most people have enough of a sense of self preservation to not break the law.

Which is, of course, why Christ focused on the heart. The only reason some people don’t commit murder is fear of the consequences, not their own personal moral compass.

Yes… I was responding more to Mike in #7 and some other bits and pieces in the thread. My point was just that we can’t use the civil law/punishment passages in Proverbs to explain away the parental ones.

About Aaron’s comments about spanking very young children—as necessary b/c they don’t understand reason yet—well, it’s just not necessary. It is pretty much behaviorism—do this, zap. do that, zap. There are tons of ways to teach small children to behave and that parents’ words have meaning w/o the use of pain infliction. People can use spanking if they want, they are free in the Lord to do that. But they are just as free in the Lord not to spank, too.

Apprently, God was in favor of alot of behaviorism in the Law of Moses…. Do this, zap. Do that, zap.

No, there’s a problem with the reasoning here:

Behaviorism focuses on responses to behavior (negative reinforcement or positive)

Use of pain to discipline involves responses to behavior

Therefore, all use of pain in discipline is behaviorism.

To break it down a little further/fill in some missing premises… the argument is essentially this:

• All intentional use of non-verbal negative consequences is behaviorism
• All behaviorism is bad
• Therefore all intentional use of non-verbal negative consequences is bad
  

The reasoning is valid but both the first premise and the second are highly suspect—especially the first.

I anticipate an objection: “who is talking about all negative consequences?” But what is it that makes a consequence negative? It’s pain. If it doesn’t hurt, it’s not negative. So the distinction between a stern lecture or sitting in the corner or some other negative consequence vs. a slap on the wrist is not a difference in kind. That is, the lecture/time-out/etc. are no more or less “behaviorism” than the slap on the wrist or whack on the behind. They are all uses of negative reinforcement (which is also why the second premise is untrue… behaviorism does not deserve to be the bad boy many have made of it. It’s weakness is that it is not enough, not that it is inherently bad.)

I continue to hold that the parenting passages in Proverbs make no sense at all unless there is value in the use of pain to shape a child’s character and, yes, his heart. Lectures in theology are not the only way to reach a heart… if that were the case, we might as well let kids do whatever they jolly well please until they’re old enough to start taking in Soteriology 101.

That’s right; you can’t. You need a Savior.

Then the brother says “Yes, I do!” And continues hitting the other!

The lesson in the gospel is a great one and well timed, but does not in any way solve the other parenting challenges in that scenario. Boy #1 has to learn not to hit boy #2 regardless of when—or whether—he becomes a Christian and learns to love him.

I really doubt the mom let the brother continue hitting the other brother, and there probably were consequences for his hitting in the first place. it’s really not that simplistic as people want to mock it up to be … ;) We do have to learn to “be good,” but we want our parenting to go beyond moralism. None of us are good, and it’s tricky teaching the fulness of that to our kids. For example, it’s really easy for me to be good, but then God had to take years of my life to teach my that I am bad, and that really, even my goodness never meets His standards. My acceptance before Him is all because of Christ, not my behavior.

The OT/Law of Moses is really not an example of behaviorism. It was a time when God revealed Himself by externally blessing those who obeyed Him as a light to other nations. And it was a time when He passed over the sins of the people, too. (“This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Romans 3:25-26 )

Under the NT, those who obey Him will suffer and that is how we show Him today to the unbelieving world.

Anne,

Have you ever studied any of the child developmental theorists? I don’t have time now to do more than pique interest, but I believe the developmental stages and corresponding abilities should play a significant part in this conversation. Snippet: young children are generally unable to apply logic and reasoning to situations; they rarely grasp abstract concepts; and they tend to miss the process of events, focusing on the before and after instead of the in between. I have often felt that many of the positions you have taken on this topic sound wonderful in theory but are impractical, if not impossible, to implement in reality because the child is simply incapable of grasping what you are advocating.

In my experience, it is unusual to have the Fundamentalists promoting notions like Behaviorism and the Stages of Child Development. Usually we Chrisitan non-spankers are told that we are basing our methods on *gasp* SECULAR *gasp* notions like these.

I am quite familiar with Child Development and it supports the notion that toddlers do not benefit from being spanked.

the problem lies in most people imagining that “no spanking” and “grace-based” parenting jsut means you lecture or talk to your kids of any age about deep gospel issues. This is a huge misconception.

I look at the whole thing more as making childrearing a mainly non-punitive (non-punishment-oriented) discipline for the parent.

My child does something s/he should not do, I, for example, remove him from the situation, remove the toy (even if he wants it), etc. It’s not that I just sit and lecture him/her about this or that. I ACT. I get off my seat and do something that shows my child that my words have meaning and their actions have consequences. He throws little pieces on the floor, for example,…he then helps to pick them up.

I study their ages/stages, what they are inclined to do naturally at certain ages, then I also can understand why they do irritating, aggravating actions at times and can come alongside and help them. Even when I know that I need to wait for something to be outgrown, it doesn’t mean I just let a child wreak havoc around our home and on others. We are a family, and while we do bear with each others’ weaknesses, there are definite behavioral boundaries.

It has been very eye-opening in certain situation, rare, but when my child does something I know directly is sin, and then I realize later that he/she was just trying to communicate a whole different message but didn’t know how to put it into words. So I do correct the sin, but I have been very thankful at those times that I didn’t just spank or punish in a general sense, but rather I responded somehow then took time to probe into what was going on, even over a period of time.

That’s not a full answer, but I’m trying to give people the idea that “no spanking” doesn’t jsut mean I subsitute that for theological lectures.

Our 3yo nephew (with cerebral palsy) lives with us while his mom is in rehab. I am so, so thankful that God has led me into parenting views and skills that are non-adversarial, that train me to express love, patience, and understanding to my children as children, and that have set up boundaries around me so that I don’t become abusive. All those cases where children died, they were adopted, and with our nephew, who will be with us fairly long-term, I see how easily the relationship could become antagonistic and adversarial, and pretty much focused on my asserting my authority (esp I see this after the honeymoon, you-poor-you, child-very-sick-from-neglect phase). We think those parents must be weird or deranged for going to those lengths to hurt those kids. … That is how Satan and our flesh deceives us. We are not so removed from them, especially when it comes to trying to receive and train a child that has already been programmed in ways you will never know, has seen/heard/experienced things you will never know, and has been trained to act in ways you will never understand. The parent-child relationship can quickly desintegrate (sp?).

;) sorry for the passion. It’s something very close to my heart (if you can’t tell?)

[Rachel L.] In my experience, it is unusual to have the Fundamentalists promoting notions like Behaviorism and the Stages of Child Development. Usually we Chrisitan non-spankers are told that we are basing our methods on *gasp* SECULAR *gasp* notions like these.

I am quite familiar with Child Development and it supports the notion that toddlers do not benefit from being spanked.

I’m quite sure it’s possible to cite child development experts taking directly opposite positions on a whole lot of questions. I think the point was that Piaget, for example, sort of formulated the obvious—that young kids are very concrete thinkers and abstractions are lost on them (I’m still in favor of telling them the abstractions, but not really as a method of correction. It’s just a good habit to get into and you never know at what point they’ll start getting it). But there is a pretty strong consensus that the mind develops in stages.

For my part, I don’t need an expert to tell me that.

As for secular vs. not… It’s not really possible to lump all ideas under the headings “secular” and “Christian” and reject all of the former and embrace all of the latter. You’ll never hear an “it’s secular, therefore false” argument from me.

All secular ideas are not equal. Because of common grace, some have more truth mixed into them than others… and some are just true.

On the other hand, there are systems of thought that are built on convictions about human nature that are quite contrary to Scripture. Most of the anti-discipline trend has been propelled by ideas born out of these philosophies (Rousseau, Freud, etc.). Even these philosophies have some truth in them… it’s just that what’s built on these kinds of foundations has to be greeted with great suspicion.

As for the impression that some of the “grace based” and similar strategies favor lots of “little talks” over active correction… this impression hasn’t developed in a vacuum. The quotes I see—and linked sources, etc.—are full of anecdotes to that effect.

We’ve had other discussions on this in which one person or another seriously questioned whether parent’s should ever do anything to intentionally cause a child pain. That’s not an anti-spanking position; it’s an anti-discipline position.

Nobody here believes that Christians should teach kids “just be good and you’ll go to heaven.”

And giving kids this impression is not as easy as some suggest. I grew up in a family that was quite strict (by most people’s standards), where firm discipline was the norm, and spanking was not terribly unusual. Somehow this did not prevent my parents from communicating the gospel clearly to me, and my earliest memories of reflecting on my nature and need were completely square with the gospel.

My parents were raised the same way and theirs were raised the same way before them… all believers, none of them moralists. How can this be?

[Aaron Blumer] As for the impression that some of the “grace based” and similar strategies favor lots of “little talks” over active correction… this impression hasn’t developed in a vacuum. The quotes I see—and linked sources, etc.—are full of anecdotes to that effect.

We’ve had other discussions on this in which one person or another seriously questioned whether parent’s should ever do anything to intentionally cause a child pain. That’s not an anti-spanking position; it’s an anti-discipline position.

This is why i linked to the Elyse F. interview above. She explains this very well. Books are different—Grace-Based Parenting is very theological/why oriented. Not so helpful with an active 2yo, but good to understand the why of your parenting. Stuff by Wm and Martha Sears is very tool-oriented—here are 10 things to do when your child does X. I like Ross Campbell the most because he teaches parents how to communicate love to a child, and various steps of teaching to go through before spanking. Learning how to communicate love to my kids has resolved/guided many discipline moments in our home.

[Aaron Blumer] Nobody here believes that Christians should teach kids “just be good and you’ll go to heaven.”

I think the discipline/childrearing we discuss here is touching a different issue. It’s how we communicate sanctification and our day-to-day standing before God to our kids. Fitzpatrick talks about this in that interview, and I’m not sure I can do a good job of it. This is also why I love Martin Luther’s “Concerning Christian Liberty” (liberty referring to our freedom from salvific works in Christ, and how our life then become service/love to man, as Christ’s life was to us, not a question of how God views me or deals with me or accepts me).

I think most of us do not understand how the Gospel is our sanctification as well as our salvation. And that is more what the discipline/childrearing issues focus on.

We’ve had other discussions on this in which one person or another seriously questioned whether parent’s should ever do anything to intentionally cause a child pain. That’s not an anti-spanking position; it’s an anti-discipline position.

Would you clarify this a bit, Aaron? Especially what the portion I bolded?

If you just mean physical pain there, then I disagree with your conclusion. If you are using intentional to mean that the pain is contrived, then I disagree with your conclusion.

Parents can effectively discipline without causing physical pain. I agree that discipline involves emotional pain through one’s will and desires being thwarted (so that meets your proposed pain requirement). And, I do not believe that the emotional pain must be contrived … setting and enforcing limits generally creates sufficient emotional pain without having to “tack on” additional emotional pain through unrelated consequences like losing t.v. privileges or something.

Parents can effectively discipline without causing physical pain.

How do you define effectively? If scripture is the measurement, then no, you can’t. If culture is the measurement, then you and Anne have nailed it. The issue for Christians should always be scripture, and not culture.

In what way is your “biblical” definition of effective different than a “secular” definition of effective, James?

The biblically based parenting model seeks to teach children about the one true God. This would then require obedience to what God says. The secular mind could not care less. Culture standards are always rethinking what God plainly says. One thing God plainly said is that if you do not spank, you do not love. Culturally minded folks have tried to reword, redefine, and simply ignore the clear meaning of scripture. You can see some perfect examples of that by the links Anne gave in addition to her own twist of the truth.

But you already knew that.

How does the Bible define effective, James?

If you are simply stating your (already incredibly clear) opinion that the Bible requires spanking as a primary means of discipline, that’s fine, no further comment needed.

I took the chance and responded because it sounded like you might have something new (Biblical definition of effective) to bring to the conversation.

Rachel, effective by the measurement of faithfulness. Noah was an effective preacher because he was faithful, not because of mass results. Faithful parents are effective in God’s eyes when they do what He says.

[Rachel L.]

We’ve had other discussions on this in which one person or another seriously questioned whether parent’s should ever do anything to intentionally cause a child pain. That’s not an anti-spanking position; it’s an anti-discipline position.

Would you clarify this a bit, Aaron? Especially what the portion I bolded?

If you just mean physical pain there, then I disagree with your conclusion. If you are using intentional to mean that the pain is contrived, then I disagree with your conclusion.

Parents can effectively discipline without causing physical pain. I agree that discipline involves emotional pain through one’s will and desires being thwarted (so that meets your proposed pain requirement). And, I do not believe that the emotional pain must be contrived … setting and enforcing limits generally creates sufficient emotional pain without having to “tack on” additional emotional pain through unrelated consequences like losing t.v. privileges or something.

Glad to clarify if I can.

My view on this has several components…

1. Parental discipline involves, at minimum, the intentional use of negative consequences for wrong behavior.
2. What makes a consequence “negative” from the child’s point of view is the pain of it.
3. Pain takes many forms from disappointment, to loss, to grief, to sorrow, to temporarily sore backside.
4. Pain and “harm” (or “injury”) are not the same thing and must be distinguished (the way many lump them together is intellectually dishonest).
5. I can’t find any basis in Scripture or experience for the idea that physical pain is worse than other kinds of pain. (Experience suggest the opposite is true!)
6. The primary test of what kind of pain/negative consequence (a.k.a. “rod”) a parent uses is effectiveness.
7. Small children readily understand pain as an immediate consequence in situations where other kinds of correction are confusing (because of the level of thinking required to connect act to consequence).
8. Kids need to begin developing moral perspective (to think in terms of right vs. wrong) long before they are old enough to understand the gospel (the gospel is predicated on “wrong” and “sin” being terms that carry real meaning).
9. The use of real discipline (a.k.a., negative consequences, etc.) is not compatible incompatible with teaching the gospel. There is no disjunction between the two.
10. Finally, even in a soteriologically-driven approach to parenting, it’s evident that sinners must learn law before they can learn grace. Good parenting begins with law, and teaches grace in that context.
    There’s probably another point or two, but that pretty well summarizes it… and maybe it helps focus the debate—at least my part of it—by putting some essentials in the form of short, clear propositions.
    
    Edit: I need to say thanks for the tension and the questions… I feel like I’m reaching a clarity with my own thinking on these things now where much was just sort of intuitive before. So the conversations have forced me to pull these ideas out into the light and really look them over.

Thanks for that, Aaron.

This caught my eye (no doubt because of the post right before yours):

The primary test of what kind of pain/negative consequence (a.k.a. “rod”) a parent uses is effectiveness.

May I conclude then, that you have no problem with my non-spanking discipline methods since I can assure you that they are effective?

[Aaron Blumer]

5. I can’t find any basis in Scripture or experience for the idea that physical pain is worse than other kinds of pain. (Experience suggest the opposite is true!)

This is obviously only anecdotal, but my experience certainly bears out this observation. When I was very young, I couldn’t imagine a worse punishment than a spanking. As I got older, I quickly started to realize that the spanking was the *best* punishment from my point of view. The consequences were much more temporary than even having my mouth washed out with soap (which usually lasted well into the next day), or loss of privileges, which could last weeks or more, and also resulted in shaming in front of anyone who found out, whereas a spanking from my parents could be kept completely private.

By the time I was a teen, spanking was almost completely ineffective, since it was pretty easy to bear (remember, unlike caning, spanking doesn’t really have lasting consequences, and doesn’t cause permanent injury), and as a result, my parents used it much less frequently. It was much more effective (for me) when I was a small child. I certainly agree that physical pain (not referring to God’s variety that will be used in eternal punishment) was NOT the worst type of pain I could experience when I was punished.

I actually printed out this list and have been thinking about it. I have some comments and questions.

First I wanted to say that discipline is essentially a positive thing, though it is not at times or even usually pleasant. I mean that discipline, broadly, is the whole scope of what we impart to the disciplined one. Learning to brush your teeth every day is a form of discipline, for example. Learning to obey habitually is a discipline. I, as a mother, am asking God to teach me the discipline of speaking in kind, respectful tones of voice to my children, for example. This is a really hard experience for me, painful in the sense of having to humble my fleshly responses to become submitted to let Christ’s thoughts and mindset come through me. I am also being disciplined by the responsibilties of having the care of home and children—the tasks of constantly cooking and cleaning, for example, don’t come naturally and require discipline on my part, self-control, giving up what I would much rather be doing and hopefully finding the joy of being with Christ in the denial of self for the sake of serving others.

I mean to say that discipline is a lot more than mainly pain infliction and negativity.

[Aaron Blumer] Parental discipline involves, at minimum, the intentional use of negative consequences for wrong behavior.

What makes a consequence “negative” from the child’s point of view is the pain of it.

Pain takes many forms from disappointment, to loss, to grief, to sorrow, to temporarily sore backside.

I will leave most of this for now, but I will point out that pain is also just the struggle with the flesh, making myself do what I don’t really want to do at the moment in order to gain a greater good goal. To use Paul’s analogy, athletes do a lot of painful (in a healthy way) things to their bodies to make them fit for winning. It’s discipline, it’s most of what discipline is about.

[Aaron Blumer] Pain and “harm” (or “injury”) are not the same thing and must be distinguished (the way many lump them together is intellectually dishonest).

I can agree with that strictly, but it also should be said that, just as you pointed out that pain can take many forms, inflicting pain in a non-injuring way can be tricky—what if you’re not physically causing deformity or breaking bones or causing kidney failure, but causing real harm in a different form that you cannot see?

[Aaron Blumer] I can’t find any basis in Scripture or experience for the idea that physical pain is worse than other kinds of pain. (Experience suggest the opposite is true!)

I don’t know that Scripture directly addresses this either, but this is what the issue of physical-intentional-pain-infliction-of-small-children came down to for me Scripturally: I did a study of all the times in Scripture that small children are mentioned and how God portrays small children to us, and what His own communicated-to-us thoughts are about small children… . That is how I came to my personal conviction of finding non-striking, non-adversarial, non-promoting-my-own-power ways of guiding my children into good disciplines. (I am sadly far from perfect at denying myself those things, but it’s how I am trying to have God’s heart toward young children.)

[Aaron Blumer] The primary test of what kind of pain/negative consequence (a.k.a. “rod”) a parent uses is effectiveness.

Pragmatically, I agree with this. Theoretically, I am not sure I do, and I’m not sure you do either, if you think about it. If the method seems to work, then it’s OK?

For example, I used to say all day long, “S, if you don’t do X, then I will spank you.” S would immediately comply. This threat worked effectively. But it was a dark, negative time of mothering for me. It worked, but it wasn’t good.

[Aaron Blumer] Small children readily understand pain as an immediate consequence in situations where other kinds of correction are confusing (because of the level of thinking required to connect act to consequence).

I really disagree with this from my day-to-day experience. For example, our little 3yo nephew lives with us, has lived with us for over a month now. I’m teaching him to obey me. So yesterday, he throws this Christmas tree ornament on the floor, and starts to just crawl away. I say, “K, please pick up the ornament and bring it to me.” He refuses. So I scoop him up and set him on the couch and say, “when you are ready to pick up the ornament, then you can get down and go play.” He understands perfectly. He sulks a bit and lays there. I can’t remember if he cried. Then after a few moments, he gets the ornament, gives it to me, and goes to play.

Now, I didn’t cause him any type of physical pain. I’m just trying to gently but firmly teach him that mommy’s words need to be obeyed. Also, I have noticed that many times, my children are trying to communicate something else when they refuse to obey. And I can usually tell it now, what’s going on. So obedience is still necessary, but I also try to meet the real need that is being communicated by the disobedience.

[Aaron Blumer] Kids need to begin developing moral perspective (to think in terms of right vs. wrong) long before they are old enough to understand the gospel (the gospel is predicated on “wrong” and “sin” being terms that carry real meaning).

I’m not sure this is true. By the time a child can grasp the “moral” reason they are obeying or not, they can also grasp the gospel, that Jesus died for the bad things I do.

[Aaron Blumer] The use of real discipline (a.k.a., negative consequences, etc.) is not compatible incompatible with teaching the gospel. There is no disjunction between the two.

Maybe it depends on what one is really emphasizing in the gospel. What is the gospel? That Christ lived a sinless life for my account; He died bearing the punishment for my sinful life; now I follow in His steps by living a servant-life of love to God and others (which includes obedience).

[Aaron Blumer] Finally, even in a soteriologically-driven approach to parenting, it’s evident that sinners must learn law before they can learn grace. Good parenting begins with law, and teaches grace in that context.

But really, to me this seems to put one on a hopeles circle. The law shows us that we can never ever measure up. The law is to teach my kids their hopelessness of ever being able to obey it fully. So I would be punishing them for not achieving something they can never achieve … . Grace is that Christ obeyed the law on our behalf; that we are free from that heavy burden and free to obey for love of Christ, though the obedience is always imperfect.

Two other issues that should be addressed in this are 1) using fear (of pain/punishment) as a primary discipline tool is problematic, I think, Scripturally. 2) understanding the importance of my completed sanctification (in Christ) and how God accepts me based on that and not on my progressive sanctification is something that has changed me a lot internally, too, and changed how I view parenting. I will have to think about why exactly, and how to express it.

[Anne Sokol] I mean to say that discipline is a lot more than mainly pain infliction and negativity.

Yes, this is why I said “at a minimum.” We do use the word “discipline” in more than one sense, though they are related. The positive part is really the outcome. The process is inherently painful, even if the “pain” is that of getting up earlier than you want, practicing longer than you want, etc. So, whether it’s self-discipline or parental discipline it involves “enduring hardship” (2Tim.2:3-7 is helpful).

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Pain and “harm” (or “injury”) are not the same thing and must be distinguished (the way many lump them together is intellectually dishonest).

I can agree with that strictly, but it also should be said that, just as you pointed out that pain can take many forms, inflicting pain in a non-injuring way can be tricky—what if you’re not physically causing deformity or breaking bones or causing kidney failure, but causing real harm in a different form that you cannot see?

Yes. But this goes back to a point I emphasized in another thread— there is no substitute for virtuous parents. On this particular point, it isn’t even virtue that’s required: just a little bit of sense. There is no need to go beyond what is obviously safe (and I don’t mean “safe from prosecution;” I mean safe for the child).

If you give yourself a couple whacks on the hand to calibrate, you even know how much pain is involved as well as whether injury is occurring.

It really isn’t rocket science.

Where parents get into trouble with this is if they’ve bought into some notion that a particular response from the child is necessary and they have to keep hitting until they get it. It would be hard to overstate how wrongheaded I believe that is.

But we also get into trouble when we try to develop a parenting strategy/method that we hope will compensate for a bad parent. There is no such method. God’s design is for children to be disciplined by good parents, not disciplined with a good method by bad parents, know what I mean?

There is no safe method where foolish moms and dads are involved.

[Anne] I don’t know that Scripture directly addresses this either, but this is what the issue of physical-intentional-pain-infliction-of-small-children came down to for me Scripturally: I did a study of all the times in Scripture that small children are mentioned and how God portrays small children to us, and what His own communicated-to-us thoughts are about small children… . That is how I came to my personal conviction of finding non-striking, non-adversarial, non-promoting-my-own-power ways of guiding my children into good disciplines.

I’d be interested in what passages led you to this conclusion.

Question: what’s wrong with power?

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] The primary test of what kind of pain/negative consequence (a.k.a. “rod”) a parent uses is effectiveness.

Pragmatically, I agree with this. Theoretically, I am not sure I do, and I’m not sure you do either, if you think about it. If the method seems to work, then it’s OK?

No, my point is that we already know the method is good, the particular form is chosen based on effectiveness. To use an analogy, we know from Scripture that teaching children is good. What sort of method we use (pictures, songs, stories, tactile practice, etc.) depends largely on what works.

[Anne] For example, I used to say all day long, “S, if you don’t do X, then I will spank you.” S would immediately comply. This threat worked effectively. But it was a dark, negative time of mothering for me. It worked, but it wasn’t good.

There’s a difference between “bad idea” and “poor execution of a good idea.” This is one of those cases. I always say that the best disciplinary tool is the one you hardly ever use. If you have to use it often, it’s not working.

I’ve found that it’s very effective to deliver a very small negative consequence along with some communication that more of that is likely if there isn’t a change. This approach gets rid of a whole lot of threatening, which tends to be meaningless until the parent actually does something.

But again, anti-spanking advocates often seem to get the impression that pro-spanking advocates think spanking is something you do early and often. I’m not of that persuasion. My view is simply that pain is pain and there is no reason to take the judicious use of physical pain off the list of available resources.

(One of my kids was never responsive at all to spanking. So the “rod” meant non-physical methods in that case. For the other one, even a token spanking is quite meaningful…. so far. But again, anything you use a lot is no longer working.)

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Small children readily understand pain as an immediate consequence in situations where other kinds of correction are confusing (because of the level of thinking required to connect act to consequence).

I really disagree with this from my day-to-day experience. For example, our little 3yo nephew lives with us, has lived with us for over a month now. I’m teaching him to obey me. So yesterday, he throws this Christmas tree ornament on the floor, and starts to just crawl away. I say, “K, please pick up the ornament and bring it to me.” He refuses. So I scoop him up and set him on the couch and say, “when you are ready to pick up the ornament, then you can get down and go play.” He understands perfectly. He sulks a bit and lays there. I can’t remember if he cried. Then after a few moments, he gets the ornament, gives it to me, and goes to play.

Now, I didn’t cause him any type of physical pain.

I don’t disagree with any of that. It sounds pretty effective. My view is that pain is pain and if K is not responsive to the pain of having to sit and do nothing for a while, a parent should not be shy about a slap on the wrist or whack on the behind. Sometimes parents unduly exhaust themselves trying to avoid simpler ways of communicating. But I’m not against a time out if it works.

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Kids need to begin developing moral perspective (to think in terms of right vs. wrong) long before they are old enough to understand the gospel (the gospel is predicated on “wrong” and “sin” being terms that carry real meaning).

I’m not sure this is true. By the time a child can grasp the “moral” reason they are obeying or not, they can also grasp the gospel, that Jesus died for the bad things I do.

I may not have been clear. I’m not talking about grasping reasons. Kids have to learn the basic concept of right and wrong before they learn why anything is right or wrong. When we’re little, we take these things on authority—on our confidence in whoever is telling us. So long before junior can understand “I’m a sinner who deserves the wrath of God” he needs to understand “right and wrong are two different things” and hopefully also “I am not the judge of the difference between them.”

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] The use of real discipline (a.k.a., negative consequences, etc.) is not compatible incompatible with teaching the gospel. There is no disjunction between the two.

Maybe it depends on what one is really emphasizing in the gospel. What is the gospel? That Christ lived a sinless life for my account; He died bearing the punishment for my sinful life; now I follow in His steps by living a servant-life of love to God and others (which includes obedience).

I don’t see how that is incompatible with the kind of discipline I’ve been describing.

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Finally, even in a soteriologically-driven approach to parenting, it’s evident that sinners must learn law before they can learn grace. Good parenting begins with law, and teaches grace in that context.

But really, to me this seems to put one on a hopeles circle. The law shows us that we can never ever measure up. The law is to teach my kids their hopelessness of ever being able to obey it fully. So I would be punishing them for not achieving something they can never achieve … . Grace is that Christ obeyed the law on our behalf; that we are free from that heavy burden and free to obey for love of Christ, though the obedience is always imperfect.

Yes. Agree with all of that. But you’re making my point, rather than defeating it. A huge part of the dynamic for kids in Christian homes should be exactly the kind of hopelessness you’ve described. You have to abandon self-hope before you can put your hope exclusively in Christ.

[Anne] Two other issues that should be addressed in this are 1) using fear (of pain/punishment) as a primary discipline tool is problematic, I think, Scripturally. 2) understanding the importance of my completed sanctification (in Christ) and how God accepts me based on that and not on my progressive sanctification is something that has changed me a lot internally, too, and changed how I view parenting. I will have to think about why exactly, and how to express it.

Fear… that’s really a whole different topic and not what I’ve been talking about. It’s not really fear when you know exactly what is going to happen. I mean, do I avoid putting my hand on the stove because I’m afraid? I guess in a way, but I’m not conscious of feeling any fear. I just know what will happen if I do that.

But I really don’t know why we should see fear as a bad thing. If something is evil and harmful we ought to fear it. If something is awesomely powerful, we ought to fear it. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fear is good.

Dread… now that’s something else. I’m not talking about raising kids full of dread. They don’t experience that if the boundaries are clear and the consequences are predictable.

As for completed sanctification in Christ… (1) I’m not entirely sure what you mean. My sanctification is not complete yet… and I have responsibilities to participate in the process until it is (Phil. 2:12 for example). (2) Either way, our approach to parenting should not be to take Scriptures that are not specifically about parenting, extrapolate a parenting method we think ought to be good in light of those passages, then reinterpret the passages that are actually about parenting to fit our extrapolated method. This is what I think much of the recent thought and writing on this does. God has spoken very plainly about how parenting should work. We should assume He has not given us methods that are inconsistent with the gospel… and as I think I’ve shown, there is no inconsistency w/the gospel in traditional Christian parenting.

I’m not sure how to dialogue understandably and still try to cut down all the long quoting, but here we go:

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne Sokol] I mean to say that discipline is a lot more than mainly pain infliction and negativity.

Yes, this is why I said “at a minimum.” We do use the word “discipline” in more than one sense, though they are related. The positive part is really the outcome. The process is inherently painful, even if the “pain” is that of getting up earlier than you want, practicing longer than you want, etc. So, whether it’s self-discipline or parental discipline it involves “enduring hardship” (2Tim.2:3-7 is helpful).

I think about use of the concept of discipline, I also need to clarify, that I really don’t see correction of wrong behavior as always requiring punishment/negativity. This is where some of us differ, and this is where the theory or philosophy or theology talk comes into play. My child does something wrong, and I don’t have to have a punishment response. I may use something my child doesn’t enjoy or find happy, or I may use a stop to hold and talk and give some affection, but I don’t feed myself internally with a punishment mindset in my correction and restoration and guidance of my kids when they do wrong.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Pain and “harm” (or “injury”) are not the same thing and must be distinguished (the way many lump them together is intellectually dishonest).

I can agree with that strictly, but it also should be said that, just as you pointed out that pain can take many forms, inflicting pain in a non-injuring way can be tricky—what if you’re not physically causing deformity or breaking bones or causing kidney failure, but causing real harm in a different form that you cannot see?

Yes. But this goes back to a point I emphasized in another thread— there is no substitute for virtuous parents. On this particular point, it isn’t even virtue that’s required: just a little bit of sense. There is no need to go beyond what is obviously safe (and I don’t mean “safe from prosecution;” I mean safe for the child).

If you give yourself a couple whacks on the hand to calibrate, you even know how much pain is involved as well as whether injury is occurring.

It really isn’t rocket science.

I just mean to say that when parents are not taught, as they mostly are not taught in fundamentalism today, to see parenting through the lens of, say, building strong relationships, when it becomes rather about attaining “first-time obedience” and other spiritually-sounding ideas like that (because, of course, how your child obey his parents is how he will obey God, parents are told), then punishment or use of negativity can have spiritually harmful effects on the child.

[Aaron Blumer] There is no safe method where foolish moms and dads are involved.

That is why most discussions of parenting should not be focused on punishment of wrong behavior.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne] I don’t know that Scripture directly addresses this either, but this is what the issue of physical-intentional-pain-infliction-of-small-children came down to for me Scripturally: I did a study of all the times in Scripture that small children are mentioned and how God portrays small children to us, and what His own communicated-to-us thoughts are about small children… . That is how I came to my personal conviction of finding non-striking, non-adversarial, non-promoting-my-own-power ways of guiding my children into good disciplines.

I’d be interested in what passages led you to this conclusion.

Question: what’s wrong with power?

I will go back and look in my journals for this, some of the passages that I remember are: Ez 16:21, Mtt 21:15-16, and strangely missed in pretty much every parenting book I have ever read, Mtt 18:1-14.

About power, I think it is problematical when people are taught to assert and emphasize power in relationships like in the husband/wife relationship and the parent/child relationship. Maybe parenting books did this as a reaction to the hippie movement/cast-off-all-authority. I think that authority/power is best just assumed as a premise in life, it’s not something that needs to be highlighted, fought for, asserted, etc. I mean that to say, for example, I am my kids’ mom. I have to be comfortable with the authority and power that position gives me. As a Christian, I understand it is the power/position to serve and be the least. But in teaching obedience esp, asserting my personal power over my kids is not what I’m feeding myself with.

[Aaron Blumer] No, my point is that we already know the method is good, the particular form is chosen based on effectiveness. To use an analogy, we know from Scripture that teaching children is good. What sort of method we use (pictures, songs, stories, tactile practice, etc.) depends largely on what works.

So you’re saying, we already know the method of spanking is good b/c look that it worked for me, and for several others? It’s “traditional”?

[Aaron Blumer] But again, anti-spanking advocates often seem to get the impression that pro-spanking advocates think spanking is something you do early and often. I’m not of that persuasion. My view is simply that pain is pain and there is no reason to take the judicious use of physical pain off the list of available resources.

You really need to read/be aware of Tedd Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart, probably the most popular parenting book in fundamental circles today. It’s spank early, spank often, spank only (and talk).

[Aaron Blumer] My view is that pain is pain and if K is not responsive to the pain of having to sit and do nothing for a while, a parent should not be shy about a slap on the wrist or whack on the behind. Sometimes parents unduly exhaust themselves trying to avoid simpler ways of communicating. But I’m not against a time out if it works.

First, I don’t like “time outs.” Particularly as punishment. Like, you need to be isolated and feel bad for X amount of time. What I did in that case with K, I look at it just more as a hemming in, gently limiting his choices until he’s ready to make the right one ;) About time outs, I think they are more useful in the positive sense of a child who’s in a bad mood going away and doing something restorative so he doesn’t plague the rest of the family with his moodiness—How I love doing this myself :D

If this didn’t work with K, and I have other kids it might not work for, I would probably choose a method that involved more of my actual presence, holding or something, rather than hitting. With K’s background of coming from an extremely abusive home, I probably would never consider physical striking with him. Or with my other kids—then they want to spank each other, their dolls, etc.

[Aaron Blumer] I may not have been clear. I’m not talking about grasping reasons. Kids have to learn the basic concept of right and wrong before they learn why anything is right or wrong. When we’re little, we take these things on authority—on our confidence in whoever is telling us. So long before junior can understand “I’m a sinner who deserves the wrath of God” he needs to understand “right and wrong are two different things” and hopefully also “I am not the judge of the difference between them.”

I don’t know if it’s this complicated. I think I am probably the main shape-r of my kids’ consciences, if that’s what you mean.

I was thinking of this very thing yesterday as I am re-reading E. Prentiss’s Stepping Heavenward. This is one of the best books about how God disciplines us. I may take the time to quote some passages from it later. But she’s having a talk with her FIL (who has a depressing view of God as the terrifying judge) about her little son, and FIL says, “I hope, my daughter, that you are faithful to your son. …I hope you teach him that he is a sinner and that he is in a state of condemnation.”

She replies, “No, Father, I don’t. … My poor child will learn that he is a sinner only too soon; and before that dreadful day arrives, I want to fortify his soul with the only antidote against the misery that knowledge will give him. I want him to see his Redeemer in all His love and beauty and to love Him with all his heart and soul and mind and strength. Dear Father, pray for him, and pray for me, too.”

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] The use of real discipline (a.k.a., negative consequences, etc.) is not compatible incompatible with teaching the gospel. There is no disjunction between the two.

Maybe it depends on what one is really emphasizing in the gospel. What is the gospel? That Christ lived a sinless life for my account; He died bearing the punishment for my sinful life; now I follow in His steps by living a servant-life of love to God and others (which includes obedience).

I don’t see how that is incompatible with the kind of discipline I’ve been describing.

This is how I see it: What is our response to disobedience/wrong behavior? In our human logic, it must be something negative and bad and painful. …

So stop for a minute and consider why, as a parent, I must inflict punishment/pain on my children when they do wrong? Do I think: They have sinned, broken God’s law, and they must be punished for it. Like God punishes me when I sin. They need to understand God will punish their sins…

If this is my train of thought, or something similar, then I am always under God’s black cloud of punishment as much as I can perceive my own sins. I mean, we all know we’re not talking about hell-punishment as Christians, but do we still see God as punishing us daily for our sins in this life? And is that a true perception of how God deals with us? (this gets into the sanctification part)

OK, what if ask a different question when my child sins/does wrong: For example, I could think: my child is struggling with their sin; how can I come along side and help him/her?

The actions these two parents take may even be similar, but the reasoning behind them and what is ultimately communicated is much different.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Finally, even in a soteriologically-driven approach to parenting, it’s evident that sinners must learn law before they can learn grace. Good parenting begins with law, and teaches grace in that context.

But really, to me this seems to put one on a hopeles circle. The law shows us that we can never ever measure up. The law is to teach my kids their hopelessness of ever being able to obey it fully. So I would be punishing them for not achieving something they can never achieve … . Grace is that Christ obeyed the law on our behalf; that we are free from that heavy burden and free to obey for love of Christ, though the obedience is always imperfect.

Yes. Agree with all of that. But you’re making my point, rather than defeating it. A huge part of the dynamic for kids in Christian homes should be exactly the kind of hopelessness you’ve described. You have to abandon self-hope before you can put your hope exclusively in Christ.

But I think the opposite happens.

In one way, we set up somewhat keepable standards that a child can escape punishment from or bear the punishment of, for example, or standard of goodness that a child can somewhat keep. So even when we do punish, it’s not really for all a child’s sins or even most of them. So a lot of Christian kids don’t see themselves as really bad, like those really bad kids who smoke or something. They don’t see their own coveting or impatience, for example, because we don’t have a rule/consequence for that.

Or we communicate half the gospel, that Christ died for your sins, now you accept Him as saving you from hell, but now you need to work on yourself, and grace becomes defined more as you being given the power to obey rather than what it really is, that One obeyed on your behalf.

[Aaron Blumer] Fear… that’s really a whole different topic and not what I’ve been talking about. It’s not really fear when you know exactly what is going to happen. I mean, do I avoid putting my hand on the stove because I’m afraid? I guess in a way, but I’m not conscious of feeling any fear. I just know what will happen if I do that.

But I really don’t know why we should see fear as a bad thing. If something is evil and harmful we ought to fear it. If something is awesomely powerful, we ought to fear it. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fear is good.

Dread… now that’s something else. I’m not talking about raising kids full of dread. They don’t experience that if the boundaries are clear and the consequences are predictable.

It’s First John I had in mind. I wish this were also a part of common Christian parenting discussions. If we are drawing kids to the love of God, trying to teach them to act in love, as is the first two main commandments, use of punishing and fear, and they do fear it of course, is probably not the best way to go theologically. I think it’s not really in our human nature to understand or accept God’s unconditional love or forgiveness or trusting Him, for example. How many “accept Christ” after hearing evangelists preaching about hell in detail? Having a sensible fear of consequences is common sensical.

[Aaron Blumer] As for completed sanctification in Christ… (1) I’m not entirely sure what you mean. My sanctification is not complete yet… and I have responsibilities to participate in the process until it is (Phil. 2:12 for example).

I will deal with this separately. I need time I don’t have at this moment. It’s Martin Luther, for one thing. And what Elyse F talks about in her interview.

I don’t think it is a good idea to explain to a 2 year old that they were spanked because they sinned by [disobeying, arguing, not esteeming others better than themselves, purposeful destruction of another’s property, whining, etc…]. I think it does set the wrong tone for their lives. God doesn’t inflict immediate, physical pain to Christians when we disobey him.

I look at spanking as a mere tool to, well, drive foolishness from them. They won’t always get spanked for disobeying/disrespecting authority, but at a young age, it is the most effective way to teach them the foolishness of doing so. As they get older, they’ll experience more complex results of that disobedience/disrespect, just as adult Christians experience the sin-results and God’s chastisement for perpetrating the same.

Perhaps we can convince Doctor Cone to do a series on God’s chastisement.

It might be helpful to point out here that [S] sometimes[/S] often God does indeed inflict immediate painful consequences when people sin. We just finished reading Exodus 32 & 33 in our Men’s Bible Study (Golden Calf thing… see Exod. 32:35)

Remember Ananias and Sapphira? Uzzah? Nadab and Abihu? Saul? David (Ok, not quite immediate, but severe and unmistakably linked to his offense). Manasseh (2 Chron 33:10–13). Jonah. Miriam (Num. 12:10). The list goes on and on.

Graciously and mercifully, He does not always deal with us that way. He models both grace and wisdom in choosing when to deal decisively with our wrongdoing and when to, as we say, cut us some slack. (Exod. 33:19)

We can reasonably surmise that our parenting should resemble God’s “parenting” of us, but the Scriptures don’t say “parents, handle your kids like God handles you.” That’s significant. What the Scriptures do provide is direct instruction on what parents need to do for kids.

[Anne] OK, what if ask a different question when my child sins/does wrong: For example, I could think: my child is struggling with their sin; how can I come along side and help him/her?

This, and ideas about teaching kids love, etc. are really another topic. Nobody is arguing that we should spank instead of teaching kids love or—if a kid is actually trying to do right, find ways to encourage him/her. (Actually trying/”struggling with” is quite often not at all what’s going on… but either way, I would ask, why wouldn’t discipline help them be successful? The argument in Hebrews is that God chastens those He loves—the implication is that this helps us. That has certainly been my experience. Why else would He do it? The sin has already been paid for. So the discipline is a way to help us change—not punitive.)

There is no disjunction between these practices and the wise use of real (pain-involved) discipline in training children.

[Aaron Blumer]… but either way, I would ask, why wouldn’t discipline help them be successful? The argument in Hebrews is that God chastens those He loves—the implication is that this helps us. That has certainly been my experience. Why else would He do it? The sin has already been paid for. So the discipline is a way to help us change—not punitive.)

There is no disjunction between these practices and the wise use of real (pain-involved) discipline in training children.

I’m still working on my sanctification things, but quick answer to this.

“Why wouldn’t discipline help them be successful?” It would. Just your and my definitions/applications/mindset-of-applying of that word discipine are probably somewhat different.

Actually, now that I’m typing, this all has a lot to do with how we understand sanctification and discipline. I need to just stick on that. Still need to sit and type it out.

I will say, adults can experience very heavy consequences for their sinful actions. God can allow them to sin to that extent. Sadly, it’s probably a lot of the result of not understanding our freedom (from works) in Christ and how we now live in love to all others (the place of works).

I also see that God can just use “pressing” circumstances to mature us, discipline us. Like giving us children, or causing us to live with someone it’s difficult to live with, for example. These things often provoke us to sin often and draw out our sinfulness to humble us, and show us how hopeless we are to sanctify ourselves and begin to look to Him for His own sufficient righteousness, which is not able to come from us at all. It is ours only by faith.

Anway …

[Aaron Blumer] It might be helpful to point out here that [S] sometimes[/S] often God does indeed inflict immediate painful consequences when people sin. We just finished reading Exodus 32 & 33 in our Men’s Bible Study (Golden Calf thing… see Exod. 32:35)

Remember Ananias and Sapphira? Uzzah? Nadab and Abihu? Saul? David (Ok, not quite immediate, but severe and unmistakably linked to his offense). Manasseh (2 Chron 33:10–13). Jonah. Miriam (Num. 12:10). The list goes on and on.

This is a reason why I’d like to hear a study on Divine Chastisement. All of the Bible examples of chastisement are outside of our dispensation. For example - when’s the last time we saw a person fall over dead because he participated in communion unworthily? The passage that deals with that concept was during the transitional period between OT law and our current, church age of grace. How many people have we seen “faithfully” come to church almost every Sunday morning, but never come to any other service and never serve in any ministry - and lead healthy, happy lives (which, of course, brings up another question of whether or not they are even saved, but we’ll assume they are)? I know I’m just tossing things out there that can be shot to death because of all of the holes in them, but I’m just trying to pose the question of the differences in 21st century Divine chastisement vs. Old Testament through Transitional. I believe the answer to that question may help shed light on our view of physical pain parenting.

Interesting question.. and yes, it could be quite a study on its own. I’m sure someone has already done it a few times by now, but I’m not aware of a title to reference.

As for dispensations, some random thoughts…

There is a lot of grace in the age of law. Witness the fact that instant death due to disobedience is rare enough to stand out. What about all the people who were not struck dead for breaking laws? Grace.

There is a lot of law in grace. God’s standard of righteousness remains and we are indeed held to it. The big difference is that the indwelling Spirit changes us so that we conform to the law, rather than our trying to accomplish this in our “flesh.” This is the argument of Romans 7-8.

The point of the chastisement section of Hebrews 12 is that God does still inflict suffering in response to sin. In may be more in response to sinful condition in general (which seems to be the case in Heb.12) rather than a particular sin. But you have intentional use of painful experiences to reshape and “train” (the word appears at the end of that section) us.

Ananias and Sapphira are a NT example of severe discipline in response to specific sin. (Another would be the reference in 1 Corinthians to many sick and dead due to their abuse of the Lord’s Table.)

It’s true that there is less of this in the NT era because of the different nature of the New Covenant. Specifically, the NC has an emphasis on newness of heart (Ezek.36.26 and context; Jer. 31.33 ff) where the Old focused more on conditions for blessing and cursing (see the last several chapters of Deut.).

But what sort of implications do these have for parenting? Clearly, the implications are not obvious. You can argue seven different ways from these very high-level changes in God’s relationship to His peoples. The fact is, the passages that reveal these realities to us are not about parenting, and we have many passages that are. We should let the latter say what they say rather than going to them with our prejudgments about what the higher level ideas require them to say… especially when the law, grace, sanctification and salvation ideas we’re talking about have such unclear implications for parenting technique.

…and we are talking about technique. There is really no substantial disagreement about the goal of Christian parenting. We want to see young adults who are disciples of Jesus Christ, who love Him and are committed to living obedient lives.

We should let the technique passages tell us what our technique ought to be rather than extrapolating (or just imagining) technique from matters that aren’t inherently related.

[Aaron Blumer] the passages that reveal these realities to us are not about parenting, and we have many passages that are….

We should let the technique passages tell us what our technique ought to be rather than extrapolating (or just imagining) technique from matters that aren’t inherently related.

I couldn’t agree more. Then I guess it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding our parenting technique by comparing how God “parents” his children, right?

[Aaron Blumer] Ananias and Sapphira are a NT example of severe discipline in response to specific sin. (Another would be the reference in 1 Corinthians to many sick and dead due to their abuse of the Lord’s Table.)

My issue with drawing any conclusion from these examples is that there are many things in the NT that no longer happen - I’m thinking specifically of sign gifts, of course. Lots of miraculous healings from the Apostles, tongues, etc. All of the “sign” type things were transitional for the purpose of validating the church (right?). So I see Ananias and Sapphira and the Communion commentary to simply be part of that transitioning into the fully fledged Church Age.

[Aaron Blumer] There is a lot of grace in the age of law. Witness the fact that instant death due to disobedience is rare enough to stand out. What about all the people who were not struck dead for breaking laws? Grace.

There is a lot of law in grace. God’s standard of righteousness remains and we are indeed held to it. The big difference is that the indwelling Spirit changes us so that we conform to the law, rather than our trying to accomplish this in our “flesh.” This is the argument of Romans 7-8.

Point well taken regarding the overflowing of Grace in the OT/Law. It is indeed far easier to see the mass/supernatural judgments of death, plague, snake bites, etc., and ignore how much grace God has always shown humanity.

This is an attempt to express what I’ve gleaned for my own life and for my parenting from Martin Luther’s tract “Concerning Christian Liberty.”

As this is a forum thread and not a dissertation, I will try to make this brief. In doing so, it will cut out a lot of the depth and thence the understanding, but so be it.

When we look at the whole of discipline in life (mine, my kids, etc.), our discipline (I don’t mean punishment for wrong, but habitual ordering of life) should mainly serve to express our love—our love to God and to others.

Luther goes to great lengths to prove how only faith and the word of God (the gospel of Christ), and not good works, can touch/save the soul.

The commands given in Scripture show us what is good, but give us no power to do them.

The promises of God now enter—we fulfill all the commands only by faith in Christ, as He fulfilled them and only He can fulfill them. [Skip Luther’s long section on the 3 virtues of faith.]

In conclusion, faith alone fulfills the law for us (b/c only Christ fulfills it). And a person must have fulfilled the commandments (by faith) prior to being able to do any good works. (Good works without this is just idolatry.)

So what’s the point of doing good works? (WHY AM I TEACHING MY KIDS TO OBEY ME, LOVE OTHERS, LIVE TOGETHER IN HARMONY, ETC.)

1. We must live in this body. 2. We must have relationships with people.

1. Being so filled with love for God and all He’s done for us, we now want our bodies to be subdued so they can express the love that fills our soul. We want our flesh to conform to our souls, which are rejoicing in God and desirous to serve Him for nothing other than freely-given love for what He’s done for us. No fear, no slavery … . just love.

2. Just as Christ became a man and laid aside His freedom (as sinless God) to serve us (by obeying the law for us, dying, etc), so we are to lay aside our freedom from needing to do good works (for salvation), and we become Christs to each other, serving one another in love.

Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.

End Martin Luther synthesis/My conclusions: It’s probably human nature to grow up thinking that our works are what God focuses on and what pleases Him. Really, He is only truly pleased with Christ’s work, which is applied to me by faith. My works will never, ever meet God’s standards. I am free of that obligation. I am accepted and always an object of God’s goodwill because I am in His Son.

The motives for my works now are very important. Important that I feed the love and faith in my heart (and love and faith are only fed by love and faith—not by deeds). And deeds come as an expression of that love and faith—deeds to subdue my body, deeds to love others as Christ loved me. In this way, deeds are very, very important.

So, this is why I, personally, try to steer away from punitive teaching measures—toward any believer, not just my kids. I don’t want to habitually motivate through fear, pain, shame, punishment, doubting of acceptance/standing, etc. I want to be very careful about the messages I send about what really pleases God. (Yes, my works can please Him, but only in the way that they are done in right faith.) And the more I learn to gaze on the righteousness, goodness, perfection of Christ, the more I stop measuring myself by my own or other human standards and can ask how Christ wants to be shown in a given situation.

Do my kids experience pain? Sure they do. So do I. Pain is very shaping and helpful. I have learned to kiss and hug the painful situations that God has put in my life because they are the shapers/discipliners that enable me to more and more express the love and faith that is growing in my soul towards Him. That’s how I really want pain to help and shape my kids—to help/enable them express their love.

Sort of an abrupt end, but that’s what I can express at this point.

Here are some excellent quotes from “Concerning Christian Liberty:”

In this we see clearly that the Apostle lays down this rule for a Christian life: that all our works should be directed to the advantage of others, since every Christian has such abundance through his faith that all his other works and his whole life remain over and above wherewith to serve and benefit his neighbour of spontaneous goodwill.

Lo! my God, without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given to me, an unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature all the riches of justification and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father, then, who has overwhelmed me with these inestimable riches of His, why should I not freely, cheerfully, and with my whole heart, and from voluntary zeal, do all that I know will be pleasing to Him and acceptable in His sight? I will therefore give myself as a sort of Christ, to my neighbour, as Christ has given Himself to me; and will do nothing in this life except what I see will be needful, advantageous, and wholesome for my neighbour, since by faith I abound in all good things in Christ.

Thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily, without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under obligations, nor does it distinguish between friends and enemies, or look to gratitude or ingratitude, but most freely and willingly spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude, or gains goodwill. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to all men abundantly and freely, making His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Thus, too, the child does and endures nothing except from the free joy with which it delights through Christ in God, the Giver of such great gifts.

You see, then, that, if we recognize those great and precious gifts, as Peter says, which have been given to us, love is quickly diffused in our hearts through the Spirit, and by love we are made free, joyful, all-powerful, active workers, victors over all our tribulations, servants to our neighbour, and nevertheless lords of all things. But, for those who do not recognise the good things given to them through Christ, Christ has been born in vain; such persons walk by works, and will never attain the taste and feeling of these great things. Therefore just as our neighbour is in want, and has need of our abundance, so we too in the sight of God were in want, and had need of His mercy. And as our heavenly Father has freely helped us in Christ, so ought we freely to help our neighbour by our body and works, and each should become to other a sort of Christ, so that we may be mutually Christs, and that the same Christ may be in all of us; that is, that we may be truly Christians.

That is very nice Anne, but God Himself tells us how He disciplines. I would say His understanding of the gospel is perfect and knows exactly what we need. He chooses to discipline using the same word that referred to Christ’s sufferings (mastigoo).

Sadly, a good article by Chris Cone went ignored in favor of more culture opinion by the usual suspects.

James, let’s focus on the ideas, eh? Good post until that last sentence.

Anne, I appreciate your desire to put parenting in the context of your overall understanding of sanctification. Right now it would probably be a lengthy digression to try to hash out the whole doctrine of sanctification. And I still wrestle with understanding some parts of it, myself.

But it’s really not as relevant as it might seem.

Let me suggest a couple of reasons why:

(1) The Bible doesn’t encourage us to develop parenting technique by reasoning it from the doctrine of sanctification. (That doesn’t prove it’s a bad idea, but it’s significant in light of point 2 and others below…)

(2) The Bible does speak very directly about parenting technique. These should be taken as the primary sources of instruction on the subject.

(3) While our understanding of sanctification, law, grace, etc. have a huge impact on how we see the goal of parenting, the relationship between that goal and the nuts and bolts of raising kids is complex and can be argued multiple ways. It’s just not a good foundation for a methodology.

Just thought of one more:

(4) Applying sanctification principles to parenting technique gets much messier when we take into account the fact that we are often not dealing with regenerate kids or don’t have confidence that they are in the faith. We can’t assume a sanctification process is even underway in a kid’s life (we also can’t assume it is not, so the techniques have to be amenable to both scenarios).

[Aaron Blumer] (1) The Bible doesn’t encourage us to develop parenting technique by reasoning it from the doctrine of sanctification. (That doesn’t prove it’s a bad idea, but it’s significant in light of point 2 and others below…)

(2) The Bible does speak very directly about parenting technique. These should be taken as the primary sources of instruction on the subject.

Where does the Bible speak very directly about parenting technique? If you are referring mainly to the rod proverbs, you can see that this “direct” speaking is … maybe not as direct as we would like to think. There are principles in proverbs, as is it wisdom literature. It is very important to discipline my children. But limiting their meanings or making them mean primarily pain-infliction-in-response-to-wrong-behavior doesn’t seem to be the wisest way to apply them. Why don’t you look at Matt. 18 and 19 for parenting instruction? Matt 18 is probably the most comprehensive, direct statements by Christ Himself about children and adult relationships to them.

I certainly want all of Scripture to influence all that I am doing in my parenting.

[Aaron Blumer] (3) While our understanding of sanctification, law, grace, etc. have a huge impact on how we see the goal of parenting, the relationship between that goal and the nuts and bolts of raising kids is complex and can be argued multiple ways. It’s just not a good foundation for a methodology.

I think it is absolutely essential for framing methodology and my motives for why I do what I do.

[Aaron Blumer] Just thought of one more:

(4) Applying sanctification principles to parenting technique gets much messier when we take into account the fact that we are often not dealing with regenerate kids or don’t have confidence that they are in the faith. We can’t assume a sanctification process is even underway in a kid’s life (we also can’t assume it is not, so the techniques have to be amenable to both scenarios).

At this age, even at 4 and 6!, my children are very responsive to the gospel. I, of course, do not know the way God will lead them, but I don’t need to speak to them or deal with them as if they were rebellious (or otherwise) heathen. … I think this openness is very common with most children, which is why Christ gave such sharp instructions about them in Mtt 18.

You misread my point, I think.

I’ll summarize it again, but first, what I’m not saying:

- I’m not saying there is a disjunction between parenting that is consistent w/biblical sanctification doctrine and parenting according to Proverbs, etc. There isn’t. But if we develop our parenting methodology using a faulty process, we’ll end up with a view that is not in harmony with Scripture as a whole.

So… we do not have to choose between parenting that fits biblical sanctification and parenting that fits Proverbs.

- Secondly, I’m not saying that there is any area of life that our view of sanctification has no relevance for.

In fact, I’m pretty sure I said that our view of sanctification does bear on our parenting goals. It just doesn’t relate clearly to methods.

The question is, how do we go about developing our views on parenting technique or any other topic the Bible speaks clearly and specifically about? We use passages that are about the topic primarily. I explained this in some detail—with respect to parenting—in http://sharperiron.org/article/simplicity-of-biblical-parenting] The Simplicity of Biblical Parenting . I was thinking about calling that piece “How to Develop a Theology of Parenting” but thought that sounded a bit too dry. But that’s what it’s about.

That summary:

- In developing a biblical view of anything, passages that speak about that “anything” must have priority over those that are indirect or about other things entirely

1. - The Bible speaks directly about parenting (not just in Proverbs… Eph.6, Genesis, Deuteronomny 6, several other places. I think Heb.12 counts)
2. - Passages about the doctrine of sanctification are not directly about parenting
3. - Deriving the goals of parenting from sanctification passages is appropriate (when your kids are regenerate)
4. - People with identical views of sanctification have widely varying views about parenting technique
5. - Deriving parenting technique from soteriology/sanctification is difficult, unclear and unecessary
6. - Using sanctification/soteriology-derived ideas about technique to explain away clear passages about technique is wrong
   So I believe biblical soteriology/sancification doctrine is entirely consistent with what Proverbs and other passages teach us about parenting. But we need to use the right process to learn how they are consistent… or simply believe what’s revealed and take God’s word for it that they are consistent.
   
   As for the fact that Proverbs speaks clearly and directly about parenting, I think it’s only possible to question that when we don’t have the verses in front of us. The wisdom literature genre does not make the proverbs less clear or less applicable. It makes them more clear and more applicable to the kinds of questions at issue here.
   
   
   Pr 22:15 ESV 15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
   
   Pr 13:24 ESV 24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
   
   Pr 23:13–14 ESV 13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. 14 If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.
   
   Pr 29:15 ESV 15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.
   
   
   
   
   As for children being heathen and rebellious… I don’t understand why anyone would question that. They are human beings, ergo heathen and rebellious.
   
   Human beings are sinners by nature and rebellious.
   
   Kids are human beings.
   
   Therefore, kids are sinners by nature and rebellious.
   
   This is anthropology and hamartiology 101.
   
   Yes, kids can be saints, but they are not saints until they are saints. We cannot handle unbelievers as though they were Christians. There is no Holy Spirit indwelling them, they are hostile toward God, etc.
   
   And even saints are not devoid of sin and rebellion.
   
   It grieves me to think that Christian parents are trying to raise kids as though they were spiritually mature already. I hope I’m just misunderstanding on these points.

[Aaron Blumer]

Pr 22:15 ESV 15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Pr 13:24 ESV 24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Pr 23:13–14 ESV 13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. 14 If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.

Pr 29:15 ESV 15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.

No one is saying these verses don’t apply to parenting. However, saying categorically that these verses mean that parents are required (and yes, that is what you and others [like Cone and Tedd Trip] are saying) to spank small children based on these passages, is simply unfounded, and it is not backed up by the rest of Scripture’s presentation of small children. These Proverbs are not commands. They are not addressing primarily (or even at all) the striking of small children. To assert that 1) spanking 2) small children is a Biblical command and God-ordained is simply wrong. Spanking is, in the end, a matter of conscience; that is all. And that is what it needs to be presented as; not as a God-commanded parenting method.

[Aaron Blumer] As for children being heathen and rebellious… I don’t understand why anyone would question that. They are human beings, ergo heathen and rebellious.

Human beings are sinners by nature and rebellious.

Kids are human beings.

Therefore, kids are sinners by nature and rebellious. … Yes, kids can be saints, but they are not saints until they are saints. We cannot handle unbelievers as though they were Christians. There is no Holy Spirit indwelling them, they are hostile toward God, etc.

And even saints are not devoid of sin and rebellion.

Yes, and we must beat that rebellious nature out of them, is the “traditional” fundamental answer.

I really disagree with that presentation of children. They certainly are sinners. But they are more open and trusting and swayable regarding spiritual truths than teens or adults are. God made them with a special openness to their parents, and that is a trust and openness that God designed.

I don’t want to raise kids who think that God is pleased or displeased with them based on their actions, to think that God is waiting to punish their sins or mistakes. My heart’s desire is to have kids who understand that Christ did everything for them, everything, every required obedience. And that they be filled with love and gratefulness because of that. And now they are free to serve others as Christ served them; that they have the rudimentary tools of inner discipline so that their heart’s love and faith can be expressed through their lives. That they trust God’s love and character so that they can accept disciplining trials from His hand with gratefulness and not doubt of their standing before Him.