Homeschooling: Why We Did It, Why We Stopped

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

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

Why we homeschooled

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

Reason 1: the extreme moldability of very young minds

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

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

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

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

Reason 2: “because we can”

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

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

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

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

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

Reason 3: the non-problem of socialization

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

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

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

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

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

Reason 4: lack of alternatives

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

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

Why we stopped homeschooling

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

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

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

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


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

Discussion

[RPittman] At one time, I was an advocate for Latin in the curriculum based on some intrinsic value idea. However, I fail to see its value now. It seems that physics, mathematics, and other rigorous disciplines easily surpass Latin for mental discipline, problem-solving, and cognitive training. Furthermore, with the diminishing of structure and grammar in our language, I see a declining role for Latin in language studies. I think modern languages are more relevant. The problem, as I see it, is Latin takes up too much needed space in the curriculum.
Latin is in addition to other studies, such as physics and math, not in their stead. We study Greek and Latin for about 6 weeks each year. We also spend about 6 weeks on English grammar at the beginning and end of each ‘year’ (ours begins in August and ends in June). Most of our language studies are accomplished by reading interesting and well written books, and the older the book, the more Latin comes in handy.

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

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

I don’t mind if they don’t continue as an adult to pursue Latin or Greek or any other language they learn as part of their home education program, because what I’m giving them is a foundation- as broad and deep as I can make it. There are many things I learned as a child that I couldn’t imagine ever using in the future, but those things in retrospect have lain the foundation for me in ways I couldn’t have anticipated, and gave me an understanding of and appreciation for literature and music that I don’t believe I would have had without them.
[RPittman] Susan, your statement is true but it is incomplete. There are poor Christian schools but their life-span is usually limited. I know you are probably not opposed to Christian schools but some people have a bias against them. These folks can and will use your statement in their opposition. I had the privilege of administering a school that averaged from the 88%ile to the 92%ile on nationally standarded tests in group (i.e. school) comparisons for a decade. Although we have no quantified spiritual scale for comparison, many of our graduates are serving God today. There are very good Christian schools.
I’m not opposed to Christian schools- just those who can’t seem to manage to operate with a basic degree of organization and decent academic quality. I’m glad you were involved with a good school. I haven’t said they don’t exist, even though I haven’t personally experienced an interaction with one. I think we should have more Christian schools, but I’d rather we not have any than have Christian schools that are a bad testimony.

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

I really think parenting ought to be learned from parents but once that cycle breaks, it does have to be restarted somewhere and it makes sense for church to be the place.
I think the church can teach and model parenting skills, because the dynamics of appropriate relationships are spelled out in Scripture by command, principle, and example. Sure- it doesn’t say “Kids should be in bed asleep by 9pm” or “One should only eat organic foods and wear natural fibers”, but moderation and compassion and patience can be applied to any situation or personality type or family dynamic.

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

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

[Aaron Blumer]

About curriculum… someone asked. I’ve looked at it all but can’t remember now. I remember one of the major high school texts because I recognized the editor: Doug Wilson. They call it “Omnibus,” and what it apparently is is a study of history and literature in one package. There are several massive volumes.

I remember the Saxon math because I’ve been doing catch up math teaching for one of our kids out of one of the textbooks for the last week. Wish I’d had books like these when I was in school.

But I might have ended up an engineer if I had half understood math in 6th grade… so perhaps my elementary math ed. failure was providential.
Hey, we’re using Omnibus I with our seventh grader…and we’re loving it so far. It is indeed “three subjects in one”: history, Bible, and literature. Great stuff!
About parenting skills… Susan observed how sad it wd be that their church didn’t teach them. I mostly agree, but a) the parents have to be interested in learning and accept that they do not know what they need to know. The main problem I’m seeing is parents are philosophically confused about what the essence of parenting is and so, while they are frustrated with some of the results they are seeing, they do not think it has anything to do with their parenting skills. b) Much of the skill of parenting is not spelled out in Scripture. In fact, very little of it. We have principles in Scripture but the nitty gritty is all application and there is much more application involved in parenting skill than there is principle… once the philosophical stuff is sorted out. So if a church focuses on exposition of Scripture it’s difficult to find a venue for teaching things like “how to use the power of routine to build good habits in your children” etc. Has to be special classes. And then again you run into the “those who need it most are not interested” problem.

I really think parenting ought to be learned from parents but once that cycle breaks, it does have to be restarted somewhere and it makes sense for church to be the place.
Yeah. Every so often, our church offers a parenting SS discussion group that focuses around Tedd Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart video series. Even though Matt and I have already been through it a few times, we still look forward to attending and being reminded about the “basics” of parenting, and getting the chance to interact with other parents. I, too, have seen the problem you described (parents not making the connection between their poor parenting choices and the resulting issues with their children), and agree that the church (as in the pastor/the platform/official programs) can go only so far in reaching these people. But, as Susan said, informal (but intentional) discipleship among the members can often help those who seem to be falling through the cracks. Moms are chatty people, and it’s not hard (at least not for me) to get into conversations with fellow moms about their kids. I’ve benefitted so many times from the wisdom of older moms, and I’ve also been able to pass on the things I’ve learned to younger moms. (Not just talking about “Scriptural principle” here, but also practical ideas that help develop character, etc.) Matt has done the same thing with the older and younger men in our church and at camp.

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

Is there a place for pastors (or other church leadership and even lay people) to simply take a brother aside and gently confront him and express concern about the direction his family is going, and try to enlighten him about the “disconnect” he is perceiving? I think so, but would you be more hesitant to endorse this, given your thoughts about Scripture and parenting? For sure, no one wants to do this, since parenting can be such a touchy issue, but I think there’s a place for it, just like there’s a place for any other kind of mutual help and encouragement among believers.
Yes… there is a place definitely and, like you say, nobody wants to do it—especially if you feel like your own parenting is so far below what you’d like it me, KWIM?

Mostly, I have tried to emphasize—on special occasions and when it comes up in the process of preaching through a book (of Scripture)—that being parents means we don’t have the luxury of seeking our kid’s approval or avoiding their displeasure. We have the responsibility of command (just as they have the responsibility of obedience) and we’ll give account for that. Seems like many parents are so afraid of having rebellious kids, they won’t actually parent them (on the incorrect assumption that the way to avoid rebellion is to not tell them to do nor not do anything… nothing to rebel against?) But rebellion is in our hearts and it doesn’t “come from” authoritative parenting.

Anyway, that’s some of the foundational stuff. The nuts and bolts “skill,” is another thing. But very little of what I believe in that department can be backed by Scripture. It’s mostly observation, experience, reasoning, etc. Very human stuff. I believe in it, but it’s not Bible except in the sense that much of it (I hope!) falls under the wisdom umbrella.

I don’t believe any of it is unbiblical, but some folks do because some of it is behavioristic. Getting too involved for this thread, but I’ve always felt that behaviorism is fine as far as it goes, which is not far enough. It cannot touch the inner man. But when you’re parenting (or running a classroom) you have to deal with alot of practical realities so that you can touch the heart. And good ol’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning] operant conditioning can sure make your life easier!

But I think I better duck and cover now since I said something nice about behaviorism!

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Well, in that part I’m talking specifically about using reward and punishment in order to reinforce behavior. This is behaviorism, though I’d argue it’s also common sense. Skinner—where he got things right—pretty much just did some laboratory stuff to try prove empirically what I suspect most people already thought. Once he got the ideas going in his head he ran wild with it and started getting utopian social ideas, etc. Obviously that won’t work, since people do not really change when you condition their behavior with stimuli.

But there is nothing wrong with using reinforcement to control the behavior of children so that you can communicate with them and call them to higher motives. But there is real skill involved in using positive and negative reinforcement well.

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

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

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

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anyway …

I believe there is a great deal that is style independent. And some of the trendier “styles” are not going to have much of a shelf life, because they’re based incorrect beliefs about the nature of children and the responsibilities of parenting.

But when those things are understood, there is alot of room on details.

“Punishment”… I don’t think it’s a bad thing to avoid the term, especially for that reason. Though I don’t have a problem with using it either. Though I am not punished as God’s child because Christ took the punishment in my place, the parent-child relationship isn’t the same relationship as the believer-God relationship.

But when I think about it, I don’t think we have ever really called it anything. We just try to communicate that “If you do this, this is what will happen.” So I guess I’m mostly a “consequences” guy after all.

But if the consequence is negative, proportionate, consistently employed and taught ahead of time, it’ll have some desired effects even if we call it “fun time.” :D

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

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer] I believe there is a great deal that is style independent. And some of the trendier “styles” are not going to have much of a shelf life, because they’re based incorrect beliefs about the nature of children and the responsibilities of parenting.

But when those things are understood, there is alot of room on details.
so do you have examples of this? i would like to hear them.
[Aaron Blumer] I always feel hesitant to do “how to parent” stuff because I feel like my own execution is so flawed. But I do believe I could do something along the line of “10 Most Common Parenting Mistakes” because I’ve made ‘em all and I know.
um, i could probably list about 40 common mistakes, but i guess that’s a little unwieldy for an article or sermon …

[Anne Sokol] well, i’m porbally going to get shot, but i do mean these things just tentatively from my own thinking and reading about parenting… .

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

I’d think that ideallly (?), a church could have several styles of parenting taught b/c really, different people need different things. And because no one parenting expert has it all done right…
I don’t think anyone should teach a parenting style- specific Scriptural commands first, then Biblical parenting principles, and then wisdom gained from personal experience- those are all important and beneficial in the right order of importance. But other than the obvious, I don’t think anyone can really lay down a list of particulars that every family can or should follow. Some aspects of parenting must remain the purview of each individual family based on their needs, abilities, and resources.

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

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

setting myself up for target practice here …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of this can be answered from Scripture. Much of it just requires common sense and a little respect for history.

When I talk about things that should be same regardless of style, I mean things like:

1. Require child to look you in the eye and listen when you are instructing

2. Require child to verbally acknowledge instructions when the above isn’t possible (too far away, or already doing something you told them to do, etc.)

3. Arguing not permitted (I’ve seen different approaches for making that work. Phrase I use quite often to end arguments between kids and their mom: “Accept your mother’s instruction!” In our house, we’re all headstrong, so we all like to have the last word. :) But a child does not get to have the last word. Of course, the difference between argument and “I’m just saying” is often murky. But “Kid does not get to have last word” is one to live by, IMO)

4. Behavior that is rude/disturbing/irritating to surrounding adults not allowed to continue (it’s amazing how many parents don’t seem to believe this anymore). If necessary, remove child from the presence of those who are having to endure his/her behavior.

5. Absolutely never beg, plead or try to talk child into obedience. (Parent is in charge. He/she requires obedience and insists on it, doesn’t beg and bribe and then shrug helplessly if kids are defiant.)

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

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

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

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Anne Sokol] setting myself up for target practice here …

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

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

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

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

my obedience is not the #1 thing to God. Also, he is the perfect combination of patient, merciful, gracious, yes-you-have-consequences,-but-I’m-here-with-you, and yes you can seek to understand me more through this, and yes, i will empower you to obey me even though it hurts, yes you can always trust God—your faith is what pleases him. your sin is not the end of the world, you can repent and i will redeem it… . anyone have a biblical parenting book or course teaching me more about this? i really need it.
Anne, you won’t get any potshots from me…I’ve thought along these lines as well, especially as regards your previous comments about “punishment.” I have tried to avoid using that word with my own children, preferring words like discipline and…I really don’t know what else, because, like Aaron, we don’t really call “it” anything other than what the specific consequence is. The kids have just grown up knowing that their actions bring consequences, for good or ill.

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

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

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

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