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.
- 278 views
Another reason filial obedience is of primary importance: Isn’t the only NT command given to children found in Eph. 6:1-2 (which echoes the OT command to obey/honor parents)? If so, doesn’t that fact pretty much determine the framework by which we should be teaching our children? Children, obey…for this is right. Honor father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise attached to it: that it might be well with you, and you might live long on the earth (consequence). I’m not saying that this is the only passage which should inform parental “philosophy,” but, as it is the only passage (again, to my knowledge) which speaks the mind of God directly and specifically to children, it certainly leaves no doubt in my mind that filial obedience is indeed of primary importance to God, and is indeed the basis upon which my instruction of my children must take shape.
Hey all. Thanks for the niceness.
Conversations about parenting can be a bit frustrating because I think it’s more of an art than a science, and there are just so many variables.
I need to give a short answer right now b/c vitaliy is not home, maybe more later.
But I think the most important aspect of life and parenting is what one believes about God, my faith. And I mean that in more than just what I believe about salvation. I mean for all of life, every day, every encounter, joy, trial. What do I believe about God.
Obedience is important, but it’s not the bottom line. We’re all losers then. And that’s fairly performance-oriented, by-performance-I-can-please view of God. There’s a good Martin Luther tract about this, “Concerning Christian Liberty, part 2”
Ted Tripp is a big discussion I would have to invest a lot of time in and I’m not there right now. I could be if it’s really wanted to be pursued.
Conversations about parenting can be a bit frustrating because I think it’s more of an art than a science, and there are just so many variables.
I need to give a short answer right now b/c vitaliy is not home, maybe more later.
But I think the most important aspect of life and parenting is what one believes about God, my faith. And I mean that in more than just what I believe about salvation. I mean for all of life, every day, every encounter, joy, trial. What do I believe about God.
Obedience is important, but it’s not the bottom line. We’re all losers then. And that’s fairly performance-oriented, by-performance-I-can-please view of God. There’s a good Martin Luther tract about this, “Concerning Christian Liberty, part 2”
Ted Tripp is a big discussion I would have to invest a lot of time in and I’m not there right now. I could be if it’s really wanted to be pursued.
this is not fleshed out either, but about obedience there are several issues in the parent-child dynamic that need to be considered. like, is it causing adversarial relationships? a power war?
the command is given to children, and while i am influene #1 for obeying right now, in the back of my mind is that the command is given to my child, not to me. So i need, of course, by my methods, to be leading to this.
and my obedience training shouldn be considerate of ages/stages of development.
also, does God use force or his bigness to make me obey? … how does he work on my attitude? …
the command is given to children, and while i am influene #1 for obeying right now, in the back of my mind is that the command is given to my child, not to me. So i need, of course, by my methods, to be leading to this.
and my obedience training shouldn be considerate of ages/stages of development.
also, does God use force or his bigness to make me obey? … how does he work on my attitude? …
[Anne Sokol] Hey all. Thanks for the niceness.I agree, Anne.
Conversations about parenting can be a bit frustrating because I think it’s more of an art than a science, and there are just so many variables.
But I think the most important aspect of life and parenting is what one believes about God, my faith. And I mean that in more than just what I believe about salvation. I mean for all of life, every day, every encounter, joy, trial. What do I believe about God.Again, I totally agree…which would lead me to the next question: what is God’s desire for me as his child? How does he want me to live? Maybe this is where we diverge, but I think that Scripture is clear that God has called me to a life of obedience to him while I am on this earth. My personal choices (including how I think in joys and trials) should be run through the grid of “Is this thought/action ‘worthy of my calling’? Is it reflective of my Father’s character? Is it indicative of God’s work in me, or is it a warning that I am living life in my flesh and need to lean harder on my Father?
Obedience is important, but it’s not the bottom line. We’re all losers then. And that’s fairly performance-oriented, by-performance-I-can-please view of God.I don’t think it is…since Scripture is clear that “it is God which works in me, both to will and to do his good pleasure.” (Phil.) Here again, the focus is God’s pleasure/pleasing God (the verse indicates that what we will and do pleases God)…but this pleasing isn’t “me”…it comes as a result of his working in me. The “loser” part was taken care of at the cross, wasn’t it?
Ted Tripp is a big discussion I would have to invest a lot of time in and I’m not there right now. I could be if it’s really wanted to be pursued.I don’t have time, either. Considering the terms you used earlier in the thread, I’d guess that you’re an advocate of what has been called “grace-based parenting.” (I’m not trying to put you in that box, either, or say that you follow “a man-made system”…just going by what I seem to remember you saying in this thread as well as in others.) Hey, I’m all for anything that is “grace-based!”
I think we could go around in circles for quite a while, don’t you? And that would just make me dizzy right now. :) On my end, I think you believe obedience is important: as you said a few posts up, you are teaching your children to obey. And I hope you know that I think grace is foundational to obedience and everything else we do as believers. It might be that we’re just looking at two sides of the same coin…
Well, we really are ranging wide now, topic wise, but by “performance” we really do please or displease God. Our eternal standing is unaffected, because we are “in Christ.” But our choices matter and the NT is chock full of commands to obey because we are expected to actually obey them. There is simply no way to read the NT fairly and not conclude the obedience is primary. But this obedience includes obedience to the Gospel and obedience to the command to “Love the Lord your God with all our heart” etc.
So it’s not merely external obedience.
But it is about making the right choices and behaving according to God’s desires.
I think part of the confusing teaching that folks have put out on this topic is due to neglect of the passages that bring together the relationship between standing and “performance.”
To be super brief, the relationship is this:
1) Because of who we are (union with Christ) we can obey/peform
2) Because of who we are, we must obey/perform
3) Because of who we are, God sees to it that we do
Philippians 2:12–13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Consider also, Eph. 4.1, Col1.9-10, 1 Thess. 2:10-12 (and all of Romans 6).
The Colossians one above is especially poignant.
Colossians 1:9–10
9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
That’s a call to “performance” if there ever was one (OK, 1 Cor.9.26-27 might be stronger, or 1 Tim.4:7-8).
So it’s not merely external obedience.
But it is about making the right choices and behaving according to God’s desires.
I think part of the confusing teaching that folks have put out on this topic is due to neglect of the passages that bring together the relationship between standing and “performance.”
To be super brief, the relationship is this:
1) Because of who we are (union with Christ) we can obey/peform
2) Because of who we are, we must obey/perform
3) Because of who we are, God sees to it that we do
Philippians 2:12–13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Consider also, Eph. 4.1, Col1.9-10, 1 Thess. 2:10-12 (and all of Romans 6).
The Colossians one above is especially poignant.
9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
That’s a call to “performance” if there ever was one (OK, 1 Cor.9.26-27 might be stronger, or 1 Tim.4:7-8).
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.
There are lots of variables in parenting. Different methods work at different times. A young child that can’t reason needs to be taught to obey without question or hesitation. This is not for the gratification of a control-freak parent, but for the safety of the child. As they get older, a parent can include more explanation about the foundations of certain requirements. I think parents get into trouble when they attempt to apply the same requirements and consequences regardless of the age and understanding of the child.
My kids can ask questions, but they aren’t allowed to question. They are to obey without comment at the time that a ‘command’ is given- but they are free to ask questions before or after. Sometimes these rules are just practical- I am not going to have a 20 minute conversation about the need to get the yard mowed before it rains. But we often sit around the table or in the living room (in our house these are basically in the same room) and talk about expectations and needs and listen to the kids make suggestions. They are a respected part of the household too.
Personally, I think organization and planning does alot to preempt discipline issues. We have menus, so the kids know what they can and can’t eat. We have a schedule, so they understand what is expected. The house has a ‘place for everything’ (or nearly everything) so they know where to put things away. I think of it as the up side to being seriously OCD- things I take for granted are often a major issue for some families.
One of the things I think Anne is getting at (correct me if I’m wrong, Anne) is our responsibility to model Godly behavior for our kids, and not just demand it from them. I can’t teach the kids self control if I’m wigging out when they disobey, or when I drop a glass of milk on the floor, or when the dog pukes on the couch. They watch us handle adversity, and they take their cues from our conduct, regardless of the words that are coming out of our mouths. We also can’t demand mental and physical purity from them when we tolerate or are entertained by perversion and lasciviousness. If we want them to be forgiving and compassionate in their dealings with others, then they need to see us doing this with our spouse, our relatives, neighbors, co-workers… Parenting is IMO about the most humbling and awe-inspiring thing a person can do, because in all things I am aware of God as my Father, and how I relate to Him and He relates to me. Yowzers.
As for Ezzo and Keller and the Pearls etc… I think it’s great when we can take a nugget here and there, but I can’t imagine attempting to apply someone else’s lifestyle or methods wholesale. There is an almost idolatrous aspect to this embracing of one author’s parenting theories over another, as if instead of “Thus sayeth the Lord” it’s “Thus sayeth Ted Tripp”.
My kids can ask questions, but they aren’t allowed to question. They are to obey without comment at the time that a ‘command’ is given- but they are free to ask questions before or after. Sometimes these rules are just practical- I am not going to have a 20 minute conversation about the need to get the yard mowed before it rains. But we often sit around the table or in the living room (in our house these are basically in the same room) and talk about expectations and needs and listen to the kids make suggestions. They are a respected part of the household too.
Personally, I think organization and planning does alot to preempt discipline issues. We have menus, so the kids know what they can and can’t eat. We have a schedule, so they understand what is expected. The house has a ‘place for everything’ (or nearly everything) so they know where to put things away. I think of it as the up side to being seriously OCD- things I take for granted are often a major issue for some families.
One of the things I think Anne is getting at (correct me if I’m wrong, Anne) is our responsibility to model Godly behavior for our kids, and not just demand it from them. I can’t teach the kids self control if I’m wigging out when they disobey, or when I drop a glass of milk on the floor, or when the dog pukes on the couch. They watch us handle adversity, and they take their cues from our conduct, regardless of the words that are coming out of our mouths. We also can’t demand mental and physical purity from them when we tolerate or are entertained by perversion and lasciviousness. If we want them to be forgiving and compassionate in their dealings with others, then they need to see us doing this with our spouse, our relatives, neighbors, co-workers… Parenting is IMO about the most humbling and awe-inspiring thing a person can do, because in all things I am aware of God as my Father, and how I relate to Him and He relates to me. Yowzers.
As for Ezzo and Keller and the Pearls etc… I think it’s great when we can take a nugget here and there, but I can’t imagine attempting to apply someone else’s lifestyle or methods wholesale. There is an almost idolatrous aspect to this embracing of one author’s parenting theories over another, as if instead of “Thus sayeth the Lord” it’s “Thus sayeth Ted Tripp”.
For what it’s worth, hands down, the most helpful book to me for day-to-day parenting is Ross Campbell’s Relational Parenting. If someone were to ask me what to teach at church, I’d recommend that. For all that my measley opinion is worth.
About performance and obedience … I guess i see those as symptomatic. And any discussion I imagine at this point, just gets into somantics where we are both saying the same things in different ways.
I guess I don’t look at my life right now in terms of obedience, where I am doing right and where I am failing. I get really stuck on the failing parts, then, and that morass doesn’t help me grow at all in godliness. I have stopped listing ways in which i need to change, improvements, etc. because it simply does not profit me one inch spiritually. I am at a point where I have let go control of my sanctification and released the way I want to percieve myself and the rate at which I want to change. I have given it to God. I simply cannot help myself. He teaches me what to believe and the transformation that occurs in my life, while at some level, somehow, I am involved, it is all God. I still fail and am proud and get angry, but He takes his own time in changing things inside me. It’s nothing like first-time obedience.
So I look at my dear children, who are so young, who understand so much less than I do about life and God, and I do have compassion on them, and the 2,000 compliance requests they receive a day, and how I handle their failures and my failure in helping them.
A man in our church, married, is struggling with some porn addictions. He really wants to stop. It’s not a lot, but it’s there. And I think, what can I give my children that will carry them through an experience of having a sinful addiction without losing their faith in God. “Just obey just because” doesn’t help. This man wants freedom; he wants to obey. I want to obey. Will they feel that they are so disobedient that God is far away? Or will they be able to remain in the faith and know that God still accepts them and can work this for their good?
Christ lived for me the complete fulfillment of the law. I am free.
How I live, my performance, will always be flawed. Maybe we could call it “fruit” more than performance. I may do great and mighty things, like adopting an orphan, or training my kids, or helping ladies not have abortions, evangelizing people. But … I don’t know. I don’t focus on those things so much. They just come out of (the sinful rotten) me as am in christ.
I wish I were a grace-based parent. I am trying to learn what that means. But I still have a long way to go.
About performance and obedience … I guess i see those as symptomatic. And any discussion I imagine at this point, just gets into somantics where we are both saying the same things in different ways.
I guess I don’t look at my life right now in terms of obedience, where I am doing right and where I am failing. I get really stuck on the failing parts, then, and that morass doesn’t help me grow at all in godliness. I have stopped listing ways in which i need to change, improvements, etc. because it simply does not profit me one inch spiritually. I am at a point where I have let go control of my sanctification and released the way I want to percieve myself and the rate at which I want to change. I have given it to God. I simply cannot help myself. He teaches me what to believe and the transformation that occurs in my life, while at some level, somehow, I am involved, it is all God. I still fail and am proud and get angry, but He takes his own time in changing things inside me. It’s nothing like first-time obedience.
So I look at my dear children, who are so young, who understand so much less than I do about life and God, and I do have compassion on them, and the 2,000 compliance requests they receive a day, and how I handle their failures and my failure in helping them.
A man in our church, married, is struggling with some porn addictions. He really wants to stop. It’s not a lot, but it’s there. And I think, what can I give my children that will carry them through an experience of having a sinful addiction without losing their faith in God. “Just obey just because” doesn’t help. This man wants freedom; he wants to obey. I want to obey. Will they feel that they are so disobedient that God is far away? Or will they be able to remain in the faith and know that God still accepts them and can work this for their good?
Christ lived for me the complete fulfillment of the law. I am free.
How I live, my performance, will always be flawed. Maybe we could call it “fruit” more than performance. I may do great and mighty things, like adopting an orphan, or training my kids, or helping ladies not have abortions, evangelizing people. But … I don’t know. I don’t focus on those things so much. They just come out of (the sinful rotten) me as am in christ.
I wish I were a grace-based parent. I am trying to learn what that means. But I still have a long way to go.
today i started reading Kimmel’s Grace-Based Parenting and Tripp’s Shepherding side by side. I think it will be an interesting exercise.
since i dont’ have the time or mental/theological prowess to analyze tripp, I googled some stuff on him, and I found a couple sites that do a pretty fair job of pointing out some flaws. This is not an endorsement of sites or everything written, but the insights might be interesting to someone somewhere, i dunno.
and it’s just for what it’s worth. i’m not really big on discussing stuff like this here. Interesting how it’s come about that the grace-based (i hate the focus on non-spanking) stuff is so suspect by fundamentalists. I am surprised I have come to consider it myself.
Pls excuse some attitude—some of it’s just blogging
gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=245342&highlight=SACH+Review
lutherama.blogspot.com/search/label/Punitive%20parenting
myblogginess.blogspot.com/2005/02/im-tripping-out.html
since i dont’ have the time or mental/theological prowess to analyze tripp, I googled some stuff on him, and I found a couple sites that do a pretty fair job of pointing out some flaws. This is not an endorsement of sites or everything written, but the insights might be interesting to someone somewhere, i dunno.
and it’s just for what it’s worth. i’m not really big on discussing stuff like this here. Interesting how it’s come about that the grace-based (i hate the focus on non-spanking) stuff is so suspect by fundamentalists. I am surprised I have come to consider it myself.
Pls excuse some attitude—some of it’s just blogging
gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=245342&highlight=SACH+Review
lutherama.blogspot.com/search/label/Punitive%20parenting
myblogginess.blogspot.com/2005/02/im-tripping-out.html
[Anne Sokol] today i started reading Kimmel’s Grace-Based Parenting and Tripp’s Shepherding side by side. I think it will be an interesting exercise.Anne, I perused the articles you linked, and took a minute to comment on each one…
since i dont’ have the time or mental/theological prowess to analyze tripp, I googled some stuff on him, and I found a couple sites that do a pretty fair job of pointing out some flaws. This is not an endorsement of sites or everything written, but the insights might be interesting to someone somewhere, i dunno.
and it’s just for what it’s worth. i’m not really big on discussing stuff like this here. Interesting how it’s come about that the grace-based (i hate the focus on non-spanking) stuff is so suspect by fundamentalists. I am surprised I have come to consider it myself.
Pls excuse some attitude—some of it’s just blogging
gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=245342&highlight=SACH+ReviewWhile I know that one of the tenets of the GCM site is that spanking is not an acceptable form of discipline, this article (out of the three you mentioned) had the least to say about the actual use of spanking…maybe because the “no spanking” idea is such a “given” over there that it doesn’t need to be addressed. Anyway, the pith of this critic’s argument is this:
(quoted from article) I think his point is wrongly focused. It’s true that God gave us the law in order to show us how short we fall from His righteousness. But the law has never been the focal point of God’s message. It has always been love and grace. The emphasis in this book is more about authority and laws, and submission of the heart - which, IMHO, is entirely impossible without first understanding love and grace…You see, it’s not about the sin that flows out of the heart. Recognizing our sin only leaves us hopeless and despondent. The reason the Gospel is “good news!” is because it is about love, grace, and forgiveness. Those are the key messages I want my children to understand, and I want them to experience and grasp those before they understand the depths of their sin.I would counter that it is impossible to understand or experience grace and forgiveness if one does not first understand sin. Without this primary understanding, “grace” would be reduced (in the child’s mind) to just “being nice”; he would never understand “grace” as unmerited favor unless he knew that he is unworthy and undeserving of it…and, in order for him to realize that, he has to know what sin is. He must feel the sting of sin in order to experience the balm of grace. As God’s child, my appreciation of his grace runs only as deep as my understanding of my sin. So, what this critic says doesn’t even IMO make sense in that she gets the cart before the horse. Maybe I’m missing something…
lutherama.blogspot.com/search/label/Punitive%20parentingThis article was hard to take seriously because its author claims, “[Tedd Tripp] is nowhere near orthodox. Why? Because of this: Tripp claims that ‘God commands spanking.’” That claim makes someone unorthodox? Really? Also, this article is heavy on rhetoric but light on substance, because it consists only of taking isolated quotations out of the book and countering with mere sarcasm (no Scripture, no thoughtful rebuttals), as if somehow the author’s ideas are valid on their own merits. It wasn’t so much “the attitude” (as you said) that bothered me; I kept reading, thinking that the author would actually have something to say, but was disappointed on that front.
myblogginess.blogspot.com/2005/02/im-tripping-out.htmlThis article, while not as vitriolic, was almost as short on substance. Once again, quotations from the book are laid out, with a bit of commentary after each one. Here are the commentaries…
Regarding a quote taken from p. 109:
So if I do not use spanking as a Christian parent, am I in sin? I guess I must be if God has mandated it and commanded it. By the way, he states this, but does not support it on this page with any biblical references.Seems a little disingenuous…I don’t have my copy of SACH handy, but I can almost guarantee you that Tripp uses Scripture as the support for his ideas. The problem is that people don’t agree with him at the Scriptural level, and go to great lengths to make “the rod” mean anything else but “the rod.” (I’ve been involved in plenty of discussions over at GCM, and have seen this over and over.)
Regarding first-time obedience:
I do not want my children raised like this. Often I’ll tell my daughter who is 6 to come over to the computer room for her lesson (we home school). She might say, “OK, but can I go get a snack first..or can I finish coloring this last page”. Trip actually mentions “finish coloring this page”, as not acceptable. Why? My child is a human being who has a mind that can think. Maybe her body is telling her she is thirsty or needs a snack before we sit down to do school work. If you are like me, I know that when I am engrossed in a project and almost finished with it, and my wife calls for me, I will say I need 5-10 more minutes and I can be done. Why can’t we allow room for our children to express this same need? Although he does not state it on page 138, but I would surmise from reading his book, that this type of response does not met his definition of obedience and therefore should be dealt with by spankingOK, I agree with the blogger that respectful appeals can be made; I let my kids do this, after they have reached an appropriate level of maturity (age 6 would be well within that level). I haven’t read SACH lately, but, again, I am almost sure that Tripp would agree that this sort of thing is acceptable. What is not acceptable is for the child to continue to color the page with complete disregard for the parent’s instruction. That’s what he is getting at.
The next three quotations from the book have to do with spanking…and I think we’d agree that the article’s responses are flawed here, so I won’t comment on them.
Regarding listening to a parents voice:
I hope Mr. Tripp and his devotees have not had children who truly have a hearing deficiency. I wonder how many kids have endured spankings due to this advise before the parents realized there is a genuine medical issue. Even if my children do not have a medical hearing problem, why would I spank them for this. If this was a repeated mantra of a given child, that would be dealt with, but why does it need to be dealt with by me hitting my child?Again, the rhetoric gives away this author’s bias, which is fine… but he/she doesn’t offer anything of substance in the way of refuting Tripp’s comments. The “hearing deficiency” argument is weak, since medically hearing deficient children are the exception, not the norm, and good parents who are in tune with their kids can and do ascertain problems of this nature before spanking…or at least before spanking the child enough to do any lasting damage. (What parent hasn’t spanked “by mistake”? I know I have.)
The one remaining quote fusses at Tripp for not delineating “how sweet” a child has to be before the spanking is done, or “how many” swats should be given, and reprimands him for not giving Scripture to support the ideas that a child should be repentant after a spanking in order for the spanking to have benefitted him. These ideas are just common sense, right? If a child is stubborn and rebellious (“foolish”), then Proverbs is clear: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.” If the rod has been applied, and the child remains stubborn, then the rod hasn’t completed its work. In all my days as a parent of five children with very different personalities (including some pretty stubborn ones), I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve had to face this kind of thing. I’m not saying that others might not have kids who are really, really stubborn…I think Tripp is making general applications. His book isn’t meant to address every personality quirk that kids might have, but to give a basic outline. Parents who abuse their kids in the name of Tripp don’t correctly understand what he is saying.
Anne, I don’t want to debate…I think your exercise of reading Tripp and Kimmel simultaneously will be an interesting study. I’d like to hear your insights. I’m sure Kimmel has some valuable things to say.
I don’t want to appear as though I’m a “Tedd Tripp defender”; I’m sure I do disagree with him on some points. When we’ve discussed his ideas in SS, we’ve always talked through them, asked questions about them, disagreed on some things, etc.; we’re not just copying down everything he says in our little notebooks. :) No one man is going to say everything just right. I guess I would say that I don’t see anything wrong with Tripp’s basic framework of parenting, even if I would disagree on some of the particulars. And I do want to be a channel of God’s grace to my children…Graciousness should definitely characterize my dealings with my kids. I don’t find the idea of “grace-based” (at least in the way I want to be “grace-based”) to be at odds with what Tedd Tripp says about discipline.
I usually only read parenting books to review them, not to absorb them for myself necessarily. It’s interesting to see how different people apply the same Scripture in different ways, and it tells me that I have that same liberty to teach my children as the individuals they are in a manner consistent with what we believe Scripture teaches; either by commandment, principle, or suggestion. So we have some commandments that are clearly directed at the responsibilities of parents and the expectations of children. We have examples, both good and bad to glean from, and we play ‘connect-the-dots’ so to speak in ways that lead us to believe that other things are implied, or at least that what we are doing is not a violation of Scripture.
The OP is just such an exercise- parents who chose an educational method that they believed was most beneficial to their family, and now- as both parents and children have changed- a different solution has presented itself, and they are going to take advantage of it. But nowhere should it be said that all families should homeschool for life, or only for elementary and then put in traditional school for their high school years, or classical education is superior… it’s the decision making process that is IMO most beneficial, not always the conclusion.
I haven’t read the blogs that Anne linked to- I’m not interested in anti-spanking rhetoric. Julie’s assessment is consistent with what I’ve experienced when reading similar blogs- arguments tend to be weak and emotional and seldom based on comparing Scripture with Scripture. I think we’d all be better off reading the Bible more and parenting books less.
The OP is just such an exercise- parents who chose an educational method that they believed was most beneficial to their family, and now- as both parents and children have changed- a different solution has presented itself, and they are going to take advantage of it. But nowhere should it be said that all families should homeschool for life, or only for elementary and then put in traditional school for their high school years, or classical education is superior… it’s the decision making process that is IMO most beneficial, not always the conclusion.
I haven’t read the blogs that Anne linked to- I’m not interested in anti-spanking rhetoric. Julie’s assessment is consistent with what I’ve experienced when reading similar blogs- arguments tend to be weak and emotional and seldom based on comparing Scripture with Scripture. I think we’d all be better off reading the Bible more and parenting books less.
One of the reasons for suspicion toward new parenting strategies has to do with historical context. We have to ask, where did the impetus for new approaches to parenting come from? Up until the 1960’s, many aspects of parenting that are now rejected or questioned were embraced by parents for many centuries.
So why all of a sudden (from a historical standpoint) do we feel like we don’t know how to parent?
Much of the impetus in the US in the 60’s arose from egalitarian philosophies. The same thinking that, in part, brought us the hippies and the sexual revolution.
But it really goes further back to at least the time of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who was among the romantics who began to present an idealized view of childhood. In Rousseau’s thought, kids are innocent, good, free of the corrupting sophistications of adulthood, etc. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile:_or,_On_Education] Emile may have been his pivotal work on this, though it was a novel).
Much of this thinking permeates popular culture today and trickles down even into evangelical parenting teaching.
As for “grace based parenting.” I have not read about this and would like to. I suspect the problem there is a bit different. First, the Bible does not command us to parent our children like God “parents” us. Second, even if we accept that idea as a premise, what does it mean to parent like God parents? Grace occurs in the context of law and condemnation. There can be no grace without guilt first. So we see two general headings for God’s grace:
a. Common grace: He sends rain (as blessing) on the just and the unjust, though the unjust do not deserve it (and really the “just” don’t either). This expresses God’s immensely generous nature.
b. Special grace: He offers forgiveness to the repentant.
So how would these apply to parenting? Well, certainly we ought to be generous as parents. And certainly we ought to forgive when our children are repentant. But the latter cannot occur apart from an environment where there are clearly communicated requirements, i.e., law. Grace happens after law is violated. (Much modern confusion exists on this point, supposing that grace is a new law-free way of relating to God, but this is not true. God still commands and requires but grace enters as a way of dealing with our failures.)
But perhaps “grace based” has more the idea of “parenting in a way that teaches grace? Most of the same points would apply in that scenario I think. We cannot understand grace accurately without understanding first how we offend by our disobedience to God’s standards.
(Edit: there is a third huge category of grace for believers… the post-repentant—God’s enabling and transforming. He empowers us and reshapes us to be more like Christ. Not sure how this would transfer into the parenting situation.)
So why all of a sudden (from a historical standpoint) do we feel like we don’t know how to parent?
Much of the impetus in the US in the 60’s arose from egalitarian philosophies. The same thinking that, in part, brought us the hippies and the sexual revolution.
But it really goes further back to at least the time of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who was among the romantics who began to present an idealized view of childhood. In Rousseau’s thought, kids are innocent, good, free of the corrupting sophistications of adulthood, etc. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile:_or,_On_Education] Emile may have been his pivotal work on this, though it was a novel).
Much of this thinking permeates popular culture today and trickles down even into evangelical parenting teaching.
As for “grace based parenting.” I have not read about this and would like to. I suspect the problem there is a bit different. First, the Bible does not command us to parent our children like God “parents” us. Second, even if we accept that idea as a premise, what does it mean to parent like God parents? Grace occurs in the context of law and condemnation. There can be no grace without guilt first. So we see two general headings for God’s grace:
a. Common grace: He sends rain (as blessing) on the just and the unjust, though the unjust do not deserve it (and really the “just” don’t either). This expresses God’s immensely generous nature.
b. Special grace: He offers forgiveness to the repentant.
So how would these apply to parenting? Well, certainly we ought to be generous as parents. And certainly we ought to forgive when our children are repentant. But the latter cannot occur apart from an environment where there are clearly communicated requirements, i.e., law. Grace happens after law is violated. (Much modern confusion exists on this point, supposing that grace is a new law-free way of relating to God, but this is not true. God still commands and requires but grace enters as a way of dealing with our failures.)
But perhaps “grace based” has more the idea of “parenting in a way that teaches grace? Most of the same points would apply in that scenario I think. We cannot understand grace accurately without understanding first how we offend by our disobedience to God’s standards.
(Edit: there is a third huge category of grace for believers… the post-repentant—God’s enabling and transforming. He empowers us and reshapes us to be more like Christ. Not sure how this would transfer into the parenting situation.)
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.
been mulling this over …
read SACH intro and chapter 1 and GBP ch 1 and half of 2. There’s a lot I agree with in both of them.
I’m working through a lot of issues to try and get to the heart of what’s going on here, the supposed differences between these two “systems.” I’m trying to find the right questions, I guess.
The mystery of parenting is that the exact things we want to have for our children actually have to be done by the Holy Spirit. My husband, for example, grew up in an alcoholic unsaved family with really skewed moral and material values, was a criminal, druggie, alcoholic, smoker, rebellious, yet when he became a christian at 16, and now a husband and father, he is a very godly person and example. Where did he learn it from? Not his family but from God. And really, that’s the bottom line for every child is how he will respond to the Holy Spirit. God’s the only one that can do the real work in a child’s heart or an adult’s heart. And that’s the part of parenting we can’t touch really, just by prayer.
(which, by the way, is what i like about Clay Clarkson’s Heartfelt Discipline book. He talks about how God has designed children to be particularly open to their parents and that the parents’ goal is to help their child have “good soil” hearts.)
So anyway, I’m trying to get around to what’s the purpose of Christian parenting. Is it a means of grace for children? it certainly is more natural that children learn about God from their parents.
GBP and SACH agree that the parent is the the authority. Kimmel says, “Grace does not exclude obedience, respect, boundaries, or discipline, but it does determine the climate in which these important parts of parenting are carried out.” (20) Chapter 2 is called “the truth behind grace” and he deals with ungrace (rules w/o grace) and permissiveness (relationships w/o rules) and “cheap grace” as problematical.
practically, another thing i like about gpd people is that they emphasize positive aspects of parenting much, much more. Ch 1 in gbp covers the basic needs of kids that need to be in the forefront: security (from love), significance (from purpose) and strength (from hope). (although ross campbell in relational parenting does a much better job at fleshing this out, not that he is gbd.) I think sach’s approach is more that the basic need of a child is to have an authority. I think there is something incomplete in that.
it’s funny julie that you disliked this section in the gentle christian mothers:
(quoted from gcm) “I think his point is wrongly focused. It’s true that God gave us the law in order to show us how short we fall from His righteousness. But the law has never been the focal point of God’s message. It has always been love and grace. The emphasis in this book is more about authority and laws, and submission of the heart - which, IMHO, is entirely impossible without first understanding love and grace…You see, it’s not about the sin that flows out of the heart. Recognizing our sin only leaves us hopeless and despondent. The reason the Gospel is “good news!” is because it is about love, grace, and forgiveness. Those are the key messages I want my children to understand, and I want them to experience and grasp those before they understand the depths of their sin.”
I acutally thought she put her finger on something i was feeling after reading the beginning of sach. It seems to focus a lot more on the child and his sin, although he talks about how this points to the need of a savior, yes. but it’s so obedience-focused, which is me and my performace focused in reality… . i have thought for most of my life that i was in control of my sancification and it depended on my obedience. I think that is a fatal flaw. it seems that the child should be more filled with the hope found in christ. I can’t obey as I should, but christ obeyed for me. that doesn’t me i live purposeful or careless disobedience, but it does mean I am free from the requirements of the law/free from the salvific need to obey. God doesnt’ get angry at me for disobeying the law.
I thought that some of this was insightful too:
i’m still a little uncertain about sach’s extreme thrust on obedience. like it’s the end-all of parenting. “as a parent, you must exercise authority. You must require obedience of your children because they are called by God to obey and honor you.” (xviii) “You must require proper behavior. God’s law demands that.” (5)
it’s to point to the gospel, i understand that, his logic being that one’s lack of obedience points to the need of a savior. and he does constantly go back to the heart of the child.
but what if we turned it around a little: “God, You must exercise authority. You must require obedience of Anne and Julie because You have called them to obey and honor You. You must require their proper behavior. Your law demands that. You cannot, however be satisfied to leave the matter there… . How did their hearts stray to produce this [sinful] behavior? In what characteristic ways has their inability or refusal to know, trust, and obey You resulted in actions and speech that are wrong?” (rewording of p xviii and 5) And if that is God’s parenting of me and you, then we are in a heap of trouble.
You say, yes, that’s where the gospel comes in; that’s the point of this. OK, but what’s the end of the Gospel, so that we can obey God? Obedience is what God wants? … No, i really dont’ think that is the end point of the gospel. I think obeying in what we believe is crucial to God. But our works and obedience are fruit, imperfect, and good only in as much as God does it through us.
But let’s look at it this way:
“God, You have made Anne and Julie free because Christ met the full demands of Your law’s requirements. He has lived on their behalf a perfectly obedient life. When they disobey, there are consequences, but You are with them still; You will never punish, judge, accuse, or abandon them for their sins or mistakes. You fill them up with security, significance and strength. As they abide in Christ, You transform them and work out in them the good fruits of Your will.
I guess I see sach, as much as he talks about the gospel, is really more focused on human behavior.
but i am still reading.
i would comment again on those blogs, but i think this is too long already for now.
read SACH intro and chapter 1 and GBP ch 1 and half of 2. There’s a lot I agree with in both of them.
I’m working through a lot of issues to try and get to the heart of what’s going on here, the supposed differences between these two “systems.” I’m trying to find the right questions, I guess.
The mystery of parenting is that the exact things we want to have for our children actually have to be done by the Holy Spirit. My husband, for example, grew up in an alcoholic unsaved family with really skewed moral and material values, was a criminal, druggie, alcoholic, smoker, rebellious, yet when he became a christian at 16, and now a husband and father, he is a very godly person and example. Where did he learn it from? Not his family but from God. And really, that’s the bottom line for every child is how he will respond to the Holy Spirit. God’s the only one that can do the real work in a child’s heart or an adult’s heart. And that’s the part of parenting we can’t touch really, just by prayer.
(which, by the way, is what i like about Clay Clarkson’s Heartfelt Discipline book. He talks about how God has designed children to be particularly open to their parents and that the parents’ goal is to help their child have “good soil” hearts.)
So anyway, I’m trying to get around to what’s the purpose of Christian parenting. Is it a means of grace for children? it certainly is more natural that children learn about God from their parents.
GBP and SACH agree that the parent is the the authority. Kimmel says, “Grace does not exclude obedience, respect, boundaries, or discipline, but it does determine the climate in which these important parts of parenting are carried out.” (20) Chapter 2 is called “the truth behind grace” and he deals with ungrace (rules w/o grace) and permissiveness (relationships w/o rules) and “cheap grace” as problematical.
practically, another thing i like about gpd people is that they emphasize positive aspects of parenting much, much more. Ch 1 in gbp covers the basic needs of kids that need to be in the forefront: security (from love), significance (from purpose) and strength (from hope). (although ross campbell in relational parenting does a much better job at fleshing this out, not that he is gbd.) I think sach’s approach is more that the basic need of a child is to have an authority. I think there is something incomplete in that.
it’s funny julie that you disliked this section in the gentle christian mothers:
(quoted from gcm) “I think his point is wrongly focused. It’s true that God gave us the law in order to show us how short we fall from His righteousness. But the law has never been the focal point of God’s message. It has always been love and grace. The emphasis in this book is more about authority and laws, and submission of the heart - which, IMHO, is entirely impossible without first understanding love and grace…You see, it’s not about the sin that flows out of the heart. Recognizing our sin only leaves us hopeless and despondent. The reason the Gospel is “good news!” is because it is about love, grace, and forgiveness. Those are the key messages I want my children to understand, and I want them to experience and grasp those before they understand the depths of their sin.”
I acutally thought she put her finger on something i was feeling after reading the beginning of sach. It seems to focus a lot more on the child and his sin, although he talks about how this points to the need of a savior, yes. but it’s so obedience-focused, which is me and my performace focused in reality… . i have thought for most of my life that i was in control of my sancification and it depended on my obedience. I think that is a fatal flaw. it seems that the child should be more filled with the hope found in christ. I can’t obey as I should, but christ obeyed for me. that doesn’t me i live purposeful or careless disobedience, but it does mean I am free from the requirements of the law/free from the salvific need to obey. God doesnt’ get angry at me for disobeying the law.
I thought that some of this was insightful too:
[gcm] First of all, I believe that being human in and of itself puts us makes us all sinners from birth. It’s not the fact that children are born into a sin nature that I argue. The assumption that this sin nature is somehow worse in a child - more selfish, more defiant, more rebellious - is simply wrong. Sin is sin in God’s eyes. The assumption that discipline can in any way, shape or form affect this sin nature is also wrong.that’s a valid point about transformation. and that’s really the only way we change—and i realize that it is even beyond my power to do this to myself; i can just open my heart for God to do it and use the means he’s given me of bible study, etc.
Mr. Tripp says, “One of the justifications for spanking children is that “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15). The point of the proverb is that something is wrong in the heart of the child that requires correction. The remedy is not solely changing the structure of the home; it is addressing the heart.” (pg. 20-1)
Now, this assumption could easily be dealt with by studying that verse in context, in its original language, rather than proof-texting it. However, I’m going to deal with the general principle here, rather than the specific verse. First of all, the heart of every human being who ever has, is, or will be living has something wrong which requires TRANSFORMING, not correction. Romans 3:23 says “All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God.” Jeremiah 17:9 says “The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?”
i’m still a little uncertain about sach’s extreme thrust on obedience. like it’s the end-all of parenting. “as a parent, you must exercise authority. You must require obedience of your children because they are called by God to obey and honor you.” (xviii) “You must require proper behavior. God’s law demands that.” (5)
it’s to point to the gospel, i understand that, his logic being that one’s lack of obedience points to the need of a savior. and he does constantly go back to the heart of the child.
but what if we turned it around a little: “God, You must exercise authority. You must require obedience of Anne and Julie because You have called them to obey and honor You. You must require their proper behavior. Your law demands that. You cannot, however be satisfied to leave the matter there… . How did their hearts stray to produce this [sinful] behavior? In what characteristic ways has their inability or refusal to know, trust, and obey You resulted in actions and speech that are wrong?” (rewording of p xviii and 5) And if that is God’s parenting of me and you, then we are in a heap of trouble.
You say, yes, that’s where the gospel comes in; that’s the point of this. OK, but what’s the end of the Gospel, so that we can obey God? Obedience is what God wants? … No, i really dont’ think that is the end point of the gospel. I think obeying in what we believe is crucial to God. But our works and obedience are fruit, imperfect, and good only in as much as God does it through us.
But let’s look at it this way:
“God, You have made Anne and Julie free because Christ met the full demands of Your law’s requirements. He has lived on their behalf a perfectly obedient life. When they disobey, there are consequences, but You are with them still; You will never punish, judge, accuse, or abandon them for their sins or mistakes. You fill them up with security, significance and strength. As they abide in Christ, You transform them and work out in them the good fruits of Your will.
I guess I see sach, as much as he talks about the gospel, is really more focused on human behavior.
but i am still reading.
i would comment again on those blogs, but i think this is too long already for now.
No, i really dont’ think that is the end point of the gospel. I think obeying in what we believe is crucial to God. But our works and obedience are fruit, imperfect, and good only in as much as God does it through us.As a Mom who is really more of “Grandma age” at this point I suppose I view things with a little less angst. All children are different - just as all adults are different. I don’t believe any on “approach” fits all children. I remember being VERY frustrated at having two totally different boys to have to discipline - one could be handled with “the look” - I can count on one hand the times he needed a spanking .. I remember each of those spankings as clear as day. The other .. well we ran out of digits by the time he was 4 I think.. ;) He was and still is a challenge… even at 21 ..
I think often parents view obedience as a sign of their children’s spiritual heart - which of course in a mature Christian it is .. but one can be obedient - while in their heart there is rebellion. We only can look at outward appearances to make determinations - and there is so much more than “just” obedience .. attitutude is SO important. As a mother I constantly have had to remind myself to parent in love and God’s Word and let the Holy Spirit do the talking to the heart. That’s all we really can do isn’t it?
[Anne Sokol] been mulling this over …Is it the “two sides of the same coin” thing?
read SACH intro and chapter 1 and GBP ch 1 and half of 2. There’s a lot I agree with in both of them.
I’m working through a lot of issues to try and get to the heart of what’s going on here, the supposed differences between these two “systems.” I’m trying to find the right questions, I guess.ITA with this. And I would add that the ‘flip side’ of this scenario also happens: kids who are reared by godly parents, with every ‘spiritual advantage,’ chuck it all out the window when they leave home. I think you are right that “how the child responds to the Holy Spirit is the bottom line.” But that doesn’t make parenting irrelevant, or else we’d all go on permanent vacation and let the Spirit work, and just hope our kids respond to his voice. We need to discover and follow the directives that Scripture gives about parents and children. (I am just thinking along with you on this, not taking issue with anything you’re saying here.)
The mystery of parenting is that the exact things we want to have for our children actually have to be done by the Holy Spirit. My husband, for example, grew up in an alcoholic unsaved family with really skewed moral and material values, was a criminal, druggie, alcoholic, smoker, rebellious, yet when he became a christian at 16, and now a husband and father, he is a very godly person and example. Where did he learn it from? Not his family but from God. And really, that’s the bottom line for every child is how he will respond to the Holy Spirit. God’s the only one that can do the real work in a child’s heart or an adult’s heart. And that’s the part of parenting we can’t touch really, just by prayer.
(which, by the way, is what i like about Clay Clarkson’s Heartfelt Discipline book. He talks about how God has designed children to be particularly open to their parents and that the parents’ goal is to help their child have “good soil” hearts.)It has been a while since I’ve read the Clarksons, but this particular parental goal resonates with me. Surely, it is the task of the parents to tend and nurture the hearts of their children, while modeling receptivity to God’s Word themselves.
So anyway, I’m trying to get around to what’s the purpose of Christian parenting. Is it a means of grace for children? it certainly is more natural that children learn about God from their parents.(I’m sorry if you don’t like my “quote-by-quote” format of answering. I don’t want it to seem that I’ve “got an answer” for everything you say…but I get confused and miss stuff if I don’t do it this way.) I’m not sure what you mean by “means of grace.” The term seems theologically loaded, and I’m not informed enough to understand what you’re getting at. Or, it could be that you’re just saying that God, in his grace, has set up the family structure in such a way that parents are the primary “teachers of good things” to their children…that children learn primarily from their parents what God’s Word says about himself.
GBP and SACH agree that the parent is the the authority. Kimmel says, “Grace does not exclude obedience, respect, boundaries, or discipline, but it does determine the climate in which these important parts of parenting are carried out.” (20) Chapter 2 is called “the truth behind grace” and he deals with ungrace (rules w/o grace) and permissiveness (relationships w/o rules) and “cheap grace” as problematical.I like Kimmel’s thoughts as you’ve presented them here. It seems to me that material which covers the “basic needs” of children (such as security, significance, and strength) is more psychological than strictly scriptural. Not saying that’s a bad thing, unless the framework of parenting which springs from these ideas finds its footing more in this kind of psychology than in scripture. (I’m not against psychology as far as it reflects and resonates with scripture, but being a human science, psychology is not the foundation upon which I want to build my parenting philosophy.)
practically, another thing i like about gpd people is that they emphasize positive aspects of parenting much, much more. Ch 1 in gbp covers the basic needs of kids that need to be in the forefront: security (from love), significance (from purpose) and strength (from hope). (although ross campbell in relational parenting does a much better job at fleshing this out, not that he is gbd.) I think sach’s approach is more that the basic need of a child is to have an authority. I think there is something incomplete in that.
I acutally thought she put her finger on something i was feeling after reading the beginning of sach. It seems to focus a lot more on the child and his sin, although he talks about how this points to the need of a savior, yes. but it’s so obedience-focused, which is me and my performace focused in reality… . i have thought for most of my life that i was in control of my sancification and it depended on my obedience. I think that is a fatal flaw. it seems that the child should be more filled with the hope found in christ. I can’t obey as I should, but christ obeyed for me. that doesn’t me i live purposeful or careless disobedience, but it does mean I am free from the requirements of the law/free from the salvific need to obey. God doesnt’ get angry at me for disobeying the law.God says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” This is the only command given to children in the whole Bible. I am sorry for your struggle; as you know, I have one child who I think might tend to struggle with this kind of thing. I’ve had good talks with him about it, assuring him that nothing he does or does not do will make us love him or accept him as our son any less than we do now. Matt and I have offered him biblically-based, “grace-based” hope in the best way we know how. We do still expect him to obey us. Do you think that your (and his) struggle is unique to people who have been reared in a certain kind of environment, or is it merely an inborn personality trait (like OCD)? Ha! Now I’m the one talking psychologically! :) You mentioned anger…I don’t think that any Christian parenting system OK’s anger, do you?
If I could tease out your thoughts a little…”I can’t obey as I should, but Christ obeyed for me”…What practical effect does this truth have on my parenting? IOW, how would my practice be any different than yours, considering this aspect of salvation/sanctification? Maybe we could use something that happened in my family today as a case study, to help me understand this. I took our four year old son up to a buffet line to get a brownie for dessert. I told him, “I need to throw away something; please wait for me and don’t touch any of the brownies.” I saw that he heard me, so I turned my back, threw away my stuff (trash can was just a few feet away), and started back toward the buffet…You guessed it: my son helping himself to a brownie. (Background: since we eat at this place often, he’s familiar with the SOP…the reasons we don’t want the kids to do this at the buffet; he knew he was supposed to wait…In fact, he had asked me to come up with him b/c he knew he couldn’t go alone.)
Now, what would be a “grace-based” response to this situation? (This child is a “normal kid”…not saved yet, but interested.) When we asked him, just to make sure, he admitted that he had heard and understood my reminder not to touch the food, but had just decided to do his own thing.
I apologize for pinning you down, and I realize that parenting entails more than just one response to one isolated situation, but I guess I’m trying to see if we’re really all that different in our perspectives/practices. (BTW, I wouldn’t consider myself a “Tripp-ite” any more than you’d consider yourself a “Kimmel-ite.” I just don’t see the problem with Tripp’s framework, or how it couldn’t work together with and be informed by other concepts. I think of his stuff as pretty basic, not really encompassing “everything a parent needs to know” about parenting.
I thought that some of this was insightful too:[gcm] First of all, I believe that being human in and of itself puts us makes us all sinners from birth. It’s not the fact that children are born into a sin nature that I argue. The assumption that this sin nature is somehow worse in a child - more selfish, more defiant, more rebellious - is simply wrong. Sin is sin in God’s eyes. The assumption that discipline can in any way, shape or form affect this sin nature is also wrong.No, discipline can’t affect the sin nature itself…Nothing on earth can. We all carry our sin natures to the grave with us. But I can think of several passages which enjoin believers to discipline themselves, fight against the flesh and the devil, discipline/exercise ourselves toward godliness, etc. Sanctification is obviously not passive, or else why would Scripture be giving us commands like this. I get the feeling that discussions about sanctification often go in circles because they are couched in “all or nothing” terms, depending on a person’s particular perspectives, reactions, or personal struggles: it’s either “all God” (and anything having to do with human effort is ignored/denied/disparaged) or “all human” (and anything having to do with God’s work is de-emphasized). Isn’t there middle ground here? Scripture commands obedience (using that exact term, no less, in regard to children and believers), so why should we shy away from it? Scripture also promises grace to obey. Maybe I’m simplistic, but I don’t see how this is complicated, or how applying it in parenting is complicated.Mr. Tripp says, “One of the justifications for spanking children is that “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15). The point of the proverb is that something is wrong in the heart of the child that requires correction. The remedy is not solely changing the structure of the home; it is addressing the heart.” (pg. 20-1)I think the idea Tripp presents here is that it’s not just the outward behavior that has to be dealt with; it’s the heart. A child must know that sin is a heart issue, not a surface, “behavior” issue. Yes, the heart needs to be transformed by God…I don’t think Tripp views discipline as salvific. I can’t address this particular quotation of his, since I don’t have the book with me (can’t find it), and can’t see his remark in context.
Now, this assumption could easily be dealt with by studying that verse in context, in its original language, rather than proof-texting it. However, I’m going to deal with the general principle here, rather than the specific verse. First of all, the heart of every human being who ever has, is, or will be living has something wrong which requires TRANSFORMING, not correction. Romans 3:23 says “All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God.” Jeremiah 17:9 says “The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it?” that’s a valid point about transformation. and that’s really the only way we change—and i realize that it is even beyond my power to do this to myself; i can just open my heart for God to do it and use the means he’s given me of bible study, etc.i’m still a little uncertain about sach’s extreme thrust on obedience. like it’s the end-all of parenting. “as a parent, you must exercise authority. You must require obedience of your children because they are called by God to obey and honor you.” (xviii) “You must require proper behavior. God’s law demands that.” (5)Yeah, I don’t think of SACH as an exhaustive guide to parenting, either.but what if we turned it around a little: “God, You must exercise authority. You must require obedience of Anne and Julie because You have called them to obey and honor You. You must require their proper behavior. Your law demands that. You cannot, however be satisfied to leave the matter there… . How did their hearts stray to produce this [sinful] behavior? In what characteristic ways has their inability or refusal to know, trust, and obey You resulted in actions and speech that are wrong?” (rewording of p xviii and 5) And if that is God’s parenting of me and you, then we are in a heap of trouble.Yeah, as Aaron said earlier, I don’t think this is a valid comparison. According to Scripture, God obviously wants, expects, and enables us to obey him. Unlike human parents, he already knows our hearts inside and out, and works in our hearts in ways that no human can (indeed, using the knowledge of how our hearts have strayed). He is not limited, as human parents are. He chastens us, according to Hebrews 12.
I don’t necessarily like Tripp’s use of “the law,” as I think that can be confusing. But, again, I don’t have the book in front of me, so I can’t see his remarks in context.You say, yes, that’s where the gospel comes in; that’s the point of this. OK, but what’s the end of the Gospel, so that we can obey God? Obedience is what God wants? … No, i really dont’ think that is the end point of the gospel. I think obeying in what we believe is crucial to God. But our works and obedience are fruit, imperfect, and good only in as much as God does it through us.So, obedience (which affects fellowship/relationship) is not what God desires?But let’s look at it this way:Just as Tripp perhaps leaves out some important ideas, I see this perspective as off balance on the other end. Must it be either/or? And, more practically, what difference would this perspective make in the “buffet scenario” I described above?
“God, You have made Anne and Julie free because Christ met the full demands of Your law’s requirements. He has lived on their behalf a perfectly obedient life. When they disobey, there are consequences, but You are with them still; You will never punish, judge, accuse, or abandon them for their sins or mistakes. You fill them up with security, significance and strength. As they abide in Christ, You transform them and work out in them the good fruits of Your will.
ETA: I know this post is full of grammatical and syntactical errors…I am going to be lazy and not fix them. Also, this post probably doesn’t flow very well. I started it this morning…worked on it five minutes here and there…and finally finished it this evening. My apologies if any of these errors confuse the readers!
Discussion