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
[Susan R] 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.Susan, you’ve made a valiant effort to get this thread back on topic, while Anne and I seem determined to keep hijacking it! I agree about parenting books; I’ve read a number of different perspectives, especially in my early years of motherhood; let’s see..Tripp, Clarkson, Fleming, Scott, Ezzo, Priolo, Fugate, Pearl (!), Campbell, Dobson, Bradley, Whelchel, Farris, Vision Forum, and probably others which I can’t remember now. It has been a while since I’ve cracked any parenting books open. As you’ve said, the best idea, hands down, is to stick with Scripture. As I’ve been telling Anne, my recollection of SACH is that it seemed like one of the most truly biblical and reasonable of all the parenting books I’ve read, in that it doesn’t seem to have an agenda, or present gimmicky stuff like “five step formulas” and “biblical schedules,” and it doesn’t claim a faddish label, or make sensational promises. It just takes the Scriptures about the parent/child relationship and applies them. Maybe I don’t remember enough about it. I’ll be interested to hear more from Anne. In a couple of weeks I’ll get a refresher course, since we’ll be discussing the videos in SS.
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.
i need to do this in fits and starts, so i’ll answer the brownie question.
I would walk up to Vika and get down on her level. I would say, “Vika, when you disobey, there are consequences.” as I’m taking the brownie plate away. “I’m sorry, but because you disobeyed mommy, you’re not going to have a brownie today.” (this goes for any desert at all, if she asks.) … as i’m holding her, carrying her back to the table … “God wants to bless you with happy things, but when we disobey, He can’t do that.”
In this particular case, I would also do this (I dont’ always do this): “Vika, when you have consequences for disobeying, Jesus is with you and feels the sad part too. And Mommy is going to have your consequences with you, too, so I won’t have desert either.”
I would be holding her and comforting her. But … no desert.
I would walk up to Vika and get down on her level. I would say, “Vika, when you disobey, there are consequences.” as I’m taking the brownie plate away. “I’m sorry, but because you disobeyed mommy, you’re not going to have a brownie today.” (this goes for any desert at all, if she asks.) … as i’m holding her, carrying her back to the table … “God wants to bless you with happy things, but when we disobey, He can’t do that.”
In this particular case, I would also do this (I dont’ always do this): “Vika, when you have consequences for disobeying, Jesus is with you and feels the sad part too. And Mommy is going to have your consequences with you, too, so I won’t have desert either.”
I would be holding her and comforting her. But … no desert.
[Julie Herbster] 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?you know, it’s very interesting. I was a very compliant child. It was very important to me to obey authority. I didn’t push the rules, etc. If my parents, school, etc said to do something, then that was from God to me. And my parents are very gracious, non-overbearing people.
but i think that because it was easy for me to obey, that it actually fed my flesh and didn’t moritfy it. that’s one reason why i am concerned with this emphasis on obedience. When I moved to another country, got married, had kids, i was shocked at myself, the horrible monster that arose in me. That had always been there, of course. but certain things that were my weaknesses were not apparent or obvious b/c i was concerned to obey my authorities.
At the same time I wanted to please authority, I had this sense of God as my jugde, of his anger with me and my sin. Again, focus on my performance. And this wasn’t engendered by my parents, it’s just my spiritual make up.
[Julie Herbster] 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.i guess i see it a little more complicated. i dont’ want to make obedience a self-defeating or self-promoting concept for my kids. what I want them to have, in the end, is the desire to obey and the contact with the aspects of the Trinity that allow obedience to bear fruit. I’m not trying to get semantical here. for example, if obedience is my end goal, what have i accomplished? my children will never perfectly obey me or God. So while i do teach them to obey, there is a certain Christ-centered answer or hope that has to be given, not child-centered-obedience hope. this is subtle. Christ is the root of obedience, and it’s not just that he was punished for my disobedience. it’s something a lot deeper about Him already living the obedience of the law for me. I dont know much beyond that at this point.
keller and tripp are alike in several ways. they both discuss wrong goals and methods of parenting. they both emphasize the time, sacrifice, and closeness parents need to give out for their kids.
About God as parent, i think, on the other hand, that God is our example of how to parent.
more to say, but for another post… .
[Anne Sokol] i need to do this in fits and starts, so i’ll answer the brownie question.Thanks. This helps me understand the practical implications of your theoretical perspective. Here’s how we handled the situation (and, yes, it’s a bit different). The buffet was too crowded/noisy for me to talk with JonJon right away, so I waited until after we sat down to make sure he had heard me, etc. Like you, we (his dad, really) got down on his level and asked him questions to make sure we were right about what he was thinking. He’s a big kid for age four, so I can’t really carry him anymore, but I did have my arm around him and was holding his hand as we talked. Our conversation pretty much went the same way yours did. (Maybe not to the extent yours did at this particular instance, but I think the spirit was the same. And we often talk (in discipline situations) about God’s blessings being a result of obedience…except—and I wonder if this is significant—I tend more to talk about “being happy inside” and “being sad inside,” and “obeying God because we love Him,” because I don’t want them to expect showers of blessings, or obey just for “prizes from God,” etc.) We both expressed sadness that he was going to lose his brownie…and he did get a spanking when he got home, which was about 10 minutes later. (That has been our agreed consequence for direct defiance.)
I would walk up to Vika and get down on her level. I would say, “Vika, when you disobey, there are consequences.” as I’m taking the brownie plate away. “I’m sorry, but because you disobeyed mommy, you’re not going to have a brownie today.” (this goes for any desert at all, if she asks.) … as i’m holding her, carrying her back to the table … “God wants to bless you with happy things, but when we disobey, He can’t do that.”
In this particular case, I would also do this (I dont’ always do this): “Vika, when you have consequences for disobeying, Jesus is with you and feels the sad part too. And Mommy is going to have your consequences with you, too, so I won’t have desert either.”
I would be holding her and comforting her. But … no desert.
I’m not sure about the “sharing consequences.” Do you do that to present a picture that Christ died for us, “sharing in our consequences”? Or is it to comfort the child? What scriptural principle(s) come into play here? What leads you to believe that God/Jesus suffers through our exact consequences with us when he chastens us? Would simply expressing heartfelt sadness be more like (or at least communicate the same idea as) the compassion God has for us? In the above scenario, neither Matt nor I had gotten a brownie, anyway…or maybe Matt had already eaten his.
Anyway, thanks again for thinking through this. I really do suspect that we are more alike than different.
[you know, it’s very interesting. I was a very compliant child. It was very important to me to obey authority. I didn’t push the rules, etc. If my parents, school, etc said to do something, then that was from God to me. And my parents are very gracious, non-overbearing people.Thanks for your transparency, Anne. I think I understand what you are saying. I wonder if various “horrible monsters” rear their heads in everyone to some extent as they become independent from parents and other external authority structures…For example, I remember struggling when, all of a sudden, the structure that had always been built into my life in high school and college was gone, and I was newly married, “on my own.” What had seemed easy (quiet time with God, “being nice” to people, fulfilling the obligations of my authorities, etc.) in high school and at university was all of a sudden not easy anymore as I shared my house with a husband (who didn’t turn out to be perfect, after all) and, later, kids and more kids. My selfishness and stubbornness (that have always been in my heart) are still constantly being revealed in new and ugly ways. I remember being surprised before I got used to it…I’m really not the “homecoming queen,” the “honor student,” and the “who’s who” I thought I was. Painful discovery, but understandable, and indicative of a more mature perspective. I think that (in my case, anyway) this is just the process of “growing up” in the Lord, and is not due to any defects in my upbringing that could have been remedied in any way. I don’t know…I could be wrong. My parents were actually pretty permissive, not letter-of-the-law people…We had very few rules (OK, I can’t remember any actual hard-and-fast “rules”), but my sister and I loved and obeyed our parents.
but i think that because it was easy for me to obey, that it actually fed my flesh and didn’t moritfy it. that’s one reason why i am concerned with this emphasis on obedience. When I moved to another country, got married, had kids, i was shocked at myself, the horrible monster that arose in me. That had always been there, of course. but certain things that were my weaknesses were not apparent or obvious b/c i was concerned to obey my authorities.
At the same time I wanted to please authority, I had this sense of God as my jugde, of his anger with me and my sin. Again, focus on my performance. And this wasn’t engendered by my parents, it’s just my spiritual make up.
i guess i see it a little more complicated. i dont’ want to make obedience a self-defeating or self-promoting concept for my kids.Oh, neither do I!
what I want them to have, in the end, is the desire to obey and the contact with the aspects of the Trinity that allow obedience to bear fruit. I’m not trying to get semantical here. for example, if obedience is my end goal, what have i accomplished? my children will never perfectly obey me or God. So while i do teach them to obey, there is a certain Christ-centered answer or hope that has to be given, not child-centered-obedience hope. this is subtle. Christ is the root of obedience, and it’s not just that he was punished for my disobedience. it’s something a lot deeper about Him already living the obedience of the law for me. I dont know much beyond that at this point.I’m with you, Anne, in general. This is where ideas that are not addressed in SACH come in. (But I seem to remember Tripp talking like this; maybe not, though. Wish I had the book here.) I’ll just say that I really benefited from reading SACH, and have always thought of the obedience emphasis as basic/foundational, but not exhaustive. A child who doesn’t understand obedience/disobedience is in no position to understand grace and other things we need to teach them.
About God as parent, i think, on the other hand, that God is our example of how to parent.I don’t know if I agree with this idea…Right now I think along the same lines as Aaron described earlier:
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.)
[Julie Herbster] I’m not sure about the “sharing consequences.” Do you do that to present a picture that Christ died for us, “sharing in our consequences”? Or is it to comfort the child? What scriptural principle(s) come into play here? What leads you to believe that God/Jesus suffers through our exact consequences with us when he chastens us? Would simply expressing heartfelt sadness be more like (or at least communicate the same idea as) the compassion God has for us? In the above scenario, neither Matt nor I had gotten a brownie, anyway…or maybe Matt had already eaten his.i actually have never read about this anywhere, it’s just something vitaliy and i do sometimes when we are disciplining our kids. because christ is still with us when we are in the consequences of our sin. so we want to show our children that we are with them when they are suffering from the wrong they’ve done. also, that their choices will have effects on others in their lives.
Anyway, thanks again for thinking through this. I really do suspect that we are more alike than different.
we probably do have a lot of similarities :) i have a friend who’s done sach for yrs (tripp was their pastor and did their premarital counseling), and there are felt differences. and i am certainly not any professional at gbd. i make mistakes a lot and am a ungracious person still. Learning, learning … .
i’ve read a lot more in sach and gbp, and the thrust of sach, which im sure you know already, is that 1. parents are the authority. 2. authority is as a shepherd. 3. shepherding is done through communication and the rod.
i don’t agree with his rod part, and i think it unbiblically binds the consciences of parents to believe that you must spank in every occasion as he describes. Ross Campbell has a healthier view of this how/when to spank, imo. But we probably part ways there. I think, too, that we can, in certain circumstances give our kids options to disobey or do what displeases us, which tripp would probably not agree with. “I want you to have a great time,but you can choose to obey and have abc, or choose to disobey and have xyz.” We do that on rare occasions. i’m not into the first-time obedience per sach, either.
but i think sach’s good emphasis on spending time with kids and not being a selfish, angry power-monger is great.
i like what you said about the blessings b/c really God still does bless us in certain ways when we sin, and we shouldn’t obey for selfish reasons, like you said.
GBD/keller has this rubric: combine safety (he describes safe and unsafe love), purpose (significance), and strength (hope), (each has a chapter) with the freedoms to be different, vulnerable, candid and make mistakes (each with a chapter). im not sure he even talks about spanking; he does talk about punitive parenting in there, but more in the overbearing, exasperating sense.
i am still trying to figure things out when ppl ask about grace-based parenting or what b/c there are aspects of it that i myself to not understand or know how to put into words, so it’s interesting talking about it.
[Julie Herbster]smile :D I’m reading a book called Parenting the Way God Parents by Katherine Koonce. God does call himself our father and he compares aspects of his relationship to us as a mother. So i think there are very valid connections or parallels we are allowed to draw between our parenting and God’s parenting of us.About God as parent, i think, on the other hand, that God is our example of how to parent.I don’t know if I agree with this idea…Right now I think along the same lines as Aaron described earlier: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.)
i’ve read a lot more in sach and gbp, and the thrust of sach, which im sure you know already, is that 1. parents are the authority. 2. authority is as a shepherd. 3. shepherding is done through communication and the rod.
i don’t agree with his rod part, and i think it unbiblically binds the consciences of parents to believe that you must spank in every occasion as he describes. Ross Campbell has a healthier view of this how/when to spank, imo. But we probably part ways there. I think, too, that we can, in certain circumstances give our kids options to disobey or do what displeases us, which tripp would probably not agree with. “I want you to have a great time,but you can choose to obey and have abc, or choose to disobey and have xyz.” We do that on rare occasions. i’m not into the first-time obedience per sach, either.
but i think sach’s good emphasis on spending time with kids and not being a selfish, angry power-monger is great.
i like what you said about the blessings b/c really God still does bless us in certain ways when we sin, and we shouldn’t obey for selfish reasons, like you said.
GBD/keller has this rubric: combine safety (he describes safe and unsafe love), purpose (significance), and strength (hope), (each has a chapter) with the freedoms to be different, vulnerable, candid and make mistakes (each with a chapter). im not sure he even talks about spanking; he does talk about punitive parenting in there, but more in the overbearing, exasperating sense.
i am still trying to figure things out when ppl ask about grace-based parenting or what b/c there are aspects of it that i myself to not understand or know how to put into words, so it’s interesting talking about it.
This thread has stirred me that there is a real area of need here. Some folks to read several of these books and evaluate them thoroughly from a biblical standpoint and historical standpoint. It’s important to do both because much of what we’re talking about is applicational and applications are heavily influenced by cultural factors… which is its strength and its weakness. There is much more of the human in it.
As for the topic wander in the thread here, not a big deal, but once it’s run it’s course, we may want to take posts number whatever through whatever and put them in a diff. thread…. so it’s easier to find in the future or easier to continue.
Let me throw this into the current discussion, though. Do we need the Holy Spirit to parent well? This may seem like a shocking question. But stick with me a second or two. I’ll ask the same question a little different way: can unbelievers raise unbelieving children and “parent well”?
The question is important because parenting involves both special grace and common grace, and has overlapping objectives between homes of believers and homes of unbelievers.
When it comes to building character (the virtues), unbelievers can do this—and it’s to all our benefit if they do because our kids and theirs etc. (until Christ returns) will have to grow up and live somewhere. A decent society is a way better place to live than a decadent lawless one.
So if we accept the premise that “character” can be built via the parenting process without born again parents or regenerate children or a direct ministry of the Holy Spirit, what methods do that? Whatever they are, they are common grace.
Put that question hold and contrast the task of the Christian parent.
As believing parents we want to do more than build character. But we do want to build character. The huge difference is that we want to build faith. We want our kids to believe and be made new. And having been born again, we want them to grow in “the virtues” as Christ sanctifies them through His word. So we are called to a higher goal and also called to avail ourselves of Special Grace, not merely Common Grace.
To bring the case of the unbelieving parent and the believing parent together: Does God normally expect us to “rely on Him” to do what He has already provided the means for us to do “ourselves”? That is, does He expect us to seek Special Grace from Him in order to do what He has already given Common Grace to us to do?
(As an extreme and kind of silly example, does God expect me to pray that He will levitate me across the street when I can simiply walk?)
So really, our task as believing parents is find out what we have in common grace and what we have in special grace and employ the two wisely. When it comes to parenting, there is much “wisdom of the ages” in the realm of Common Grace. Boatloads of stuff that works pretty well whether you are a pagan or a devout Christian.
Nothing in the realm of God’s Special Grace is going to contradict what He has provided in Common Grace (though we actually work in the reverse order to tell which is which: that is, we go to revelation and use what we find to narrow down what is wise and good from other sources).
I’m getting long and complex here, but need to focus it just a wee bit more before I can rest. :)
When it comes to Special Grace and the higher goals of Christian parenting, how much is there that human parents can really do? That is, if we’re going to look at how sanctification works, it’s the people of God, the Spirit of God and the Word of God He employs to transform us (and our children) into His image. We cannot make them believe. We cannot make them yield to the Spirit’s convicting voice. We can expose them to the Scriptures and the fellowship of believers, but ultimately, they will have to decide whether to be “open” to these things and seek them on their own.
What I’m suggesting here is that the margin between what God has given us as parents in Common Grace and what He has given in Special Grace may not be as immense as many writers of books assume. Most of the unique goals of Christian parenting are beyond our reach to produce. We can influence and nurture, but not create.
To put it another way, when it comes to what parents actually have the power to do, perhaps 90% of it is in the realm of Common Grace and only 10% in the realm of Special.
In any case, I think it’s really, really important not to quickly dismiss what parents have understood about parenting for centuries and which has only recently become controversial. It may be that just about all of what God has to say to us about parenting was correctly understood millennia ago and that modern tweaking is actually departing from the wisdom He gave us.
As for the topic wander in the thread here, not a big deal, but once it’s run it’s course, we may want to take posts number whatever through whatever and put them in a diff. thread…. so it’s easier to find in the future or easier to continue.
Let me throw this into the current discussion, though. Do we need the Holy Spirit to parent well? This may seem like a shocking question. But stick with me a second or two. I’ll ask the same question a little different way: can unbelievers raise unbelieving children and “parent well”?
The question is important because parenting involves both special grace and common grace, and has overlapping objectives between homes of believers and homes of unbelievers.
When it comes to building character (the virtues), unbelievers can do this—and it’s to all our benefit if they do because our kids and theirs etc. (until Christ returns) will have to grow up and live somewhere. A decent society is a way better place to live than a decadent lawless one.
So if we accept the premise that “character” can be built via the parenting process without born again parents or regenerate children or a direct ministry of the Holy Spirit, what methods do that? Whatever they are, they are common grace.
Put that question hold and contrast the task of the Christian parent.
As believing parents we want to do more than build character. But we do want to build character. The huge difference is that we want to build faith. We want our kids to believe and be made new. And having been born again, we want them to grow in “the virtues” as Christ sanctifies them through His word. So we are called to a higher goal and also called to avail ourselves of Special Grace, not merely Common Grace.
To bring the case of the unbelieving parent and the believing parent together: Does God normally expect us to “rely on Him” to do what He has already provided the means for us to do “ourselves”? That is, does He expect us to seek Special Grace from Him in order to do what He has already given Common Grace to us to do?
(As an extreme and kind of silly example, does God expect me to pray that He will levitate me across the street when I can simiply walk?)
So really, our task as believing parents is find out what we have in common grace and what we have in special grace and employ the two wisely. When it comes to parenting, there is much “wisdom of the ages” in the realm of Common Grace. Boatloads of stuff that works pretty well whether you are a pagan or a devout Christian.
Nothing in the realm of God’s Special Grace is going to contradict what He has provided in Common Grace (though we actually work in the reverse order to tell which is which: that is, we go to revelation and use what we find to narrow down what is wise and good from other sources).
I’m getting long and complex here, but need to focus it just a wee bit more before I can rest. :)
When it comes to Special Grace and the higher goals of Christian parenting, how much is there that human parents can really do? That is, if we’re going to look at how sanctification works, it’s the people of God, the Spirit of God and the Word of God He employs to transform us (and our children) into His image. We cannot make them believe. We cannot make them yield to the Spirit’s convicting voice. We can expose them to the Scriptures and the fellowship of believers, but ultimately, they will have to decide whether to be “open” to these things and seek them on their own.
What I’m suggesting here is that the margin between what God has given us as parents in Common Grace and what He has given in Special Grace may not be as immense as many writers of books assume. Most of the unique goals of Christian parenting are beyond our reach to produce. We can influence and nurture, but not create.
To put it another way, when it comes to what parents actually have the power to do, perhaps 90% of it is in the realm of Common Grace and only 10% in the realm of Special.
In any case, I think it’s really, really important not to quickly dismiss what parents have understood about parenting for centuries and which has only recently become controversial. It may be that just about all of what God has to say to us about parenting was correctly understood millennia ago and that modern tweaking is actually departing from the wisdom He gave us.
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.
Put that question hold and contrast the task of the Christian parent.I was following you up until this point…and then I think you lost me. I don’t think that all unsaved parents have equal “dosages” of common grace to parent well. IOW, using your funny example, not ALL people are given the ability to walk across the street. Many stumble across the street, and many get hit by a car in the process, or cross the wrong street and get lost, or don’t even try to start across the street (failing altogether). So, is the kind of grace you are describing here really and truly “common grace?” Or is it just some people being informed/well bred/smart and others being uninformed/poorly brought up/dumb? IOW, let’s say that, as an unregenerate person, I would have been one of those who was not given the common grace to parent well…I would have stumbled and gotten hit. I wouldn’t have valued the right character traits, or understood how to produce them in my kids even if I did value them. I was an angry person, or perhaps an alcoholic. So, what does that mean for me now as a regenerate person? I’m not equipped by “common grace” to parent well. I need some kind of help. What shape will that help take? Will it be under “common grace” or “special grace”? You might answer that my help will come by eventually learning the “common grace” stuff that is available to everyone…like “pragmatic and practical parenting techniques” or something. But what enables me to learn those things, since I was unable to understand them or assimilate them, and/or was resistant to them as an unregenerate person?
As believing parents we want to do more than build character. But we do want to build character. The huge difference is that we want to build faith. We want our kids to believe and be made new. And having been born again, we want them to grow in “the virtues” as Christ sanctifies them through His word. So we are called to a higher goal and also called to avail ourselves of Special Grace, not merely Common Grace.
To bring the case of the unbelieving parent and the believing parent together: Does God normally expect us to “rely on Him” to do what He has already provided the means for us to do “ourselves”? That is, does He expect us to seek Special Grace from Him in order to do what He has already given Common Grace to us to do?
(As an extreme and kind of silly example, does God expect me to pray that He will levitate me across the street when I can simiply walk?)
What I’m suggesting here is that the margin between what God has given us as parents in Common Grace and what He has given in Special Grace may not be as immense as many writers of books assume. Most of the unique goals of Christian parenting are beyond our reach to produce. We can influence and nurture, but not create.Again, I’m not sure that all people are given the common grace to parent well. For the person I described above (the formerly unregenerate “me” who has not received the common grace to parent), it’s going to take a whole lot more than 10% special grace to make me a successful parent. I’ve never thought about this before this moment (so thanks for being thought-provoking), but I’m thinking now that everything a Christian does is either “in the Spirit” or “in the flesh”, IOW, all of the right things that we do are enabled by the Holy Spirit and therefore are in the realm of special grace…because we are enabled to do everything in a way that pleases God, whereas before salvation, nothing we did could please him. And, all of the things that are done “in the flesh” are not enabled by the Holy Spirit. So, the whole common grace vs. special grace comparison seems confusing to me, and irrelevant. Again, I’m just now thinking through this, so help me understand what I’m missing.
To put it another way, when it comes to what parents actually have the power to do, perhaps 90% of it is in the realm of Common Grace and only 10% in the realm of Special.
I have been thinking about this a lot, as i have been reading sach and gbp. First, Aaron, I understand what you are saying, but when i try to think in terms of common and special regarding parenting issues, i end up confusing myself. There certainly are common elements of good parenting that are not limited only to believers, but how to categorize this eludes me. Part of the prob is that we can’t always judge the quality of the parenting by the outcome.
About Shepherding a Child’s Heart, I love Tripp’s stuff about communication and his obvious love for his kids. I do see a few overriding ideas that are a little troubling to me, and I’ll type them out briefly here.
1. Parents must use the rod (to him this is always spanking) in each case of disobedience or they (the parents) are in disobedience to God. I.e., God commands parents to spank and in every case.
2. Spanking (the rod) has power from God that no other form of discipline has to change a child’s heart. I would go farther and say that he gives the spanking some level of salvific power as he constantly repeats that it saves him from death.
3. The child must be spanked in order to return to favor (the place of blessing). No other form of discipline (or just repentance) is capable of this.
anyway, there are many excellent things in the book and i’m glad i reread it! those are just a few concerns i have about what he’s communicating.
also, i have another thought, but no time to get to it now, maybe later.
About Shepherding a Child’s Heart, I love Tripp’s stuff about communication and his obvious love for his kids. I do see a few overriding ideas that are a little troubling to me, and I’ll type them out briefly here.
1. Parents must use the rod (to him this is always spanking) in each case of disobedience or they (the parents) are in disobedience to God. I.e., God commands parents to spank and in every case.
2. Spanking (the rod) has power from God that no other form of discipline has to change a child’s heart. I would go farther and say that he gives the spanking some level of salvific power as he constantly repeats that it saves him from death.
3. The child must be spanked in order to return to favor (the place of blessing). No other form of discipline (or just repentance) is capable of this.
The rod returns the child to the place of blessing. p 115 under section “The Fruit of the Rod”This troubles me most b/c it teaches the child that he must be punished in order to return to fellowship. And I would argue that returning to the place of blessing isn’t so much what a parent wants, as much as we want our child to repent. He talks very little of repentance. Anyway, I’m just not sure of the biblicalness of his paradigm here.
anyway, there are many excellent things in the book and i’m glad i reread it! those are just a few concerns i have about what he’s communicating.
also, i have another thought, but no time to get to it now, maybe later.
[Julie Herbster] I was following you up until this point…and then I think you lost me. I don’t think that all unsaved parents have equal “dosages” of common grace to parent well. IOW, using your funny example, not ALL people are given the ability to walk across the street. Many stumble across the street, and many get hit by a car in the process, or cross the wrong street and get lost, or don’t even try to start across the street (failing altogether). So, is the kind of grace you are describing here really and truly “common grace?” Or is it just some people being informed/well bred/smart and others being uninformed/poorly brought up/dumb?Good question. I don’t think I was clear on that point. First, I’m not sure that “common grace” has to mean that absolutely everybody has it, because the ability to walk is a case of common grace even though some don’t have that ability. So “common grace” is kind of a catch all for blessing God bestows widely regardless of a persons standing as righteous or wicked (to use sort of OT categories) or regenerate/unregenerate.
Second, what I mean by “common grace” in this case is mostly the grace of information. The ideas are “out there” accessible to just about everybody. But yes, there are people groups who have not had the influences others have had and are isolated, etc.
I’ve heard of tribal groups where the village raises each child and nobody even bothers to keep track of who the actual parent(s) are. It’s not hard to imagine the disadvantages of that, though some fiction writers think it’s the coolest thing ever. Anyway, in its isolation, the tribe does not have access to the parenting principles that are easily found in “western civilization.”
So what I’m suggesting is that it may be that the bulk of “good parenting” information may be available to the just and the unjust and that much of it also is in the realm of general revelation rather than Scripture.
It may be that ‘common grace’ isn’t the best term. But I’m talking about something that unregenerate people have the ability to do if they avail themselves of the information… and though much of the information originated from Scripture, it’s now “all over the place” and can be arrived at through reason as well.
[Julie] IOW, let’s say that, as an unregenerate person, I would have been one of those who was not given the common grace to parent well…I would have stumbled and gotten hit. I wouldn’t have valued the right character traits, or understood how to produce them in my kids even if I did value them. I was an angry person, or perhaps an alcoholic.Well it’s possible (even likely) that all the information is right in front you in that scenario, and you choose to ignore it.
To use the rain example, in common grace God sends rain to the just and the unjust, but He doesn’t plow the field and plant the seed for them. So it’s possible that the rain falls on more weeds than seeds. But the grace of the rain is still there. (And the grace of the information that cultivation is required is also freely available)
[Julie] So, what does that mean for me now as a regenerate person? I’m not equipped by “common grace” to parent well. I need some kind of help. What shape will that help take? Will it be under “common grace” or “special grace”? You might answer that my help will come by eventually learning the “common grace” stuff that is available to everyone…like “pragmatic and practical parenting techniques” or something. But what enables me to learn those things, since I was unable to understand them or assimilate them, and/or was resistant to them as an unregenerate person?Again, appreciate the questions. It’s true (and overlooked) that when people become believers they don’t all have the same starting point when it comes to character and Christian living. Some may already have years of living well ordered, moral lives because Christians ideas were liberally distributed in their environments growing up, etc. Others come to Christ a complete mess. Of course, we’re all a complete mess in terms of merit or our real nature, but not equally a mess in our conduct or beliefs.
So will the one who comes to the faith a complete mess learn parenting under common grace or special? Well, part of my larger point is that we should make full use of both.
It’s folly to reject the wisdom God has “rained” on the general population and try to come up with an approach to parenting that is only doable by regenerate people with regenerate children.
I do believe that believers have profoundly different parenting goals, ultimately. But those goals kind of subsume all the “good parenting for everybody” type goals and redefine their ultimate purpose (the glory of God, the redemption of His chosen). But the common grace stuff still works for believers even while believers have the additional “resources” of the people of God, word of God and Spirit of God to accomplish both sets of goals (the “all good parents everywhere” goals and the unique “Christian parenting” goals).
And there can certainly be overlap between common grace and special grace. Even though we can reason with an unbeliever that he ought to quit doing drugs (the wisdom of that is pretty common grace stuff), the same guy could come to Christ and now have the indwelling Spirit. The result is that the same reasoning we gave him for quitting drugs is still true and he has even more reason to believe it and try it, but he has additional reasons for quitting drugs that he didn’t have before.
But the common grace/general revelation in the equation is never reversed by the special grace/special revelation. They function separately or together but are never at odds because they are both Gods gifts.
That’s the relevance I’m trying to bring out. Folks who write books about parenting that ignore or even reject what has worked well for centuries in favor of a theoretical strategy that can only work for believers are, IMO, barking up the wrong tree.
Instead, we ought to take everything Scripture offers and apply it along with everything wisdom offers and give the wisdom of the past a generous role in informing any new strategies that we come up with today.
I’m just deeply skeptical that the nature of children or the nature of adults has changed a whole lot since Cain and Abel. So how much “new” teaching of value could there possibly be now, some 5 thousand years later?
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, FWIW, I disagree w/Tripp about spanking, assuming his views are as you’ve understood them.
I think understanding what a Proverb is pretty much eliminates “always” from the picture. Proverbs do not express what we should do or what will happen in every case (for example how many Proverbs express the principle that the wise prosper and fools fall into poverty? But the rest of Scripture is clear that this is a rule of thumb, not an absolute promise. All Proverbs work that way.)
So the “rod” principle is that are times when we can and must use pain (and sometimes physical pain) as a teaching and habit forming/character building tool. I don’t personally think use of pain in these ways has a whole lot to do with the “heart” directly. But it does supplement the heart-work that happens before and after it—which is the teaching and preaching.
But it sounds like Tripp highly values consistency and I do think he’s on the right track there. If kids always know what will happen if they do X, I think that’s hugely helpful even if “what will happen” isn’t all that well thought through (obviously better yet if it is well thought through!).
I haven’t read his case for the idea that spanking has some special power over the heart, but I suspect there must be some pretty major leaps going on there. I don’t know of any Scripture that makes that connection. Maybe somebody can post the essence of his argument on that. I’m curious.
I think understanding what a Proverb is pretty much eliminates “always” from the picture. Proverbs do not express what we should do or what will happen in every case (for example how many Proverbs express the principle that the wise prosper and fools fall into poverty? But the rest of Scripture is clear that this is a rule of thumb, not an absolute promise. All Proverbs work that way.)
So the “rod” principle is that are times when we can and must use pain (and sometimes physical pain) as a teaching and habit forming/character building tool. I don’t personally think use of pain in these ways has a whole lot to do with the “heart” directly. But it does supplement the heart-work that happens before and after it—which is the teaching and preaching.
But it sounds like Tripp highly values consistency and I do think he’s on the right track there. If kids always know what will happen if they do X, I think that’s hugely helpful even if “what will happen” isn’t all that well thought through (obviously better yet if it is well thought through!).
I haven’t read his case for the idea that spanking has some special power over the heart, but I suspect there must be some pretty major leaps going on there. I don’t know of any Scripture that makes that connection. Maybe somebody can post the essence of his argument on that. I’m curious.
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, I sat down today with Martin Luther’s article http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.h…] Concerning Christian Liberty, part 3 , and I wrote out the gist of what I want my kids to understand about obedience. The reading of the actual tract is excellent, but it is extremely deep and this type of thread is not really condusive to heavy reading. If wanted, i can paste some of his actual thoughts here.
A letter to my child, to be discussed throughout your young life, on why you should obey me:
Dear child:
You should obey Mommy and Daddy because God commands and desires it of you. Christ has alreay completed your obedience—He lived a perfect life that is now accounted to you, and He died to be punished for the sins (of disobedience, etc) that you do.
This is vital for you to believe—that in Christ, God is perfectly satisfied with you. You are free now to serve God with joy and love, not out of any fear.
Being in Christ means that you are now a servant, like Christ was for you. And this is the main way God has asked you to serve right now—by obeying your parents.
And this obedience takes work, but God has put His Spirit in you to help you and give you power. You won’t ever be perfect, but God will forgive you when you fail, and the more you understand your faith in Christ, the more God’s power will be in you to obey.
love,
mom
OK, that’s as far as I got.
A letter to my child, to be discussed throughout your young life, on why you should obey me:
Dear child:
You should obey Mommy and Daddy because God commands and desires it of you. Christ has alreay completed your obedience—He lived a perfect life that is now accounted to you, and He died to be punished for the sins (of disobedience, etc) that you do.
This is vital for you to believe—that in Christ, God is perfectly satisfied with you. You are free now to serve God with joy and love, not out of any fear.
Being in Christ means that you are now a servant, like Christ was for you. And this is the main way God has asked you to serve right now—by obeying your parents.
And this obedience takes work, but God has put His Spirit in you to help you and give you power. You won’t ever be perfect, but God will forgive you when you fail, and the more you understand your faith in Christ, the more God’s power will be in you to obey.
love,
mom
OK, that’s as far as I got.
Anne,
I know nothing about parenting, but the thought that there is a mom in this world reading Luther and thinking about parenting makes me smile. This quote seems appropriate:
I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God’s hands, that I still possess.
Martin Luther
I know nothing about parenting, but the thought that there is a mom in this world reading Luther and thinking about parenting makes me smile. This quote seems appropriate:
I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God’s hands, that I still possess.
Martin Luther
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Kids are asleep and Vitaliy’s on the train to Kharkov, so I have a little midnight oil to burn here.
[Aaron Blumer] I haven’t read his case for the idea that spanking has some special power over the heart, but I suspect there must be some pretty major leaps going on there. I don’t know of any Scripture that makes that connection. Maybe somebody can post the essence of his argument on that. I’m curious.Chapter 11 “Embracing Biblical Methods: The Rod” [the two Biblical methods according to Tripp are 1)communication and 2) the rod.]
God has ordained the rod of discipline for this condition [foolishness bound in a child’s heart]. The spanking process (undertain in a biblical manner set forth in chapter 15) drives foolishness from the heart of a child. Confrontatino with the immedieate adn undeniably tactile sensation of a spanking renders an implacable child sweet. I have seen this principle hold true countless times. The young child who is refusing to be under authority is in a place of grave danger.pp. 106-110
The rod is given for this extremity. “Punish him [a child] with the rod and save his soul from death” (Proverbs 24:14). Your children’s souls are in danger of death—spiritual death. Your task is to rescue your children from death. Faithful and timely use of the rod is the means of rescue.
This places the rod in its proper setting. Use of the rod is not a matter of an angry parent venting his wrath upon a small, helpless child. The rod is wielded by a faithful parent, recognizing his child’s dangerous state, employing a God-given remedy. the issue is not a parental insistence on beign obeyed: the issue is the child’s need to be rescued from death—the death that results from rebellion left unchallenged in the heart.
… God has commanded the use of the rod in discipline and correction of children. It is not the only thing you do, but it must be used. He has told you taht there are needs within your children that require the use of the rod. If you are goign to rescue your children from death, if you are going to root out the folly taht is bound up in their hearts, if you are going to impart wisdom, you must use the rod.
The rod is a parent … thus rescuing his child from continuing in foolishness until death… .
The use of the rod is an act of faith. God has mandated it’s use. The parent obeys … because God has commanded it. The use of the rod is a profound expression of confidence in God’s wisdom and the excellency of His command… . Recognizing that in discipline there is hope, refusing to be a willing party to his child’s death, the parent undertakes the task [Anne: i.e., of spanking]. It is an expression of love and commitment… . I knew that failure to spank would be unfaithfulness to their souls.
… It [the rod] is the parent determining to obey. It is the parent, as God’s representative, undertaking on God’s behalf what God has called him to do. He is not on his own errand, but fulfilling God’s.
… The rod is a rescue mission. The child who needs a spanking has become distanced from his parents through disobedience. The spanking is designed to rescue the child from continuing in his foolishness. if he continues, his doom is certain. The, the parent, driven by love for the child, must use the rod.
Discussion