One Mom’s Look at Tedd Tripp’s Book: Shepherding a Child’s Heart
| [amazon 0966378601 thumbnail] |
(Today and Thursday, we’ll be posting two perspectives on Christian parenting. Anne Sokol’s focuses on Tedd Tripp’s popular book on parenting. In tomorrow’s article, Aaron Blumer writes on “The Simplicity of Biblical Parenting.”)
For brevity, I focus here on my disagreements with Shepherding a Child’s Heart—its application of some Scriptures and its overall emphasis. My main concerns are these:
- The book’s focus on requiring obedience as the primary component of the parent/child relationship and emphasis on parental authority as the right to require obedience.
- Tripp’s teaching that spanking is the means the parent must use in order to bring a child back into “the circle of blessing.”
- Tripp’s interpretation that the “rod” in Proverbs equals spanking, that spanking is even for young children, that spanking is the God-ordained means of discipline (which parents must obey) and that use of the rod saves a child’s soul from death.
- His portrayal of any other style or method of parenting in a derogatory manner and training parents’ consciences that failure to discipline as his book teaches is disobedience to God.
These points are the heart of Tripp’s teaching, and while his book contains many truths, it does not communicate the full truth of gospel-oriented parenting, as he claims it does.
1. Is obedience the primary component of the parent-child relationship, and is it right for parents to mainly exercise their authority as the right to require obedience?
For several reasons, I see the obedience emphasis as a frustrating, and even false, paradigm for the parent/child relationship. The truth of the gospel is that my child will never obey me or God perfectly while on the earth. I, an adult, will never obey God perfectly on this earth. The essence of the gospel is that perfect obedience to God’s standards is only achieved by Christ—and in Him, we are free from this exacting burden.
So emphasizing obedience as the primary component of the family relationship, as Tripp does, distorts the gospel and puts our focus on ourselves and our sinfulness—not only because we will always fail, but also because our works are not praiseworthy; they are only acceptable insomuch as they are the Spirit’s work. The gospel focuses us on Christ’s obedience and His complete sufficiency for us. And the deeper we understand and accept that truth, the more we are transformed into His image (i.e., the more we obey). Obedience is the fruit, not the object. Obedience is our joyful freedom, not our punishable law.
Martin Luther wrote:
Therefore the first care of every Christian ought to be to lay aside all reliance on works, and strengthen his faith alone more and more, and by it grow in the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who has suffered and risen again for him, as Peter teaches (1 Peter v.) when he makes no other work to be a Christian one….
Then comes in that other part of Scripture, the promises of God, which declare the glory of God, and say, “If you wish to fulfil [sic] the law, and, as the law requires, not to covet, lo! believe in Christ, in whom are promised to you grace, justification, peace, and liberty.” All these things you shall have, if you believe, and shall be without them if you do not believe. For what is impossible for you by all the works of the law, which are many and yet useless, you shall fulfil [sic] in an easy and summary way through faith, because God the Father has made everything to depend on faith….
Now, since these promises of God are words of holiness, truth, righteousness, liberty, and peace, and are full of universal goodness, the soul, which cleaves to them with a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly absorbed by them, that it not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated by, all their virtues.1
A better rubric for parenting is developing a loving relationship (which does entail teaching obedience) which prayerfully prepares a child’s heart so that it is favorable to receive the good seed of the gospel. Again, teaching obedience is one part of this. Tripp’s emphasis is wrong and his methods are limited—he claims that communication and the rod are the only “biblical” methods of discipline.
Second, on the subject of authority as the right to require obedience, Tripp writes:
Authority best describes the parent’s relationship to the child. (p. xix)
When your child is old enough to resist your directives, he is old enough to be disciplined. When he is resisting you, he is disobeying…. Rebellion can be something as simple as an infant struggling against a diaper change or stiffening out his body when you want him to sit in your lap. (p. 154)
Yes, loving parenting authority does require obedience, but the extent to which Tripp emphasizes this is mistaken. Though he mentions other aspects of servanthood in authority, his main thrust is authority as requiring obedience, and he goes to great lengths to teach parents exactly how to exercise authority in this manner. Tripp’s book makes this the main factor in the parent/child relationship in a manner that is not consistent with Scripture.
For example, God’s relationship with us as His children is characterized by many things other than His right to demand obedience from us. He emphasizes lovingkindness, rejoicing, longsuffering, compassion, and sacrifice. He meets our true needs, helps us to will and to do His good pleasure, has compassion on us, blesses us—and much more. Tripp gives little attention to how these apply to parenting.
We want to model the entire nature of God—not mainly God’s exercise of authority over us to command obedience. Communicating to my child that God can be trusted because He always is acting in wisdom, righteousness and truth toward us is the more godly path to obedience.
Again, Martin Luther understands:
This also is an office of faith: that it honours with the utmost veneration and the highest reputation Him in whom it believes, inasmuch as it holds Him to be truthful and worthy of belief…. What higher credit can we attribute to any one than truth and righteousness, and absolute goodness?
Thus the soul, in firmly believing the promises of God, holds Him to be true and righteous…. In doing this the soul shows itself prepared to do His whole will; in doing this it hallows His name, and gives itself up to be dealt with as it may please God. For it cleaves to His promises, and never doubts that He is true, just, and wise, and will do, dispose, and provide for all things in the best way. Is not such a soul, in this its faith, most obedient to God in all things?
In His dealings with us as His children, God does nothing like reaching down and spanking us each time we disobey. Sin has natural consequences, but God bears them with us, redeems them, and works in the secret places of our hearts transforming our beliefs and understanding about Him. Greater obedience results. His graciousness is not permissive, but it is very patient—training yet not demanding.
2. Does spanking bring a child back into the “circle of blessing”?
Shepherding a Child’s Heart connects spanking with blessing:
The rod returns the child to the place of blessing…. The rod of correction returns him to the place of submission to parents in which God has promised blessing. (p. 115)
The disobedient child has moved outside the place of covenant blessing. The parent must quickly restore the child to the proper relationship with God and the parent. As the child returns to the circle of blessing, things go well for him. He enjoys long life. (p. 135-136)
The Bible does not support Tripp’s teaching that spanking brings a child back into the “circle of blessing.” Spanking is not endued by God with such spiritual power, nor, in fact, is a parent endued with the power to restore the child. Biblically, confession and repentance restore our fellowship with God and others. Let’s cling to this promise: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (NASB, 1 John 1:9). Tripp’s made-up “circle of blessing” teaching goes beyond what God says.
Also, the command to obey was given to the child. Just as husbands are not told to make their wives submit and wives are not told to make their husbands love them, parents are not told to make their children obey.
I taught my daughters to obey—starting when they were small—because I wanted their hearts to be sensitive and trained in the things of God. But teaching obedience is only one facet of my parenting.
3. Has Tedd Tripp correctly interpreted the “rod” passages?
Tripp teaches that the “rod” in Proverbs equals spanking, that spanking is even for young children, that spanking is the God-ordained means of discipline (which parents must obey) and that use of the rod saves a child’s soul from death.
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 that there are needs within your children that require use of the rod. If you are going to rescue your children from death, if you are going to root out the folly that is bound up in their hearts, if you are going to impart wisdom, you must use the rod. (p. SACH, 108)
The rod … 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. (p. SACH, 109)
Tripp’s use of Proverbs 23:14 (NIV: “Punish him [a child] with the rod and save his soul from death”) is faulty. Only the grace of God saves us from death and from our sinfulness. It is unbiblical to assert that spanking is God’s “means of grace” for saving children in any way. We diligently teach our children to obey, but spanking them is not salvific in nature. In fact, it is usually unnecessary. There are many godly ways we can teach our children to obey: by our example, by physically helping them fulfill our instructions, by meeting their internal and external needs, by teaching that choices have consequences, etc. God does these things for us as His children.2
The book refers several times to this conversation:
Father: “I must spank you. If I don’t, then I would be disobeying God.” (p. 31)
And again, “Dear, you know what Mommy said and you did not obey Mommy. And now I’ll have to spank you.” (p. 103)
In reference to the mother’s actions, Tripp explains that “the issues of correction transcend the present. All earthly punishment presupposes the great day when destinies are eternally fixed” (p. 103).
The conversation Tripp describes suggests parents who are controlled by a parenting formula rather than by the Holy Spirit: “I must spank you.” And linking earthly punishment to the day of judgment is a distortion of God’s relationship to us. As His child, my eternal destiny was decided already, because He punished His Son, not me.
As His children, He does not consistently punish us when we sin. He trains and disciplines us consistently but He is not obligated to punish us. By teaching parents that they are required to spank, Tripp teaches children (and their parents) that—contrary to the gospel—God does punish us consistently for our sins. Because Christ was punished for us, God is free to use whatever methods of discipline He wishes in order to train us and bring us closer to Himself.
Luther’s words are helpful once again:
When I say, such a Person [Christ], by the wedding-ring of faith, takes a share in the sins, death, and hell of His wife, nay, makes them His own, and deals with them no otherwise than as if they were His, and as if He Himself had sinned…. Thus the believing soul, by the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free from all sin, fearless of death, safe from hell, and endowed with the eternal righteousness, life, and salvation of its Husband Christ.
Tripp errs gravely in asserting that spanking is God-ordained, that God’s methods of discipline are limited to communication and spanking, and that parents must spank or they are sinning.
The book also lacks adequate attention to age differences and stages of development—a great aid in child-rearing. On this point, Sally Clarkson writes:
The unfortunate thing is that many parents, in the name of faithful discipline, do not understand the differences between babies or toddlers or young children or even teens with all of their hormones, and they exhibit anger and harshness toward their children, act in a demeaning way, while neglecting the cues of the child at each stage. These parents have no perspective for the children themselves–they use a rule and formula no matter what–and often wonder why their children do not respond to them.3
4. Is Tripp correct that any other methods of parenting are ineffective and disobedient?
Finally, Tripp consistently describes other methods or styles of parenting or discipline as ineffective and undesirable. This is a weakness in his argument because other godly methods of biblical training do exist and have been used effectively for many years.
For example, a daughter of Puritan parents, Mary Fish (1736-1818) writes: “They were very watchful over us in all our ways, and they had such a happy mode of governing that they would even govern us with an eye, and they never used severity with us at all.”4
These summarize several of the major errors in teaching and emphases that I have found in Shepherding a Child’s Heart. The book includes several good teachings, but the overarching errors concern me to the point that I do not recommend the book to parents. Those considering promoting this book and its teachings seriously should give these topics a lot of thought.
Notes
1 All Luther excerpts here are from Concerning Christian Liberty, Part 2.
2 According to Clay Clarkson, Heartfelt Discipline, Prov. 23:14 is probably referring to the use of an actual rod on the back of a young man (p. 56).
3 http://www.itakejoy.com/first-time-obedience-really/
4 Joy Day Buel and Richard J. Buel, Jr. The Way of Duty: A Woman and Her Family in Revolutionary America, p. 7
Anne Sokol Bio
Vitaliy and Anne Sokol are missionaries in Kiev, Ukraine. Anne is a graduate of Bob Jones University. She is a doula, childbirth educator, and midwifery student. She blogs at www.birthinukraine.wordpress.com. They have two daughters, Skyla & Victoria.
- 998 views
Briefly, the problem is confusing the credit for Christ’s obedience vs. the idea that Christ’s obedience replaces our own.
Logically, if His obed. replaces ours, there is no reason at all to obey—ever. Sin that grace may abound.
But what Romans (and the other epistles) actually teach is that we receive credit for Christ’s righteousness. It is “accounted” to us. Then, because of union with Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Rom.8), we grow to actually fulfill God’s standard of righteousness (“law”) by actual obedience. Sanctification is growth in obedience (read, “true obedience,” as in, faith included) culminating in our being presented before Him faultless.
God’s purpose in salvation does not end with the positional changes—our justification. It includes actual transformation which is transformation into obedient children.
The idea that Christ’s obedience replaces our own is a subtle modern form of antinomianism. More importantly, it leads to thinking that obedience to God is optional… do it when we understand, when we feel ready, when it just sort of happens to us with no effort on our part, etc. It’s a very damaging way of thinking and not supportable by a comprehensive reading of the NT.
And grace is cheapened in a setting where no obedience is actually expected. We are not helping kids understand grace if we teach them that obedience is optional. Rather, “optional obedience” communicates a lower standard and, therefore, less grace is involved in forgiving failures. In reality, obedience is required and grace is so amazing because obedience is required. Grace is God’s answer to our failure. But we have not failed if obedience was optional to begin with.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Some confusion continues regarding “Christ’s obedience for us.”You may be responding to something else in the thread, but I note that the distinction you make is foreign to Protestant theology. You will agree with me, I’m sure, that the concept of substitute is interchangeable with that of replacement? So, penal substitutionary atonement is logically equivalent to penal replacement atonement? Further, I think you would agree that PSA is the logical ground of double imputation? So, how could Christ’s obedience be credited to us without replacing our own? If by simple addition, we are back in Roman Catholicism (or perhaps something more eccentric).
Briefly, the problem is confusing the credit for Christ’s obedience vs. the idea that Christ’s obedience replaces our own.
Logically, if His obed. replaces ours, there is no reason at all to obey—ever. Sin that grace may abound.
But what Romans (and the other epistles) actually teach is that we receive credit for Christ’s righteousness. It is “accounted” to us. Then, because of union with Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit (Rom.8), we grow to actually fulfill God’s standard of righteousness (“law”) by actual obedience. Sanctification is growth in obedience (read, “true obedience,” as in, faith included) culminating in our being presented before Him faultless.
I think you’re trying to make the point that the Christian is morally obligated to keep God’s law. I agree, but I don’t think the distinction you’ve drawn is valid or helps your case. Also, the portion of your quote that I bolded is identical to Roman Catholic criticism of justification by faith alone. As you stated it, you deny orthodox Protestant theology, but I don’t think you meant what you said, because you’re apparently using an idiosyncratic meaning for “replaces.”
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
In the context of what I’m talking about, Christ’s obedience does not replace our obedience. I do not deny that replacements can and do occur, but we do not get to say “He obeyed for us, therefore we do not have to obey,” which is essentially Anne’s argument on that point.
I don’t think we need to confuse justification and sanctification. The former is credit, the latter is actual change. The latter occurs because of the former, and it’s accurate to say that our obedience “in Him” is also, most truly, His obedience. But we still have to actually do it and it is still required.
Maybe a better way to say it is that “His doing does not replace our doing.” The scores of imperatives in the NT simply make no sense if we have nothing to do.
Does that clarify what I’m trying to say?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] No, it’s not an off the wall definition of “replacement,” just one that has a narrow scope.Aaron, I understand what you’re thinking… . hm, where to go with this … . Is sanctification a gift or a work? Can you ever work enough, obey enough? Where will we give account for our sanctification? What will it look like in heaven?
In the context of what I’m talking about, Christ’s obedience does not replace our obedience. I do not deny that replacements can and do occur, but we do not get to say “He obeyed for us, therefore we do not have to obey,” which is essentially Anne’s argument on that point.
I don’t think we need to confuse justification and sanctification. The former is credit, the latter is actual change. The latter occurs because of the former, and it’s accurate to say that our obedience “in Him” is also, most truly, His obedience. But we still have to actually do it and it is still required.
Maybe a better way to say it is that “His doing does not replace our doing.” The scores of imperatives in the NT simply make no sense if we have nothing to do.
Does that clarify what I’m trying to say?
anyway, I’m not sure how to talk about this. I’m not saying we don’t have to obey. Our obedience is just on a different level than this, is all I know to say.
Thanks to those who have written me from all over, people I don’t even know. Your words and encouragement have meant a lot to me. And I am on a journey and learning just as you are. And many of you are much farther and more experienced than I am. I wish that you, too, had been able to contribute instead of this only being mostly my own feeble attempt of articulating these deep things.
[Anne] Aaron, I understand what you’re thinking… . hm, where to go with this … . Is sanctification a gift or a work? Can you ever work enough, obey enough? Where will we give account for our sanctification? What will it look like in heaven?Alot of questions there. It’s a big topic. I’m not sure I understand the relevance of all of them, but I’ll take a stab at short answers.
anyway, I’m not sure how to talk about this. I’m not saying we don’t have to obey. Our obedience is just on a different level than this, is all I know to say.
Is it a gift or a work? It is the gift of transformed works (but also transformed hearts, minds, affections). Our works are changed from disobedience to obedience. (They are not meritorious works. We’re talking about believers here. All the meriting is already accomplished.)
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10)
This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men. (Tit 3:8)
Can you ever work enough or obey enough? No. We’ll be doing it for all of eternity… thankfully, without any of the encumbrances that now hinder us! But in this life we’re to be continually growing in grace (2Pet.3:18, Php 1:6)
Where will we give account for our sanctification? I’m not sure I understand the question. We will give account for our works before God, presumably in Heaven.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. (2 Co 5:10)
What will it look like in heaven? It will be beautiful! It will look like adopted children who are “holy and blameless and above reproach before Him” (Col.1:22) serving Him forever (Rev.22:3).
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.
[Martin Luther] Yet a Christian has need of none of these things for justification and salvation, but in all his works he ought to entertain this view and look only to this object—that he may serve and be useful to others in all that he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and the advantage of his neighbour. Thus the Apostle commands us to work with our own hands, that we may have to give to those that need. He might have said, that we may support ourselves; but he tells us to give to those that need. It is the part of a Christian to take care of his own body for the very purpose that, by its soundness and well-being, he may be enabled to labour, and to acquire and preserve property, for the aid of those who are in want, that thus the stronger member may serve the weaker member, and we may be children of God, thoughtful and busy one for another, bearing one another’s burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ.martin luther did a wonderful job discussion the purpose of sanctification, and it isn’t that long of a read, either: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-3… Please take the time to read it-it’s very worth it!
Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.
[Martin Luther] In this we see clearly that the Apostle lays down this rule for a Christian life: that all our works should be directed to the advantage of others, since every Christian has such abundance through his faith that all his other works and his whole life remain over and above wherewith to serve and benefit his neighbour of spontaneous goodwill.
[Martin Luther] Thus a Christian, like Christ his Head, being full and in abundance through his faith, ought to be content with this form of God, obtained by faith; except that, as I have said, he ought to increase this faith till it be perfected. For this faith is his life, justification, and salvation, preserving his person itself and making it pleasing to God, and bestowing on him all that Christ has, as I have said above, and as Paul affirms: “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God” (Gal. ii. 20). Though he is thus free from all works, yet he ought to empty himself of this liberty, take on him the form of a servant, be made in the likeness of men, be found in fashion as a man, serve, help, and in every way act towards his neighbour as he sees that God through Christ has acted and is acting towards him. All this he should do freely, and with regard to nothing but the good pleasure of God, and he should reason thus:—Motto: in Christ by faith; in my neighbor by love.
Lo! my God, without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given to me, an unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature all the riches of justification and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father, then, who has overwhelmed me with these inestimable riches of His, why should I not freely, cheerfully, and with my whole heart, and from voluntary zeal, do all that I know will be pleasing to Him and acceptable in His sight? I will therefore give myself as a sort of Christ, to my neighbour, as Christ has given Himself to me; and will do nothing in this life except what I see will be needful, advantageous, and wholesome for my neighbour, since by faith I abound in all good things in Christ.
Thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily, without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under obligations, nor does it distinguish between friends and enemies, or look to gratitude or ingratitude, but most freely and willingly spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude, or gains goodwill. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to all men abundantly and freely, making His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Thus, too, the child does and endures nothing except from the free joy with which it delights through Christ in God, the Giver of such great gifts.
I guess that is one reason that parenting so much by punishment disturbs me theologically. It’s a justification or means to motivate a child to obey by fear. Yes, yes, yes, some level of fear is a very healthy thing! But overdoing that and making God seem like one to be obeyed in fear of punishment is mistaken. Living by this kind of fear leads to doubting Christianity. Understanding that we are truly, truly, freely accepted in Christ really is what gives us power to obey in love. And that is what a mature Christian does.
If Anne said somewhere that obedience is “optional,” that’s certainly infelicitous wording as well. I would say the same thing to her - you don’t really mean what you said.
One of the things that historic Protestant theology emphasizes is that there is no bare concept of “law.” Someone is always under a particular relationship to the law. Those outside the covenant are under the law as a curse and a threat. Those inside the covenant are under the law as a privilege and a guide. (Some orthodox Lutherans will dispute the “under the law” terminology, but it works out similarly.)
Both Luther and Calvin stress the believer’s new position regarding the law. This ties in, I think, to Anne’s repeated assertion that it matters how obedience is taught. That was a central debate in the Reformation. Both sides acknowledged that Christians should be obedient, and that the true doctrine would lead to the best obedience (Luther hedged at this point, though). So, the Catholics accused the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone of providing an insufficient basis for requiring sanctification. The Protestants retorted that the only obedience Rome could offer was a slavish fear unworthy of a good Father.
I strongly urge anyone interested in this to read Calvin’s Institutes 3.16. The whole chapter is only about 6 pages. Here’s a quick summary from Cornelis Venema:
“The charge of Calvin’s opponents assumes that the mercy of God is an insufficient motive for good works, and so they substitute a motive of their own which, by stressing the ideas of merit, “forces out some slavish and coerced observances of the law.””
“The good works of God’s children are not extorted by the promise of a reward, but they represent the free obedience of faith in reciprocating the Father’s love in Christ. Knowing themselves to be God’s children through free adoption, those whom God justifies act accordingly, in a manner consistent with what might be expected of children who know his paternal goodness and love. For such children, the recognition of God’s gratuitous mercy alone, not precepts and sanctions, leads to repentance.”
One of Calvin’s arguments in the chapter is that the principle motivation for obedience cannot be threat and reward, but rather recognition of God’s honor and God’s mercy. We must distinguish between “slavish” obedience and “childlike” obedience, and I do think it’s pertinent to parenting that Calvin contrasts fearful and slavish with childlike.
There is a lot more that can be said about the relationship between justification and sanctification in Protestant theology, but the central point is that they are tightly intertwined. You don’t stop talking justification to go to sanctification. So, anyone trying to draw parallels between Christian sanctification and child-rearing is going to have to integrate the doctrines of justification and adoption (not to mention covenant) into the larger plan. I see “grace-centered” or “gospel-centered” parents attempting to do this, and I’m convinced it’s the only correct approach from a historic Protestant perspective. Of course, that’s a long way from endorsing anyone’s specific arguments, techniques, or taboos.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Another time he said, “Part of the role of being a teacher is as awful as being an executioner.” (also Table Talk, translating from the German.
Until a generation ago, Luther was famous in this country for his proverb: “The rod beside the apple” for child discipline.
No one in educational circles in Germany even raised the idea that corporal punishment was bad or ineffective for rearing children until Friedrich Schleiermacher did so at the beginning of the 1800s.
Jeff Brown
i more see luther with the ideas of how, when we understand justification correctly, we understand sanctification correctly, too. And that can/does apply to childrearing—or how we raise our children to think about their obedience and their motives for obedience.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[James K] This thread stopped being about what God says on the issue as soon as it was posted. Parents who do not spank do not love their children. God said it.James, we’ve actually been having a pretty thoughtful conversation about what exactly God has said, hasn’t said, and reasons for believing one or the other.
In any case, repeatedly making your assertion isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t convinced already. Give them some reasons to consider.
Charlie, I have to confess that I have not heard justification described in terms of Christ’s obedience replacing ours before the Father… not exactly. At least, not without context to explain what is meant by “replace.” But in any case, no, that’s not what I’m talking about. Rather, I’m talking about what is “accounted’ (to just use a Pauline term) vs. our actual conduct (another Pauline term).
Anne does not directly say that obedience is optional, but it’s difficult to escape that as an inference of what she does say. We are not supposed to focus on obedience in child-rearing because obedience is not that important, and it’s not that important because Christ has already obeyed for us (and it’s impossible for us to perfectly obey, etc.).
My point is that what Christ has accomplished for us in no way frees us from the obligation to obey Him and in no way reduces the importance of our obedience. A major point of Rom.6 is that our union with Christ is actually a reason that obedience is more important, not less.
I don’t disagree at all though that how we teach obedience matters a great deal.
But as parents we are tasked with more than imparting theology. We must also build habits and character. This is where Luther’s whacks would be more relevant.
Also, about Luther, it’s important to read his observations about grace and obedience in the context of a guy who believed that obedience to sacraments are means of grace. He couldn’t possibly have had anything like “let go, let God” in mind.
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.
Rhetoric answer—yes. In Christ, I lived an obedient life that entirely fulfilled the law, an obedience that is applied to me by my faith in Christ. Christ’s obedience is the only acceptable obedience to God—although He does graciously “accept” my sin-riddled obedience that He enables me to do in this life, too.
So now, why do I obey? Two reasons Luther gives: 1) to subdue my fleshly man so that my soul and body can be united in serving God, and 2) to serve my neighbors as Christ came and served me.
[Luther] Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith, having all that he requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day, even till the future life, still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in which it is necessary that he should rule his own body and have intercourse with men. Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is not kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessings have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love… .Our obedience doesn’t earn us anything, like more favor in God’s sight. It’s just what we, the unworthy servants, ought to do.
Since then works justify no man, but a man must be justified before he can do any good work, it is most evident that it is faith alone which, by the mere mercy of God through Christ, and by means of His word, can worthily and sufficiently justify and save the person; and that a Christian man needs no work, no law, for his salvation; for by faith he is free from all law, and in perfect freedom does gratuitously all that he does, seeking nothing either of profit or of salvation—since by the grace of God he is already saved and rich in all things through his faith—but solely that which is well-pleasing to God.
P.S. This was my eureka moment—when I found true freedom in obeying God. I think sometimes we make Christ like the law—the merciless judge who is always perfect and always judging our failures. But that was our “old” husband, the law. Christ, the new husband, is perfect, but instead of judging us, He reached down and helped us in our failure. And that is grace, grace, grace. How sweet the sound and how addictive the taste.
[Aaron Blumer]I see how certain statements could sound as if obedience is being downgraded, but I think the real point is that a believer’s relationship to God is multi-faceted, and thus the way a parent models God to a child must be multi-faceted.
Anne does not directly say that obedience is optional, but it’s difficult to escape that as an inference of what she does say. We are not supposed to focus on obedience in child-rearing because obedience is not that important, and it’s not that important because Christ has already obeyed for us (and it’s impossible for us to perfectly obey, etc.).
My point is that what Christ has accomplished for us in no way frees us from the obligation to obey Him and in no way reduces the importance of our obedience. A major point of Rom.6 is that our union with Christ is actually a reason that obedience is more important, not less.
So, complete this sentence: “God is our _____.” In order to have a well-rounded view of God, many adjectives, titles, and names that need to go in that blank. (Perhaps, taking a cue from Calvin, we could classify them under the two heads of God our Creator and God our Redeemer.) The different items we insert into the blank will carry with them different modes of relating. “God is our fortress” yields “I take refuge in God.” “God is our sustainer” yields “I nourish myself with God.” We can continue this for a long time.
Now, Anne believes that some parenting styles inculcate a myopic or lopsided view of God. “God is my master,” yielding “I obey God” is entirely true, but when abstracted or isolated from other truths about God, can turn false. It’s an error by subtraction. The solution to the error, then, is addition. I would say, not speaking for Anne here (but I think she agrees), that some parents/pastors/churches/people err not by preaching too much master/servant/obey, but by not preaching enough of the other stuff. However, it is true that if other things got air-time, the amount of emphasis on that one area would fall comparatively.
I do find it more than coincidental that authoritarian parenting styles flourish among a Christian demographic known for authoritarian one-pastor church leadership and authoritarian schools and colleges. The culture of much of fundamentalism is structured along “authority” dynamics, and I think that’s a window into people’s view of God.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Prov 13:24
The one who will not use the rod hates his son, but the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.
I simply said: Parents who do not spank do not love their children. God said it.
That is exactly what this verse says. I suppose I made it softer than God. I simply said that those parents don’t love their children. God said those parents hate their children.
Anne and others do not believe what God said. They tried (correctly or incorrectly), failed, and instead of following what God said by faith that He knows more, have chosen to use their experience as their defining authority.
Further, theories about vicarious law-keeping are put forth as justification for obedience being a nonissue. Anne is wrong on both accounts.
If obedience was a nonissue, the commands would not be repeated in the NT. The theory of vicarious law-keeping is another issue. Speculative theology isn’t a realm I choose to live in.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Discussion