"Indeed, in today's world 'nearly all forms of discipline appear morally suspect.'"

There are several main points i agree with in this article, esp about the children’s books and the permissive parenting ideas. However … .

He goes no where in giving better or correct ideas of parenting. For example,

[mohler] “As Zalewski argues, today’s young parents “learn that there are many things they must never do to their willful young child: spank, scold, bestow frequent praise, criticize, plead, withhold affection, take away toys, ‘model’ angry emotions, intimidate, bargain, nag.” In other words, “nearly all forms of discipline appear morally suspect.”

The way he states this, we are to understand that those are all proper means of childrearing?

[mohler] Today’s Christian parents must push hard against the prevailing secular wisdom if they are to be faithful. The Bible makes clear (and simple observation affirms) that children desperately need discipline from their parents. Furthermore, the Bible reveals that the faithful and wise parent disciplines, teaches, corrects, chastens, rewards, and punishes the child as a demonstration of true love and parental responsibility.

“Children desperately need discipline.” In this context he is basically equating “discipline” with punishment. The whole of Biblical “discipline” should be mainly a postive endeavor, one that is usually inconvenient and exhausting. And parents who don’t understand that or don’t want to deal with it, usually resort to permissiveness- or punishment-oriented parenting.

I feel like he read Kohn, had a bad reaction, and shot from the hip here. But I could be wrong. He needs to read Campbell, Clarkson, Silk, and VanVonderen.

When picture books (as opposed to chapter books) were the rage in our home, some of my children’s favorites were ones that were silly. Ones that did not accurately reflect “real life.” I did not read Zalewski’s essay, but Mohler’s characterization of it and Mohler’s take-away points from it feels like fuddy-duddies-against-children’s-books-that-do-not-reflect-reality.

Once again, we are reminded that books matter. In this case, Daniel Zalewski’s essay reminds us that books intended for the very youngest matter very much. The picture books we put in front of our children help frame their expectation and understanding of their place in life and in the family. Today’s parents must look carefully at the books they put before the eyes of their children. Some of the most subversive literature in the land is designed to put children — and not parents — firmly in charge.

My children know who is in charge. My children know that children obey parents and not the other way around… so reading a book that depicts something different isn’t subversive, it’s silly to them. It’s like Daddy putting a shoe on his head. The child doesn’t suddenly get the idea that shoes should now be worn on the head — the child laughs at how silly Daddy is and says with a giggle, “HATS belong on heads, Daddy.” The same would be true for a book that depicted a bratty, bossy child… my children would have either laughed at the silliness or been horrified by the behavior. And that, in and of itself, is wonderful because it gives a parent the opportunity to talk to the child about “what’s wrong with this picture” and “why are kids not really in charge in the family.”

Anyway, that’s my take on it.

[Rachel L.] When picture books (as opposed to chapter books) were the rage in our home, some of my children’s favorites were ones that were silly. Ones that did not accurately reflect “real life.” I did not read Zalewski’s essay, but Mohler’s characterization of it and Mohler’s take-away points from it feels like fuddy-duddies-against-children’s-books-that-do-not-reflect-reality.

Once again, we are reminded that books matter. In this case, Daniel Zalewski’s essay reminds us that books intended for the very youngest matter very much. The picture books we put in front of our children help frame their expectation and understanding of their place in life and in the family. Today’s parents must look carefully at the books they put before the eyes of their children. Some of the most subversive literature in the land is designed to put children — and not parents — firmly in charge.

My children know who is in charge. My children know that children obey parents and not the other way around… so reading a book that depicts something different isn’t subversive, it’s silly to them. It’s like Daddy putting a shoe on his head. The child doesn’t suddenly get the idea that shoes should now be worn on the head — the child laughs at how silly Daddy is and says with a giggle, “HATS belong on heads, Daddy.” The same would be true for a book that depicted a bratty, bossy child… my children would have either laughed at the silliness or been horrified by the behavior. And that, in and of itself, is wonderful because it gives a parent the opportunity to talk to the child about “what’s wrong with this picture” and “why are kids not really in charge in the family.”

Anyway, that’s my take on it.

Your take on it may be true for your family & your children; however, your family is increasingly the exception, not the rule—even for Christian homes. In nearly 30 years of pastoral ministry, I’ve seen Christian parents pick up the toys after the children because the kids don’t want to (or won’t!)…won’t eat their supper because they don’t like the food (and end up getting what they want—a bowl of cereal)…coddled & pacified as they throw a tantrum (and then get what they wanted in the first place)…etc. etc. etc. Incidentally, we’ve had quite a few missionary families in our homes over the years, and marvelled at how many are child-centered, child-controlled. Quite sad.

Did picture books create the family chaos? Certainly not. But when the pictures reflect that home’s reality, they definitely help reinforce what’s there. They end up being “subversive” in that reinforcement, strengthening the idea within the home that, “we are, in fact, quite normal and OK, thank you.”

I was a member of a church in the Chicagoland area 20+ years ago. One of the deacons was heard to say, “The stuff these kids watch on television anymore: it’s so bad, my wife and I have to get up and leave the room!”

We didn’t stay at that church very long.

Your take on it may be true for your family & your children; however, your family is increasingly the exception, not the rule—even for Christian homes. In nearly 30 years of pastoral ministry, I’ve seen Christian parents pick up the toys after the children because the kids don’t want to (or won’t!)…won’t eat their supper because they don’t like the food (and end up getting what they want—a bowl of cereal)…coddled & pacified as they throw a tantrum (and then get what they wanted in the first place)…etc. etc. etc. Incidentally, we’ve had quite a few missionary families in our homes over the years, and marvelled at how many are child-centered, child-controlled. Quite sad.

Did picture books create the family chaos? Certainly not. But when the pictures reflect that home’s reality, they definitely help reinforce what’s there. They end up being “subversive” in that reinforcement, strengthening the idea within the home that, “we are, in fact, quite normal and OK, thank you.”

If we are experiencing a decline in effective discipline in our Christian homes, then it makes more sense to me for us to be targeting the SOURCE… which is the parental attitude and skill level. Targeting a symptom of the problem (assuming one accepts that these children’s books are actually reinforcing the problem as opposed to being mere entertainment) will absolutely NOT cure the problem. Why bother writing an article about the symptom? Why not address the problem itself? Because parents who don’t have the sense or strength of character to be the authority in their homes are not going to be able to stand up to a child who wants the latest “Betty the Brat Runs the Show” book.

[Rachel L.]

Your take on it may be true for your family & your children; however, your family is increasingly the exception, not the rule—even for Christian homes. In nearly 30 years of pastoral ministry, I’ve seen Christian parents pick up the toys after the children because the kids don’t want to (or won’t!)…won’t eat their supper because they don’t like the food (and end up getting what they want—a bowl of cereal)…coddled & pacified as they throw a tantrum (and then get what they wanted in the first place)…etc. etc. etc. Incidentally, we’ve had quite a few missionary families in our homes over the years, and marvelled at how many are child-centered, child-controlled. Quite sad.

Did picture books create the family chaos? Certainly not. But when the pictures reflect that home’s reality, they definitely help reinforce what’s there. They end up being “subversive” in that reinforcement, strengthening the idea within the home that, “we are, in fact, quite normal and OK, thank you.”

If we are experiencing a decline in effective discipline in our Christian homes, then it makes more sense to me for us to be targeting the SOURCE… which is the parental attitude and skill level. Targeting a symptom of the problem (assuming one accepts that these children’s books are actually reinforcing the problem as opposed to being mere entertainment) will absolutely NOT cure the problem. Why bother writing an article about the symptom? Why not address the problem itself? Because parents who don’t have the sense or strength of character to be the authority in their homes are not going to be able to stand up to a child who wants the latest “Betty the Brat Runs the Show” book.

Your point is well taken; however, sometimes in dealing with issues of life, home, family, parenting…you deal with the root; sometimes, the symptoms; sometimes, both. Sometimes you deal with negative influences, sometimes you point out expressions of unbiblical philosophy; sometimes you deal with the parents; sometimes the children. I don’t fuss with someone who’s dealing with a “symptom,” especially if I’m looking at one isolated item he’s written or sermon he’s preached. I assume he’s not attempting to cure a problem, but rather to help expose it.

By the way, the source of the problem is commonly philosophical rather than simply attitude or skill level. Child-centeredness in the home, for example, is a philosophical issue rather than a mere attitude or skill problem. That philosophy ends up manifesting itself in activities, discipline, dealing with the child’s expressions of want (after all, this little center of my world has to be happy, right?), and so on. Certainly, the philosophy will also have an effect on the parents’ attitudes (especially toward anyone wanting to correct them!!), but those attitudes are also a symptom. Furthermore, it’s not primarily a matter of the parents lacking the strength of character or sense to be the authority in their home in these cases. It’s that the parents actually believe that God placed them on the planet to make their little darling happy, and they believe that the way to make him happy is to cater to him. Do the parents need to change their parenting “skills”? Absolutely. But that won’t come until their belief system is changed.

[Rachel L.] If we are experiencing a decline in effective discipline in our Christian homes, then it makes more sense to me for us to be targeting the SOURCE… which is the parental attitude and skill level. Targeting a symptom of the problem (assuming one accepts that these children’s books are actually reinforcing the problem as opposed to being mere entertainment) will absolutely NOT cure the problem. Why bother writing an article about the symptom? Why not address the problem itself? Because parents who don’t have the sense or strength of character to be the authority in their homes are not going to be able to stand up to a child who wants the latest “Betty the Brat Runs the Show” book.

I agree- in a free market society, focusing on the root affects the symptoms, because if there is no market for “Betty the Brat Runs the Show” then businesses are not going to flood the market with it.

It is amazing to me, as I read about subjects such as the history of modern education, the invention of such ideas as ‘adolescence’, the technological advances that substitute for manual labor, the increased focus on entertainment… how all these factors blend together, feed off each other, and intertwine until you can’t clearly dissect the effects of each. All of these things have contributed to the society which we now have, and we think it’s normal because none of us are old enough (except maybe Jim) to remember a time when children weren’t worshipped, or treated as physically delicate and mentally fragile, or the marketplace wasn’t flooded with toys and games, and every spare minute spent on frivolity.

But people don’t know their history- I certainly didn’t learn about these things in school. It wasn’t until I became a parent that I started asking myself questions about ‘why’ we accept certain things in American culture, and began to pursue the answers. We have to engage the battle for our children’s futures at the parental level, and thus we can affect society at large.