SHEPHERDING A CHILD'S HEART - pt. 8

Before embarking on the review this week I wanted to respond to some points brought up in the last review. First of all I want to make it clear that I am not here to defend myself or Mr. Tripp. I earnestly pray that the things I write and the conclusions I come to are glorifying to God over and above all things. I am also not interested in making my blog an arena for all-out debate on the issue of spanking. I am sure there are other places to go and do that in cyberspace.

I think the main issue here is our interpretation of these critical passages in Proverbs. In rereading Sproul's book Knowing Scripture I've been reminded of this crucial point - to say that a passage of Scripture has two equally valid and yet opposite interpretations is saying that God speaks with a forked tongue. Therefore, the passages on the rod either mean God approves of spanking or it doesn't. At the end of the day we cannot come to the conclusion that it can mean both. One interpretation is right and one interpretation is wrong. I say this in all humility agreeing with Sproul when he says, "If my views cannot stand the test of objective analysis and verification, humility demands I abandon them." (Knowing Scripture, p.40) In the link to Dr. Sears' opinion on spanking, I found a very weak argument. He openly admits that while he has prayed for wisdom and come to the anti-spanking position others have prayed for wisdom and come to the opposite position. He then says that it seems that God is saying that this is not an either/or decision but that both sides should stay open to one another. What does that mean? It seems to me that he is taking the subjective stance to Scripture which Sproul has just warned us not to do. His article has a lot of unsubstantiated opinion in it (i.e. "Spanking can tend to devalue a child, making him feel weak and powerless. This kind of self-image will not help him fight off tempation in the future.") and his handling of Scripture is IMHO pretty sloppy. He makes the argument that the word rod does not mean a tool used for corporal punishment. He uses Psalm 23 to make this point, and states emphatically that a shepherd never uses his rod to physically punish his sheep. I was intrigued by this argument because I am not a shepherd and have never lived around sheep. But I did remember that I had a little book on my shelf called A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23 by Phillip Keller. This is what I found in the section about the rod: "There is a second dimension in which the rod is used by the shepherd for the welfare of his sheep-namely that of discipline. If anything, the club(rod) is used for this purpose perhaps more than any other." So the argument that a shepherd never uses his rod to discipline his sheep is pretty weak in my opinion. Sears then quotes 1 Cor. 4:21 to make the argument against the rod - "Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness?" Using this as a prooftext to argue against the rod is really bad hermeneutics. This passage has nothing to do with parent/child relationships. It is talking about how Paul wants to admonish and exhort his fellow believers and new converts. If anything, this verse underscores the true meaning of the rod - an instrument used for corporal punishment. So I think Dr. Sears argument is, in the end, not biblically sound. The last point I want to make about this has to do with the nature of God. In humility, I want to argue that God has used the infliction of pain and suffering to mercifully and lovingly discipline and mold His children. The apostle Paul suffered prolonged pain from his "thorn in the flesh". We do not know what this was exactly but we know that God brought it and Paul learned to not exalt himself because of it. God allowed Job to go through tremendous physical suffering. Finally, I want to quote a big chunk of Hebrews 12(NASB) to further emphasize the relationship between how God disciplines and how he expects earthly fathers to discipline -

"For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and he scourges every son whom He receives. It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful ("painful" in ESV, NKJV, NRSV); yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness."

OK, now onto the review

Chapters 14 - Infancy to Childhood: Training Objectives
Chapters 15 - Infancy to Childhood: Training Procedures

Even though I agree with Tripp's main points in these chapters, I did have some reservations with his applications. First the good: Mr. Tripp states that ultimately obedience is not a parent/child issue but a child/God issue. Our children are called to obey us in the Lord. This is sobering to me and I am further encouraged to have the right goals, to give clear directives, and to be consistent. Tripp says that we are always training our children for better or for worse. Our children, especially in these formative years, need to understand the importance of submitting to authority. Now the bad news: there was one paragraph which seemed a little "Ezzo-ish" to me. He states, "Acquaint your children with authority and submission when they are infants. This training starts the day you bring them home from the hospital." When I read this I immediately thought of the strict schedule feeding that Ezzo promotes. While I employed Babywise methods with our children, I have recently come in contact with many godly mothers who do not use these methods and it has humbled me and opened my eyes. I was disappointed that Tripp never elaborated on the "how" of acquainting your newborn with authority and submission.

In chapter 15 I had a problem with the way he applies his theories on obedience. While I agree with his position on the rod and the need to teach our children to submit to authority, I felt uncomfortable with the way he presented his application. Ever since I became a parent I've read theories on discipline and how to discipline, just like everyone else. Over the years, thankfully, I've learned to beware of those teachers who imply that their application of the theory is the one right application. Again, we need to go back to the lessons of good hermeneutics. Sproul says, "A particular statement may have numerous possible personal applications, but it can only have one correct meaning." (Knowing Scripture p. 39) The interpretation of the rod passages in Proverbs can only have one correct meaning but the application of the rod in the home will look a little differently in different homes. This is the problem I have with chapter 15. Tripp makes the issues of discipline look too black-and-white. We all need much wisdom in implementing discipline. Each child is created differently with specific needs. There will be many different discipline situations throughout our children's lives. Any parent with more than one child can attest to the fact that they will have different struggles with different children and sometimes will not know what to do. Again, wisdom is paramount.