What (if anything) would you have said?

[tranquilmama]

Dh and I are going to an adult study on the book of Revelation at our church. The leader (one of the elders) was talking about the seven churches and the post modern paradigm (which is the main train of thought in the secular world these days).
One of the examples he gave was that a post-modernist would say that spanking a child is wrong because a child has the right to act according to their own set of rules and therefore have their own feelings and therefore the parent doesn't have the right to enforce their own rules on the child especially if they violate the child's paradigm. And the Christian would have to respond that spanking a child teaches the child the concept of authority while teaching them the difference between right and wrong.

Just wondering... would you have said anything???

[tranquilmama]

whoops, wrong forum... I think :O Can I have this moved to let's talk? :mrgreen

[DogwoodMama]

I think it's fine here. (I might be overruled. :giggle)

I probably would have let it go *at the moment* or said, "I don't see it that way". Probably the former unless there was time to talk. There's just a lot of assumptions going on there to address.

[beccafromlalaland]

I would say that Christians are in a sorry state if there isn't any other way to teach a child the concept of authority and right from wrong other than hitting them.

[mom2threePKs]

I would say that is a really strange description of a child rearing philosophy that I have never heard anyone but the most ardent Non-Coercive Parenting adherents use. Even post modern parents know that children's paradigms and "rules" are often childish and must be overruled by the more mature logical thinking of an adult. Where exactly is he getting that as a description of "post-modern parenting"? The spanking part of the equation is the lest of the problems with his statement in my opinion. Setting up a silly dichotomy in order to make a point is a cheap way of making a argument and really insults his audiences ability to think.

Magan

[tranquilmama]

Magan, I don't know where he get's that definition/description. I know his family is one of the pro-Ezzo's in our church body. I'd like to do a more in depth study of post modernism and it's effect/affect on Christianity and vice versa. Just haven't read up on it as thoroughly as I'd like.

The thing that really just rubbed me against the grain was that his assumption that spanking was completely acceptable and that we would make the connection by his use of what you called a "cheap point." I would think that his version of post modern parenting is more of TCS (taking children seriously) which is the extreeeeeme of permissive parenting. :scratch

[hsgbdmama]

Going for a stretch here, but I'm wondering if he is reacting to some of the UN stuff, because I have heard more than once about the one world government and the UN basically being it. Some of their children's bill of rights includes the stuff your pastor is mentioning (child having more say over their lives, parents having less authority).

Unfortunately, feeding into this fear leads to a one extreme or another philosophy -- in this case, you either abdicate all authority to the child -or- you spank to maintain your authority. :(

[JHinton]

I probably would have asked (either then or in private later) why spanking specifically. Why not other methods that are proven to be better psychologically for the child and more effective methods of teaching? I also would have expressed my views on why spanking is wrong that has nothing to do with my not wanting to impose my rules on another person. You can have rules and authority and not spank.