Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

:cup

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

Yes, when you are ready to tell the story, I have room for it in the Testimonies section of my website.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

I don't think Tripp has retracted his stance on spanking, I believe that IACH is not an updated version a SACH but a accompaniment to it. I watched the preview fro IACH DVD and it it talks about, "foundation for corrective discipline", first time obedience, and keeping kids inside the circle God has drawn for them. It still sounds like the same old Tripp to me.

I am not saying that Tripp did not touch your family is a important way BUT while he was leading to away from a punitive dynamic it is very possible that at the same time he was leading 100's towards it.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

First of all, thank you for taking the time to write that up for us. I am very interested to read IACH now!

Secondly, thank you for sharing so bravely and openly here about your journey away from the Pearls' teachings. I am so glad you found GCM and I am praying you will be encouraged on your journey here.

If you do feel you want to tell more of your family's story, I hope you will find this is a safe place to share that.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

The bolded part keeps jumping out at me...the same shaming, "this is your fault that I have to chastise/spank/punish you" mindset as it has always been.

Granted I don't have the entire context, but the wording of this still sends up alarm bells for me. :shrug

I am also interested to know if he has retracted his older teachings. If he hasn't/won't - that makes it clear where his heart/theology remain.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

Hmmmmmm.

When I read that, I guess I tend to think more of Love and Logic type reasoning. "This is the choice you made, and this is the consequence of that choice." I use that often in my scripts with my girls, not in a shaming way, but more to emphasize the power of the choices we make.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

I see where you are coming from. :yes

What I am saying is that if he still advocated spanking...then that statement is applying to that, as well as whatever else he uses in his toolbox. And that is damaging/dangerous enough to still make me :sick

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

I totally see what you're saying!

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

well, they [SACH] are still being sold all over the internet. apparently he still believes in them enough to make a little $$ off of them. i can only imagine and assume that as a pastor if you actually had a change of heart and felt your previous work was harmful or incorrect you would make sure to take those books off the market. :shrug3

i did notice that the 1998 version of SACH is "revised and updated." anyone know what those changes may have been about?

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

thank you so much for your courage to share!!! and welcome and hugs to GCM. we are so glad you are hear. i'm glad TT offered you such wonderful advice. i'm curious as to why though, as it goes against so much of his published and written work.

the second bold is mine....and i just wanted to clarify, while that is the statement of beliefs of GCM, the teachings of TT go far beyond the "mere concept of spanking." they advocate spanking an infant of less than 9 months of age, admitidedly even before knowing if that child in fact is exhibiting true "rebellion."

SACH Page 154 "You have no way of knowing how much a child a year old or less can understand of what you say, but we do know that understanding comes long before the ability to articulate does….When our oldest child was approximately 8 months old….Obviously he was old enough to be disciplined.”

and finally....just an added concern of mine is his use of proof-texting scripture. his use of hebrews 12:11 is grossly out of context. this verse is directed to adults facing persecution for their faith, not children being physically hit by their parents.

SACH Page 152 “We have always been guided by Hebrews 12:11 ‘No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.’ If discipline has not yielded a harvest of peace and righteousness, it is not finished. On some occasions we have had to say to our children, ‘Dear, Daddy has spanked you, but you are not sweet enough yet. We are going to have to go back upstairs for another spanking.”

the misuse of scripture is very important to me, and is enough to consider the works of this person not something that would be helpful in learning and loving the scriptures and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. :heart:heart

just wanted to add this...as they spanking is not the ONLY issue i have with the teachings of TT.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

Striving4Grace - I'm so glad you are here and bringing your perspective to the discussion.

I can very much see how those who trust Tripp would still see the Pearl's teachings as abusive. I know Dobson (a punitive parenting guru) says that parents who have been abused or feel themselves likely to abuse shouldn't consider spanking, but spanking is still encouraged generally by his teachings. Could it be that someone specifically said you should not spank because your thinking patterns were influenced by the Pearl's, but that they are considering your circumstances specifically as an exception?

Another thing to be careful about, even when all other advice is good, is when the concept of defiance is presented as something to be especially feared. That has a way of coloring interactions because the definition of defiance can broaden over time. That's Dobson's main downfall, IMO, that he would present spanking as a response to defiance as only necessary occasionally, but that the concept will end up influencing interactions much more often in practice. I hope someone can read IACH and figure out if it's built on that paradigm or not - that's a key characteristic that delineates parenting philosophies, IMO.

Oh, yeah, and don't put a Ten Commandments level of law to your desire to choose reasonable and logical consequences. There's some room for error as long as your intentions are good. Grace is for mamas, too.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

I am not sure what the point of even saying Tripp is better than Pearl. The essence of both is the same. Punishment puts you right with God. Spanking is the way to TRAIN your child.

So what if there is good stuff in SACH. So what if Tedd Tripp has some good ideas. The Pearls share MANY of the same ideal that we here at GCM do. That does not mean we embrace or promote them in ANY way.

I think if you have a non punitive mindset, are free of the bonds of legalism, and are grounded in grace based and non punitive discipline then SACH or IACH could be a good book to read. It is only good though if you can completely ignore the very bad parts of his book and what he preaches.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

I wondered about that as well.

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

I read SACH (I think I still have it, if I didn't send it off to someone here for research). If IACH is *that* different, he must have indeed done a 180 about his stance on physical punishment. There is a story in SACH, if I remember correctly, about a girl (an older one) who left her pillow at a camp. He mentioned her living with that consequence (she wasn't going to get another one, but would have to buy one herself with her own money), but also added physical punishment to the "discipline". If I remember right. I remember thinking, "Um, I believe that the natural consequence was enough?"

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

:cup

Re: Kirk Cameron and Ted Tripp
 

http://tripp tomars.blogspot. com /2008/09/ted- tripp-and-potential-for -child-abuse .html

http://stop the rod.net/tripp.html

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------

"Children are old enough to be disciplined when they are old enough to show resistance, Tripp says in "Shepherding a Child's Heart."
"Rebellion can be something as simple as a small child struggling against a diaper change or stiffening his body when you want him to sit on your lap," Shepherding a Child's Heart
This seems to me like it could enable sexual abuse If a child is not to rebel against adults even with intimate situations such as sitting on their laps.
Does that make sense?