Re: SACH review
 

Wow, this was a great summary! I find it much easier to refute bad parenting advice if I understand the good bits in there, otherwise saying "Tedd Tripp is wrong / evil / horrible / abusive" sounds like "I don't believe the Bible is the perfect guide to our lives" - it sounds like I also disagree with the true bits that he says.

Re: SACH review
 

:cup :cookie

Re: SACH review
 

A very good review, Mary.
:heart

Re: SACH review
 

I just wanted to say thank you for putting the effort into this review. I was reading SACH this week and finding some tidbits of truth (so mixed up with other stuff) and was thinking it sure would be nice to write, or for someone to write, reviews of these parenting books that laid out the good as well as the bad. There are good hearted Christian parents that get positive things out of these books, and are hurt if you just start right in telling them what you saw was wrong. We really need to temper what we say so we can show respect for what they ARE trying to do.

Thank you!

Re: SACH review
 

"It is God who is not being obeyed when you are disobeyed. It is God who is not being honored when you are not honored. The issue is not an interpersonal contest; it is rather your insistence that your child obey God, because obeying God is good and right."

There is something about this statement that bothers me, it is as though he is putting God and the parent on the same level. Obeying your parents is the same as obeying God just doesn't sound biblical.

Callie

Re: SACH review
 

"When you direct, correct, or discipline [read "spank", because that's the context of this quote], you are not acting out of your own will; you are acting on behalf of God."

To act on the behalf of God sounds like we are the mediator between God and our child. This also bothers me.

Callie

Re: SACH review
 

What Tripp is saying is that we, the parent, are "God's Agent" so we are "required" to make out children obey God, which means that they need to obey us, because Children have the command to "Obey your parents in the Lord."
One problem is that we are sometimes flawed. Perhaps our motives for telling our children to do something are selfish, or impatient, or just plain disrespectful of the child and their real needs. So, we are not always "in the Lord" when we give a command for our children to obey. Just like wives are supposed to submit to our husbands, but we are not supposed to be doormats and do whatever they tell us to do if it is against God.

Re: SACH review
 

I think he has a good point in that we do need to "train" our children how to obey. He continues with saying we need to allow our children to question us (after initiating obedience) so they can have dialog with us as well as allow us to see problems in what we've asked (such as our own selfishness).

Of course, we don't agree with his methodology, and we also learn as parents what grace looks like in seeing our children through their eyes, but I think this is an important concept. It caused me to realize that I'd been too lax often with my expectations. It is too easy to dish out commands/requests and then excuse my child's ignoring for tiredness, maybe they didn't hear, etc, etc. But what I'm training them is that ignoring me is ok, rather than helping them to learn what obedience looks like. I read elsewhere on this site someone's suggestion to go to the child for a directive while using the call to you for acts of tenderness or cuddling. I think this is a good general principal, combined with the former, so it would look something like this: If I want my child to do something (I have to be sure I'm correct and going to them gives me time to be sure I'm doing what I really want) I go to them and make sure I'm at their level and understood (in general, of course there may be times you need to them to hear you from a distance and listen and obey immediately - i.e. you are calling them away from a dangerous place), and then I need to follow up if they don't obey with some way of enforcing that it does happen. I think the five steps suggested elsewhere, or picking them up to take them to where they should be doing something (depending on age, etc, and always gently) are ways to enforce - so in principle you are HELPING them learn to obey and helping them to obey if they need that (instead of punishing for not yet getting it).

Am I making sense? I tend to run on with my sentences. I find that when I am consistent in this, my child responds more consistently and is happier because he can trust that I mean what I say and is not left in limbo with the constant question of how long do I REALLY have before I have to do something.

Just a few cents worth anyway...

Re: SACH review
 

I think I disagree with him on this point though - perhaps because I know how he intends 'training' to be done. In Tripp's perspective, training is based on fear of punishment, not trust in the relationship. Note that children can only question AFTER they have met their parent's standard of obedience - so he has action before understanding and before a solid relationship - not an obedience that comes from relationship. I can willingly obey God because I trust Him and His perfect will for my life. I can trust the consistancy of His love and His word. I think we as the parent work to build a solid foundation of trust between us and our children. They need to trust that we will bring them no harm; trust that we will follow through with our requirements; trust that we love them.

again I would say that you are helping them to learn to trust you - that you will follow through with your requirement - and that you will do it in a loving and consistant way.

The differences are very slight, but obedience is a very delicate issue. Obedience out of fear or force is gone the moment the child realized the limits of their parent's threat of punishment. Obedience out of relationship, out of trust, is lasting and enduring.

Re: SACH review
 

I agree that his methodology is inappropriate here, but I think he would agree with you that the relationship needs to be there, since he makes a huge point out of communication being so important, and understanding the real issues the child is dealing with and not just the surface problem. The problem is that he mixes up this with his idea that "spanking" or punishment is "God's commandment" which is so wrong.

I agree that the AFTER idea is a little confusing. How can their desires really be important to us, if they have to get started on obedience before they can say anything. On the other hand, I'm working with my son to ASK me instead of just announcing what he is going to do instead of what I just told him. So I think the way they approach the subject does need to be taught.

Great point.

Re: SACH review
 

I feel like he negates all of what he says about relationship and reaching a child's heart when he turns around and says that there is a 'bottom-heart connection' - that you can reach a child's heart by hitting them hard enough that they become 'sweet'.

Re: SACH review
 

I agree! I just have friends that think so much of him and when I mentioned I thought he was very wrong in his view of spanking, they were surprised and also said they didn't realize he said that. Another friend mentioned they were learning something from reading the book and I jumped in with how I thought he was so wrong in his idea of spanking and they were hurt that I didn't try to understand what they were learning that was actually good in the book. So I'm trying to understand what some good people DO find in the book that is helpful, and upon reading further I see he's got some good points but they are so mixed in with the other that it gets confusing. I just want to extend understanding to others before I jump on what is wrong, so they trust I'm being honest and understanding.

Hope that makes sense :-)

Re: SACH review
 

I understand what you are saying.
I think that the fact that there are some small nuggets of truth [if viewed from the correct paradigm] makes SACH a very decieving book that can cause emotional pain and spiritual abuse for parents, not to mention the physical pain and spiritual abuse for children.
Hearing one too many parents go through the whole process/dialog with their 15 month old baby just makes me :sick and I would hesitate to talk too much about the positive attributes of that book for fear that it would encourage someone to read it and heed what he says.
The bottom line is that the heart of the book is in the adversarial mindset. Break their spirits, break their will, bring them into submission by breaking their spirit. And all the while, tell them it is because you love God and obey Him and he commands you to do it, and by accepting the "biblical chastisement by the rod" you are bringing them back into fellowship with God. It is just all flawed. It is wrong view of God and the wrong view of the role of a parent, and it is a dangerous teaching.

Re: SACH review
 

I do understand where you are coming from and it is an important place to start when discussing the materials with someone who 'likes' it. But as the pp pointed out, the 'good' of what Tripp is saying is smoke and mirrors. It sounds great until you realize he doesn't mean it OR he means something totally different by his words than you mean. What appears to be 'good' in Tripps writing is tied so strongly to his 'spank them 'til they're sweet' message that it can't be taken on face value.

I think what you are trying to do with your friends is great - just be aware and careful that when you say 'x about Tripp is good' that you are able to qualify that with YOUR understanding of 'relationship parenting' and not be seen as endorsing the kind of 'I will talk to you until I decide it's time to hit you' parenting that Tripp teaches

Re: SACH review
 

Just needed to find this and re-read it again. Thanks Mary :D