Somethings' bothering me

[Epieikeia]

Expecting all 3/4 year olds to be mature enough to be able to handle a separation from mom is not a fair expectation of all children.

Re-read the story. She didn't have the slightest trouble leaving her mother. She only wanted her mother when she wasn't pleased with me and my co-teacher, and two mothers who intervened after passing by the room and hearing her. I don't believe her trouble has anything to do with leaving her mother. I believe it has everything to do with respecting the limits someone else places on her. Particularly since two other people said this is not new for her and she was doing this routine last year as well.

I missed this the first time around.

I stand by what I said. I agree with what Crystal wrote about not allowing the child to hold the class hostage. If it were my child it would say to me that she/he not mature enough to handle a classroom setting. Personally at 3-4 I would pull them out. The concept of putting 3-4 year olds into a class is a fairly new one and not every 3/4 year old can handle it. We've pushed children to be able to do things younger and younger---then we get upset when they don't act the way we want them to. I did put my 3 year old foster child into Sunday school (which happens after church, we do family worship) becaue he wanted to. He ended up doing great as he is emulating his older siblings--but I wouldn't have freaked out if he had a meltdown at the age of 3.

A 3/4 developmentally is not capable of dealing with their emotions properly 100% of the time. Sometimes frustration comes out as anger--they cry instead of talk. Instead of taking such a negative view of the child, this is the crucial time to be acitively working with the child on the healthy way to display and relay emotion. Expecting a 3/4 year old to act like an 8 year old will only bring sorrow for boh parent and child.

It is so easy to assume a child is a brat---I know as I've done it in the past---but having foster children has reallly opened my eyes to alot. My 3-year-old foster son had a meltdown in Target about a month after he came into our care. I had all 5 kids with me and going home/coming back was not an option. He screamed and we kept trucking. The little guy was tired and missing his mom---it had finally hit him that mommy wasn't coming back anytime soon and that moment happened to come when I was in Target.

It would be so easy for people to judge him and think he was a brat---the truth though is that he was a little boy, missing his mom--so if he was judged so be it.

There's a few things from earlier in the thread that have been on my mind... so pardon me as I back track a bit...

I am sort of unusual in that I don't base my view of spanking on what I think the Bible says, but I'm sorry to say that if I did, I would conclude that I must spank at least some of the time. I really don't think the non-spanking exegesis holds much water. Although, to be fair, I tire of reading the big paragraphs of possible definitions for every word, so maybe I haven't given it as thorough attention as I could.

See, I don't understand this at all. This is why I can't manage the examination of every word. I don't know if you are saying the correct translation is this, or that Pearl is saying this, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me either way. The only way it makes a bit of sense is like this:

Thou = You
shalt = must
beat = to strike
him = the subject of the command
with a rod = the implement with which to strike

You stated that you don't base your view of spanking on the Bible, and you've admitted several times that you have not thoroughly studied the verses and the words used, so I'm not sure why you are even making an effort to defend the punitive interpretation of these verses. If the Bible is not where you're starting from, then this is irrelevant discussion.

(What *do* you base your view of spanking on, just out of curiosity?)

However, you did go into some detail about your objections to the non-punitive translation, and I wasn't offended by it, b/c I've had some of the same questions myself at one point in time. but I did want to comment on some of it...

The reason we have a Bible that has been translated into English is so that English-speaking people don't need to try to find some way to interpret Hebrew. The far-more-schollarly-than-I translators studied the words in Hebrew and said, "This is how it is translated - Thou shalt beat him with a rod..."

And the reason we have pastors and teachers is so they can tell us what the Bible *means* and how we should respond to it so we don't have to study and think for ourselves.. ? Seriously. That is exactly where this line of reasoning leads. "My pastor knows more than I do... he's studied Greek and Hebrew... so he must know better. I'll just do as he says." Our Christian leaders are there to *disciple* and shepherd us. They are not an intermediate party between us and God, nor do they have a corner on understanding Scripture. Translators are just men and women doing their best to export ideas from one language and import them into another... their words are not God-breathed.

Plus, if one believes that God has protected the Bible from mistranslation through Divine protection, then why would He have allowed generations of parents to be wrong about it?

generations of parents? There have been parents in every generation who did not parent by using a literal "rod" to beat their children. Even though it seems pervasive in current Christian US culture, the fact is that the systematic spanking/switching methods that are promoted these days are just one teeny subculture within one country, and doesn't reflect the global Christian parenting practices of ANY generation.

Shouldn't anyone be able to read a Bible and have God speak to their heart if the Bible is living, active and sharper than a two -edged sword?

Yes. But that's different than what you're saying. You're saying that a person should be able to read a verse, disregard the genre, brush off the historical context, disassociate the verses from the whole of Scripture, neglect to comprehend the original meanings of the individual words, and refuse to admit that cultural biases can and do affect even scholarly translators... AND... that with all those limitations in place, they should still arrive at the true meaning God intended--just from drawing the most commonplace, surface understanding of the words as he/she reads them.

Millions of people depend on the Bible for guidance and it says very little in particular to raising children. Why would the few scriptures that pertain to this topic be messed up translations? Why would they be not able to be read and understood at face value?

I don't think the translations are necessarily "messed up." I just think that *our understanding* of those translated words is often altered by 1) our own ignorance and lack of study/knowledge about the roots of Scripture, 2) our cultural biases, 3) our religious backgrounds, 4) changes in language and grammar, and probably other factors as well.

In short, the Bible is not a quick-reference guide where we just flip it open to a random page (or to the proof texts we're used to hearing on a particular topic), read a few words, and "get" a simple solution for whatever our current problem is. Not saying that God can't speak to us that way but that the Bible is so much more than that, and we miss so much when we skip the deeper studying part.

[Epieikeia]

Yes. But that's different than what you're saying. You're saying that a person should be able to read a verse, disregard the genre, brush off the historical context, disassociate the verses from the whole of Scripture, neglect to comprehend the original meanings of the individual words, and refuse to admit that cultural biases can and do affect even scholarly translators... AND... that with all those limitations in place, they should still arrive at the true meaning God intended--just from drawing the most commonplace, surface understanding of the words as he/she reads them.

Yes, exactly...well put.

Very interesting topic
I couldn't help but add a little something about interpreting the bible. Let's say you did interepret "Thou shalt beat him with a rod" exactly as it says...then you are following an Old Testament command and so should also stone your rebellious teenagers to death! Like it also says to do in the Old Testament. Stone the adulterers and fornicators to death, too. You can't be choosy and just pick one abusive verse and not all of them. Jesus came to replace the old with the new and so replaced the harsh punitive methods of the Old with the grace-based, love, and forgiveness of the New. To take some of the teachings of the Old and beat your children isn't fair...it is illegal, just like stoning aldulterers and rebellious teenagers would be illegal. I think for people to change from the punitive mindset to the gracebased mindset they have to change their view of God and religion from the harsh Old Testament rules to the love and grace in the New Testement first. Then once that has changed they can begin to see their children in the new "love & grace" New Testament way.
I think a lot of these punitive parents view God the same way they are being "God" to their children. As harsh, unforgiving, demanding perfection, and needed punishment to forgive sins (such as the Old Testament sacrifices). They need to learn that God loves them for who they are, forgives them for their sin, and is excited at their progress and only disappointed in their failures (not eager to beat them) and then they perhaps can view their children the same way and give them the same grace and love God has extended to us.
Ok this was a little longer than I intended...sorry ~Kristie

[Hermana Linda]

Originally Posted by palil

There have been parents in every generation who did not parent by using a literal "rod" to beat their children.

This is very true. I have Jewish friends and none of them parent by using a literal rod to switch their children. When I mentioned these verses to one of them, she was dumbfounded that anyone would use those verses to justify such a thing.

[Rbonmom]

To piggyback off a pp- I find major problems with people who say spanking is Biblical due to the "rod" being a literal interpretation, because those very people don't take the whole verse literally. If a person were to literally interpret the rod verses, than based on proper exegesis (not simply defining English words) then that person would have to use a stick the size of a walking stick (not a paddle or hand), and hit the back (not butt), of their teenagers (not small children). That is the literal interpretation!
Also, you can't take scripture out of context and base ideas off of that. Did you know that the verses in Proverbs that people cite to support spanking, are in the middle of a chapter of advice written to the King's teenage son? That's a KEY piece of information that really matters, you can't just dismiss the context. That's scripture twisting at it's worst, IMO.
I would advise that you learn how to study the bible exegesically (sorry I butchered that word) because it will make a HUGE difference. Some of the most basic things you need to keep in mind are who was the author talking to? what is the context surrounding the verses? what are the Hebrew/Greek words? what was the historical setting/traditions that matter?And you should always use other Scripture to interpret Scripture, not a commentary from a human source.
There's a great book that I heard about from Hank Hanagraff on "the bible answerman" and it's called "how to read the bible for all it's worth" by George Fee. It goes into a lot better detail than I can about the significance and importance of reading and interpreting the Bible properly. I saw it on amazon for less than $10, and it seems like an easy read

Obviously as described, yes. However behaviorism is mainly the external. You are so stuck on that---what about the internal? Does that matter or is it only what the desired external outcome that matters?

Behaviorism cannot change the heart or produce GOD-PLEASING behavior and isn't that what we want? We want our children to not just "look" good to the world, but to live for God.

They are not mutually exclusive. Both matter to me. I hope my children display behavior that is morally good from the heart. But I also want them to put their feet under the table while they eat. The first is about their heart and the second is about external things that are cultural.

I don't think, want or expect that I can "condition" them to live for God! Only they can choose to live for God. But I know people are conditioned to keep their feet under the table or put them anywhere they please by the responses they get and how much those responses matter to them. Which *IS* the relationship part of it. I am not new to parenting or to GBD. I have a 9.5 yo, and an almost 7yo in addition to my toddler. My older children do "right" things because of the relationship, not because anything is hanging over their heads, either punishment or rewards. But also, a 2-year-old is not yet motivated by relationship. They are motivated by the conclusions they draw from their many scientific experiments. "What will happen if I refuse to eat?" (In our home, what happens is you are finished until the next meal rolls around. Mom will not rush around trying to find something you will eat. So the child learns it doesn't pay to give up the food that's offered.) They ask, "If I scream, will mom give me that thing I want? If I kick? If I bite?" All the time, you do give them conclusions for their many scientific experiments. I want to give my little son the best ones I can, so that I don't give him conclusion that I later wish I hadn't.

Are we working on some things? sure for example she great at listening when she wants but weve also entered to NO! stage she even says it when shes doing what we want sometimes we are addressing that we aren't punishing it but we in no way are ingnoring it eaither.

I think one of the biggest diffrences between what we do and Michels way is we don't set up battle. Yes I'm in authority I will firmly say NO and I will physically restrain her from harm if needed. And while I don't believe my child to be sinless neither do I believe

(from low self esteem)

Quote
As a member of the human race he tends towards laziness, rebellion, stubbornness, self-will, manipulation, dominance, pride, and one hundred other bad words.

milkmommy, I didn't want to quote your whole post (to save space), but I agree with everything you wrote and these are all things that I do/have done. It's harder with Mason, though, because at least at 2, he doesn't go easily along with something. He cries and throws a fit a lot, and that I one thing I don't think is okay. I really do want him to learn that being outrageous is not the key to "yes".

About your last quote, I don't believe that, either, but it is a biblical concept. I don't believe in Total Depravity, but a lot of Christians do. So there's really nothing shocking to me in MP writing that, even though I don't agree with it.

And, I am deeply offended at the Bible study comment. "Study to shew thyself approved." Which is what I'm doing. It's there. . .it's fact. Black and white. It's what the Bible actually says, as the way the Jewish scribes wrote it, under inspiration of God. God-breathed. You didn't insult me. . . you insulted God. For that matter, every Bible scholar that knows the original language should be ashamed of themselves teaching that verse as a reason to spank. During the time it was translated, I would assume that they assumed that *everyone* knew that "rod" meant authority. Look it up in the concordance. In other words, "Consistantly and unrelenting expose them to the authority of God" = "Beat with the rod".

I keep thinking I need to leave this conversation. . . ..I fear I am being offensive and I don't want to be. I'm sorry. But, I have too many big feelings about this.

Chris, I didn't understand it. I'm sorry I offended you...I didn't know if you were saying this is Pearl's interpretation or yours, but either way, the rewritten translation of the verse didn't make sense to me. Semanticly - it just looks like a mumble of words that don't make sense together. That's what I was saying; that it only makes sense to me if I read it the way it is written in my Bible and then I'm not going to do *that*, either. So, really those scriptures have always just left me and just move on and do what I know.


Oh, and whomever recommended the books (sorry, I can reply back that far, so I don't have it anymore), I like Easy to Love, Difficult to Discipline. I haven't heard of the other one, but I'd like to. What I wish I had was ETL,DtD on-line. Maybe there is such a thing? I don't know. I'm a solution-oriented person and that is why that book really was wonderful to me. It is really what made GBD click for me in the first place. Theory is nice, but when it comes down to it, I want to do something that *works*. Maybe I need to read it again; it's been awhile.

You stated that you don't base your view of spanking on the Bible, and you've admitted several times that you have not thoroughly studied the verses and the words used, so I'm not sure why you are even making an effort to defend the punitive interpretation of these verses. If the Bible is not where you're starting from, then this is irrelevant discussion.

(What *do* you base your view of spanking on, just out of curiosity?)

Well, it came to discussing that because I was saying I understand why MP or any other Christian says this is what they must do. It's also why I think it's hard to turn the tide away from spanking in the Christian community. Because trying to explain the verses to another Christian as meaning something other than what it plainly says sounds very definately like trying to worm out of what it really says.

The reason I am not in favor of spanking is because I was spanked and I believe it did more harm than good. I heard three boys in my Christian school where corporal punishment was practiced get beaten every day, or almost every day, and it never improved their behavior at all. It wouldn't surprise me if they were in jail now. The few times I have swatted my kids on the butts, I was angry, and it didn't improve anything in the discipline situation one bit. Violence is not what I want to model to my children. My older children will relate to my toddler the way they see me relate to him and I don't want that to be by hitting him. I am part of a conservative on-line community where many woman "use the rod" and they ask many of the same questions that people ask here, so it obviously is not a cure-all.

Okay, that's more than one reason, but that is why.

That's all I have time for right now.

First, I apologize for acting on my big emotions. I'm sorry. I think I can be civil, now.

I don't think, want or expect that I can "condition" them to live for God!

Yes. You can. And it is *all* outward behaviour. And that is what the switching and other punitive measures tend to do. I *know* it firsthand. And I see it *all the time*. My mom is not a Christian. And the people at our church do try to be kind and civil and welcoming. She came and visited our church once (she lives out of state). And a few people, and older children, came up to say "hi", etc. and talk with her. They were being friendly. And when we got home, she remarked that it felt. . .weird. It was like "talking to robots." And. .. it is. Brainwashing is conditioning someone to live a certain way. And it can and does happen.

[Titus2Momof4]

I really don't think the non-spanking exegesis holds much water

One verse that really spoke to me was 1 Corinthians 4:1--"Shall I come to you with the rod, or in love and with a gentle spirit?" (emphasis mine)

[ArmsOfLove]

But also, a 2-year-old is not yet motivated by relationship. They are motivated by the conclusions they draw from their many scientific experiments. "What will happen if I refuse to eat?" (In our home, what happens is you are finished until the next meal rolls around. Mom will not rush around trying to find something you will eat. So the child learns it doesn't pay to give up the food that's offered.) They ask, "If I scream, will mom give me that thing I want? If I kick? If I bite?" All the time, you do give them conclusions for their many scientific experiments. I want to give my little son the best ones I can, so that I don't give him conclusion that I later wish I hadn't.

I think these are wonderful and perfectly appropriate.

I guess I get the feeling you are reading some of the more permissive posts or posters or the people trying to find their balance and making assumptions about GBD that are simply not fair or true

Often the women here are coming from a punitive place so what I offer in a thread may be some GBD perspective, bringing them to some balance. I am really struggling with where you are hearing, seeing, perceiving permissiveness in GBD

and the verse translation that Chris is posting is based on the meaning inherent in each of the Hebrew letters. It's based on very sound study that most Gentile believers (students of Hebrew at Seminary) don't even know about. And MP brags about studying in GREEK! There is ONE word for "rod" in Greek; at least 4 in Hebrew--and they all mean different things.

Crystal, isn't Psalms and Proverbs part of the OT, and, as such, weren't they originally written in Hebrew and not in Greek? When and why would it have been translated into Greek?

(sorry. . .should I start another thread? I seem to have OT-itis today! )

[Titus2Momof4]

The first thought I had was that there is no understanding of normal childhood development in the teachings of the Pearls

I just had a really long reply and it didn't send....grrrrrrrr. But this is what it was all about! I was talking about how Wed I took the kids to church, for the first time at this church. It's a Southern Baptist one, and long story short, I was shocked myself that we would have gone there, but loved it and we will all be going Sunday! (this was the church DD ended up puking just as I pulled in the parking lot, so I kept her w/me...and then she threw up again as we were leaving) Anyway, in the preschool building, I picked up ParentLife, which is a LifeWay publication. They have an 'ages and stages' type thing, and I read the 1-2, and 3-5 (and skimmed the others). Anyway in the 1-2yrs part, I remember it said "for a child this age to share or cooperate is near impossible....don't expect your toddler to cooperate or share." And then in the3-5 section it talked about one thing that is really normal for kids this age......FEAR!! (And don't get me started on the fear of bees Who cares if this kid had been stung or not?? Bees *do* sting and she's right to be afraid! For crying out loud-I've never been bit by snakes before, but you bet your behind I'm scared of them! I dont need to have been *bit* to have been *informed* that they bite and have a *fear* of snakes! For that matter I'm scared of things that dont even bite, like lizards!!! LOL) Anyway, all the while I was reading this I was thinking how the Pearls would have just had a field day with what these authors were writing. And then, it hit me....that this really helped to cement in my mind that the Pearls have no earthly clue about *normal child development*. Child developmentalists would totally disagree with the Pearls!!! *where's the big lightbulb icon???*

[milkmommy]

"What will happen if I refuse to eat?" (In our home, what happens is you are finished until the next meal rolls around. Mom will not rush around trying to find something you will eat. So the child learns it doesn't pay to give up the food that's offered.)

Just want to comment a little on things such as this. I have a child with very serious and real eating disorders. However while my rules are a little more relaxed than this they are firm and consistant. There that way 1) because its exhausting battle food day in and out 2) she WILL starve her self anexoria is a real thing 3) for her safety.. so here we did find an appropiate compromise then withthat we keep the boundries firm. What bothers me with the Pearls is again the battles the need to win. HE talks of giving a picky eatter the same food over and over untill he decides its not worth starving. I wont run around crazy finding just the right things for her but want to know what happned when we tried the one thing method?? She ended up in the hospital because with her disorder she WILL starve. Is it a rare thing? Yes but know what it is real and one you wouldn't guess by just looking at her.
The Pearls talk about making sure there isn't a medical reason but they also assume the child is manuplitive and sinning long before.

Deanna

[milkmommy]

The first thought I had was that there is no understanding of normal childhood development in the teachings of the Pearls

Thats another biggie I know I was once well lurking on a site that is very pro pearl and one thing that struck me as odd and is a twisted way funny was how may would say things like. I started training my child at 10 months old not to run through the groccery store and guss what now he's 5 and we never have issues. or I trained my 5 month old not to put things in her mouth now shes 2 and doesn't dare. Now I'm not saying that we don't teach that we shouldn't tell out child NO however many issues do resolve them selfs simpily with maturity. It ws very unlikely that is was simply there trainning (and they are clear about what this training is) but rather basic maturityof those kids.

Deanna

I don't think, want or expect that I can "condition" them to live for God!
Yes. You can. And it is *all* outward behaviour. And that is what the switching and other punitive measures tend to do. I *know* it firsthand. And I see it *all the time*. My mom is not a Christian. And the people at our church do try to be kind and civil and welcoming. She came and visited our church once (she lives out of state). And a few people, and older children, came up to say "hi", etc. and talk with her. They were being friendly. And when we got home, she remarked that it felt. . .weird. It was like "talking to robots." And. .. it is. Brainwashing is conditioning someone to live a certain way. And it can and does happen.

But, Chris, I'm talking about my goals - the things that I see as behavioral conditioning matters *ARE NOT* matters of the heart. It wouldn't be a goal of mine to teach my children to chirp "Jesus Loves YOU!" at passersby, for example, but if their heart is overflowing with joy that Jesus loves everyone and they say it for that reason, then I would be happy. I believe you can make people want to put on a righteous-behavior cloak, but that's not what I'm interested in.

I guess I get the feeling you are reading some of the more permissive posts or posters or the people trying to find their balance and making assumptions about GBD that are simply not fair or true

Often the women here are coming from a punitive place so what I offer in a thread may be some GBD perspective, bringing them to some balance. I am really struggling with where you are hearing, seeing, perceiving permissiveness in GBD

Crystal, I don't feel that the GBD *concept* is permissive, at least not usually...re-read what I said. Well, now I don't know how far back it was, but, what has bothered me is I feel the overall tone at GCM has become more and more permissive. And I think part of it is possibly that people are afraid to make a suggestion that someone might think is on the harsh side and so most of the suggestions are either just commiseration or lean toward some version of "It's too much to expect from the child." You know, like (out-of-the-air example, not anybody's post),"My toddler throws his food." And someone will say, "Well, toddlers throw food; that's normal." If I personally were posting the question, that answer would not help me at all! That it's normal doesn't mean I plan to accept it! If I posted that question, my aim would be for someone to tell me what they've done (or think they could do) that made this behavior subside quickly.But, see I think that someone who has an older child than mine, or more children than me and has been through a food-thrower or two will not post. Because they would post, "Take his plate away and clean him up. Throwing food in our house meant you weren't hungry enough to eat it. Maybe at your next meal, you'll be hungrier." But they won't post that! Really, the only person who springs to mind who has the guts to post something like that is Joanne, but she doesn't post much anymore. (I think? I haven't seen her...anyway.)

The other thing that gives me doubts is the food allergy and autism spectrum suggestions. And I'm not saying these things don't exist...and my son is on no-dairy, so I must believe it to inconvenience myself by having to make and buy special food for him. But it seems to me sometimes that is the catch-all suggestion for any child who has outrageous behavior, throws a mean fit, screams/whines/cries a lot, is violent and behaves like they couldn't care *less* how the parent talks to them about their behavior. Not that far back, hardly any parent would even *consider* removing dairy from their child's diet! Did they all just have "bad" kids?

And Crystal, I'm confused about your son's autism, too. When I first came here, I think Liam was 4. I read your site then, and the roadblock to gentle discipline, as you describe it was Celiac Disease. Does Liam have CD, or were you mistaken then and it was actually Autism? When was he dxed with Autism? What made you think maybe he had Autism? Why are all your children on gf/cf and no corn diets? Are they all autistic, or have CD, or what? I guess I missed learning these things because I don't spend as much time here as I did when I first came.