Remind me about Ted Tripp

[MudPies]

Someone in an adoption group reccomended him for gentle non-spanking parenting. He's punitive, right? Links? Comments? I have not read his
book.

[Pragmatist]

There's a good book review here somewhere. Not on my computer so can't link. I think MarynMunchkins did it. Shepherding a Child's heart or might be abbreviated SACH.

[rjy9343]

I can't link from my husband's tablet, but you are right. He promotes spanking until sweet and bare bottom spanking. I almost certain there is a review sticky in this forum on Shepherding a Child's Heart. Kirk Cameron endorses him as well if that carries any weight.

[forty-two]

Tripp not only is punitive, but he says that God works spiritual changes in a child's heart through spanking . I wrote a couple of blog posts on it:

The Rod as a Means of Grace: http://lutherama.blogspot.com/2007/0...-of-grace.html
More on Tripp and Spanking: http://lutherama.blogspot.com/2007/1...-spanking.html

[Hermana Linda]

I have a number of posts about him here.

Posted from my mobile phone by Tapatalk

[Soliloquy]

Oh gosh, his writings are awful. The worst of it (IMO) is that the title of his book sounds so wonderful.

[forty-two]

I will say, having just skimmed through Tripp's newer book, Instructing a Child's Heart, that taken on its own, it's really not punitive. "Corrective discipline" is very de-emphasized (one section of one chapter), and has a correspondingly small purpose (to underscore the importance of upholding God's law, with a focus on making restitution to those hurt, and where the importance is primarily taught by, well, *teaching*); also, I don't think spanking comes up once - certainly doesn't in the bit on corrective discipline, which talks about natural and logical consequences. Tbph, if Tripp's name wasn't attached to it, I think the content would be generally unobjectionable here :

He talks about coming alongside our children, about the root of discipline being disciple, about the importance of confessing our own struggles with sin, about the importance of living out what we are teaching our kids, about the centrality of the Gospel and God's mercy and grace, about the spiritual poverty and pragmatism of behaviorism, about the danger of focusing on outward behavior, about the vital importance of teaching in calm moments. In fact, one of the main thrusts of IaCH is formative instruction - intentional teaching and discipling as a way of life, not just as part of correcting misbehavior when it occurs. And the vast majority of what he wrote on dealing with misbehavior is helping the child learn to see the root causes of their misbehavior.

And yet, I do not agree with all he writes. I think he comes so very close and yet remains so very far. I sympathize with and appreciate his desire to have everything about parenting be informed by a Biblical ethic rooted in the Gospel. Too many Christian parents, including me, are effectively practical atheists , with an extremely limited vision of what it means to live out our faith. We don't know what we don't know, and our post-Christian culture has filled in the gaping holes in our ethics without our even noticing . And Tripp has a well-thought-out, thoroughly-theologically-informed, intentionally-Gospel-centric vision of the practical out workings of Christian doctrine in parenting, that really does deal with the central issues - and that is exceedingly rare. I can see why people see it as a breath of fresh air - it addresses the sense that there must be more to Christian parenting than secular techniques plus teaching the faith. Tripp provides a comprehensive vision of living the Christian life, one that is Gospel-centered, and portrays parenting as initiating our kids into that life we ourselves lead, guiding them along the same path we ourselves are walking. (In IaCH he explicitly talks about coming alongside our kids and acknowledging our struggles with sin, having an us-vs-sin attitude instead of parent-vs-child, which is something I've promoted myself.)

It's a compelling view of parenting, and one that I largely share - it's just that his vision of what it means to live the Christian life is wrong. And that's because he gets *the* central issue - the Gospel - wrong, which screws up the rest .

What I most like about his book - that he roots parenting in living out the Christian life; that he looks at what is the Biblical end, Biblical goal, of life, and makes that the goal of parenting: to teach our children to live out a Biblical life while doing so ourselves; and that he roots that life in the Gospel - is also what I most dislike. Because I disagree with him on what is the chief end of man, and for all that he holds the Gospel as central, I don't think he holds it as central *enough*.

He teaches that the chief end of man is to glorify God; I believe the chief end of man is to love our neighbor through living out our vocations. He holds that the Gospel is central because it is the source of our forgiveness and that we never stop needing God's grace and mercy (I agree); yet he doesn't see our spiritual growth as coming from God's forgiving grace, but rather our grace-empowered actions in meditating on God's glory and choosing to follow His law - that is what draws us closer to God. However, I see the Gospel as central not only for our justification but also for our sanctification and spiritual growth; we rest in God (a major theme of his wrt the goal of the Christian life) not by meditating on God's glory and the works of His hands in creation but by confessing our sins and resting in the forgiveness won for us in Christ. The Gospel doesn't just save us - the Holy Spirit does *everything* for us and in us *through* the Gospel.

[MariJo7]

Perhaps Ted Tripp has silently changed his mind about spanking. I have even read something about it in the archives of this forum. It would, however, be honest and right if he would openly admit he has changed his mind, if he has done so. His "spanking manuals" are very damaging and dangerous. It does not help much if he just writes a better sequel to them.

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by MariJo7

Perhaps Ted Tripp has silently changed his mind about spanking. I have even read something about it in the archives of this forum. It would, however, be honest and right if he would openly admit he has changed his mind, if he has done so. His "spanking manuals" are very damaging and dangerous. It does not help much if he just writes a better sequel to them.

Yeah, I am fairly baffled at how to reconcile SACH and IaCH. The only reference in IaCH is an oblique one in the preface, about how "instructing a child's heart is essential to shepherding a child's heart". That *could* be an implicit renunciation - let IaCH supersede SACH - but, yeah, ITA that if he means it that way he needs to make it explicit. (And imo, quit selling SACH entirely, or at least renounce it entirely and publicly, if he has no control of whether the publisher stops selling it.)

Because a sidebar in IaCH offers a way to *harmonize* them . The approach in IaCH requires a certain level of maturity in thought processes and communication skills, and he says in the sidebar that a 2yo, for example, isn't capable of it. The sidebar then basically advocates GBD-style intervention, along with introducing the vocabulary and concepts to preschoolers, to begin the teaching process. It's quite excellent, actually, and really doesn't leave any room for SACH-style spanking - *unless* you already know of SACH and are trying to figure out how to combine them. In which case you could figure that *IaCH* is for children who are saved, and *SaCH* is for children who haven't been saved .

I'm nearly certain Tripp doesn't intend that at all, because in another change between the two books, in IaCH he is extremely open to the idea of young children being able to be saved, to have a real relationship with God - in fact, he explicitly defends it. And the whole book is written with the implied assumption that children of Christian parents are fellow believers - I assume this position myself, so I didn't really register it until now. Because that is a sharp difference from his position in SACH, where he sees young children of Christian parents as being unregenerate until they made a decision for Christ, and in fact spanking is seen as God's particular provision to spiritually affect the hearts of children too young to cognitively understand (and so "make a decision for Christ") . A *huge* part of Christian parenting in SACH is focused on parenting kids to "prepare them" for salvation . Tripp's changed a lot, and for the better.

So, yeah, Tripp needs to clarify his position - because right now IaCH is billed as the "sequel" to SACH, and both are sold, like they go together, and IaCH taken alone is a much different beast to IaCH interpreted in light of SACH .

[Kiara.I]

Originally Posted by MariJo7

Perhaps Ted Tripp has silently changed his mind about spanking. I have even read something about it in the archives of this forum. It would, however, be honest and right if he would openly admit he has changed his mind, if he has done so.

I'm thinking he has not. I was hopeful, reading forty-two's review. But given that he's scheduled to give a workshop entitled, "Overview of Corrective Discipline: Spanking, Sowing & Reaping, & Communication", for which part of the description is, "First, the book of Proverbs makes a case for spanking, especially for small children. We provide clear guidelines for physical discipline that are gracious and kind."

I think we can assume that his view is still that spanking is necessary. Unfortunately.

[HadassahSukkot]

Originally Posted by MariJo7

Perhaps Ted Tripp has silently changed his mind about spanking.

According to his Youtube channel, he hasn't. Also, he hasn't dropped ties with Sovereign Grace Ministries either, and was recently in Germany for a conference up north. Some of his chats were to be in relation to parenting, yet, his parenting methods are not allowed in Germany.

I watched several videos to put together information to pass on to Samuel Martin so he could send as much info as possible to authorities here on him, and I was extremely triggered and it was terribly upsetting.

In the least triggering one, he advocates John Piper's position that it's a swat and then water under the bridge as it creates a "clear break" in behavior and correction. It's ok, because, you're not supposed to discipline while you're angry. https:// www.youtub e.com/watch?v=fBNoIw z_9qg <--- broken multiple times.

This is his talk from 2 years ago in Switzerland about the proper role of parents, Kindergarten and child-rearing. https: //www.youtu be.com/watch?v=mS86UuvB-nU

The bible verse they quote from Ephesians was from the Schlachter 1951 version and says: " Und ihr Väter, reizet eure Kinder nicht zum Zorn, sondern ziehet sie auf in der Zucht und Ermahnung des Herrn." -- Depending how one takes that, especially if leaning fundamentalist; it says right there that you need to spank your children and rebuke/admonish them. That is one of the most often quoted text by the Twelve Tribes to justify to the courts that "we're just obeying the bible! it's just a few swats and they're not harmed. We go on about our day. The bible says we have to! "

They leave it unsaid, but it is there and obvious to people who follow that line of thought. This is what makes it difficult to fight spanking in the church here. Fundamentalists have their own language and it flies under the radar of people who investigate such things.

At minute 20, they discuss spanking and that Evangelical Christians in Europe spank their children more than any other Christian religious group and it needs to be eliminated.... but "we're not beating children...!" Then he goes on to name drop John Piper and quote him on disobeying the law and still teaching in the church to spank children. "Right now, the issue is physical discipline --- the next step is that you can't teach your children your faith!" Slippery Slope much?

[JoannaV]

Originally Posted by forty-two

I believe the chief end of man is to love our neighbor through living out our vocations.

Do you have a recommendation for something I could read on this subject?

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by JoannaV

Do you have a recommendation for something I could read on this subject?

A good intro to vocation is God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr.: http://www.amazon.com/God-Work-Redes...dp/1433524473/

For a more in depth look, the classic work on vocation in English is Luther on Vocation, by Gustaf Wingren: http://www.amazon.com/Luther-Vocatio...dp/1592445616/

Probably unnecessary blatherings (plus another book rec at the end of the blathering; the rec needs the blathering for context, although the book does not):

The idea that God's will for the Christian life in this world is that we love our neighbor by serving them through our vocations (and we are to follow the 10 Commandments as we carry out our vocations) - that is classic Lutheran theology .

The "chief end of man" language, however, is pretty foreign (although I would argue the concept is there); I lifted that language from the Westminster Catechism, mostly because it reflected Tripp's position perfectly, and then appropriated it for my position partly because of symmetry and partly because I've been reading some recent efforts by Lutherans to think in terms of man's telos (telos being a Greek term for end or ultimate purpose - it seems to be fairly similar, if not identical, to Westminster's "chief end"). Which is to say, in the rec'd books there is lots of vocation and living the Christian life talk, but probably very little or no talk in term of the "chief end of man" , because that's just not how Lutherans have tended to talk (possibly because the idea of a telos is from Greek philosophy and Luther was very against how Aristotle's ethics had corrupted the theology of the medieval church).

The book I read that developed the idea of a Lutheran telos did so as a precursor to developing a Lutheran virtue ethics (the virtues are meant to help man achieve his telos, so what you see as the ultimate purpose of man materially determines what virtues you seek to cultivate). The telos the author, Dr. Biermann, came up with was for man to become "fully human", which he defined as being fully righteous both before God and before man. A large part of his book was addressing what sort of effect our being made righteous before God, through being justified by faith alone, has on our righteousness before the world.

It is common in modern Lutheranism to say, just as our righteousness before the world has zero effect on our justification before God, so does our justification before God have zero effect on our righteousness in the world; to say there is no difference whatsoever between the this-world righteousness of the pagan and the Christian. Biermann is very anti this view - sees it as leading to "practical atheism" (and my experience bears that out) - and takes pains to distinguish between the this-world righteousness of the unregenerate and the regenerate. He argues that our one-way vertical relationship with God (everything flowing from God to us) does indeed then flow from us to others in our horizontal relationships in this world, even though it does not work in reverse. (I.e. Our horizontal, this-world actions do not get us closer to God or achieve spiritual merit or prompt God to give us further spiritual blessings; *God* gets us as close to Him as possible from the start.)

The classic Lutheran view is that of God's one-way love to us filling us to brim and spilling out from us to others as we love them through serving them in our vocations. "Faith active in love", as the classic Reformation saying goes. And it's always flowing *from* God and *to* man, and never ever in the opposite direction; as my siggie quote says, "God doesn't need your good works, but your neighbor does."

Anyway, lost the plot a bit . Getting back to how I came up with my wording for man's telos, I basically combined Dr. Biermann's idea of a Lutheran telos with the classic Lutheran view of the Christian life in this world. It had nice symmetry with the WC's "chief end", but now that I've looked again at Biermann's telos, which incorporates righteousness before God as well as righteousness before the world, and so includes the centrality of the gospel and the means of grace and the importance of confession and absolution - the core of Lutheran spirituality - I might rejigger it. In my critique of Tripp I had man's chief end in the world *and* the centrality of the Gospel (the source of man's righteousness before God) - two separate though related things. Maybe it would be good to fellow Biermann's lead and unify them.

Or maybe not - plenty/most of Lutheran theologians don't, because there are so many ways to combine them wrong and/or minimize one or the other . Biermann argues the opposite, though, that it's impossible to hold the two views in perpetual tension without minimizing one or the other, thus why we need a wider frame to fit them both in. That's probably beyond me to evaluate atm .

Anyway, hope this helps and doesn't just confuse the issue . I spoiler'd it for a reason - the books recs can stand on their own.

Eta: for an explanation of vocation set within the overall Christian life, Lutheran Spirituality: Life as God's Child is a great introduction that includes both our righteousness before God and our righteousness before the world: http://www.amazon.com/Lutheran-Spiri...dp/0758627343/

[Hermana Linda]

Looks good to me.

Sent by Tapatalk from my phone

[Michele123]

Forty-two, did you ever get a response?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk