Re: reaching our children's hearts

[Hilary316]

I read SACH and while, of course, I disagree with his opinion on "the rod" and spanking and how to implement discipline, I dont see what is wrong with the rest of the book. Is it not Biblical to teach our children even from a young age when they sin and to point out their need for their Savior? When we do correct them (gently, of course), is it not also good to instruct them WHY you are correcting them and how their misbehavior offends God? Etc?

Or am I way off base? Im just confused, I guess.

[Serafine]

Well, a few thoughts about your OP:

1) I don't think it is Scriptural that a CHILD sins.
2) I don't think that childish misbehavior offends G-d.
3) It is my job to model a relationship with G-d, to teach them who G-d is and that He wants a relationship with Him and to show them how wonderful it is to be in a relationship with G-d by them seeing MY relationship with Him.
4) It is G-d's job to show them their need for Him and to draw them to Him. Any assumption/effort on my part to do that for Him is, IMO, trying to take the place of G-d...not something I want to do.

ETA: Yes, we can state G-d's standards for abundant living as we teach our kids...but not in a "your behavior offends G-d, see how sinful and in need of G_d you are"...but rather a "This is how best to live according to the loving instructions G_d gave us. Here, let me help you do that until you are old enough to do it for yourself."

The motivation and the mindset difference is HUUUUUGE (and, IMO, super important).

[katiekind]

I think there are good points in the book, Hilary. Pray and use your own best judgment.

[Hilary316]

Originally Posted by firefighterwife

Well, a few thoughts about your OP:

1) I don't think it is Scriptural that a CHILD sins.
2) I don't think that childish misbehavior offends G-d.
3) It is my job to model a relationship with G-d, to teach them who G-d is and that He wants a relationship with Him and to show them how wonderful it is to be in a relationship with G-d by them seeing MY relationship with Him.
4) It is G-d's job to show them their need for Him and to draw them to Him. Any assumption/effort on my part to do that for Him is, IMO, trying to take the place of G-d...not something I want to do.

ETA: Yes, we can state G-d's standards for abundant living as we teach our kids...but not in a "your behavior offends G-d, see how sinful and in need of G_d you are"...but rather a "This is how best to live according to the loving instructions G_d gave us. Here, let me help you do that until you are old enough to do it for yourself."

The motivation and the mindset difference is HUUUUUGE (and, IMO, super important).

While I dont believe that a child actively SINS, as in has evil intentions when he/she, say, hits her mom (like my 2 yo did today lol), I do believe the reason they do it is their sin nature. Even though they have no idea what they are doing, is it not our job to point out that their hitting breaks the commandment of honoring your father and mother even BEFORE they understand so that when they are old enough to comprehend it, it will be so ingrained that it will be.. I dont know.. common knowledge, on their part? (Sorry if that makes no sense! lol)

I understand what you are saying with #4, but I guess I am just confused. Is it not our job as parents to teach them the way they should go, and to point to God in every little thing, as it says in Deut 6?

And so.. We should lead a child to the Lord differently than how we would lead an adult? (FWIW, I very much believe that repentence of sin is a deep part of realizing your need for Christ and becoming saved in the first place, for adults anyways)

---------- Post added at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

Originally Posted by katiekind

I think there are good points in the book, Hilary. Pray and use your own best judgment.

Haha, I am new at this parenting thing and easily swayed, which is why I am asking here! LOL

[Serafine]

ETA: post deleted.

wow...I am really tired. Reading over what I wrote here, it made NO sense to me ...so I am deleting and I will try to come back to this when I have had a little sleep.

[Zooey]

I see a couple of problems:
1. Many, many people do not know how to discern what is good from what is bad, in books. Also, Tripp (like others) presents a a Biblical authority. But, you see, the only real Biblical authority is the God Who inspired the Bible. (Hence, the need for discernment).

2. There is always a mixture of good things & bad things in any parenting book. (Or any book about people--we aren't cookie cutters!). If the good "works", or somehow helps you in a particular situation, it is easy that, when you are tired, or sick, or just at wits' end, you turn to the book you liked before. Only this time, it is a different child. Or simply a different situation entirely. [Child #1 had a meltdown (when you were on day 2 of a killer migraine)over something Tripp addresses in particular; Child #2 has a meltdown when you have another migraine, but the child is different, & the situation is completely dissimilar....only, when your head is pounding, & you are seeing the whole world through a haze of flashing multicolour lights, you make the mistake of missing out on the differences.
(It isn't just Tripp, of course. It is that we all tend to backtrack to "what worked before".....and become frustrated when it doen't work this tiem).

3. And then, again, and I know I am repeating myslef somewhat---Tripp isn't the Bible. He may be less egregious in some ways,than some other books, but he is just another ordinary human like the rest of us.

I know others will say all this better, but I hope this helps.

[MarynMunchkins]

There was a lot of SACH that I really enjoyed. He does focus quite a bit on relationship and communication, and frankly I think those things make all the difference in any relationship.

That being said, I found a lot of his theology flawed and his insistence that spanking is COMMANDED disturbed me. Let me see if I can find the review I did for you...

Here it is!

http://www.gentlechristianmothers.co...highlight=SACH

This is only the first 10 chapters of the book. Life got in the way and I never finished it.

[Hilary316]

Originally Posted by Zooey

I see a couple of problems:
1. Many, many people do not know how to discern what is good from what is bad, in books. Also, Tripp (like others) presents a a Biblical authority. But, you see, the only real Biblical authority is the God Who inspired the Bible. (Hence, the need for discernment).

2. There is always a mixture of good things & bad things in any parenting book. (Or any book about people--we aren't cookie cutters!). If the good "works", or somehow helps you in a particular situation, it is easy that, when you are tired, or sick, or just at wits' end, you turn to the book you liked before. Only this time, it is a different child. Or simply a different situation entirely. [Child #1 had a meltdown (when you were on day 2 of a killer migraine)over something Tripp addresses in particular; Child #2 has a meltdown when you have another migraine, but the child is different, & the situation is completely dissimilar....only, when your head is pounding, & you are seeing the whole world through a haze of flashing multicolour lights, you make the mistake of missing out on the differences.
(It isn't just Tripp, of course. It is that we all tend to backtrack to "what worked before".....and become frustrated when it doen't work this tiem).

3. And then, again, and I know I am repeating myslef somewhat---Tripp isn't the Bible. He may be less egregious in some ways,than some other books, but he is just another ordinary human like the rest of us.

I know others will say all this better, but I hope this helps.

I actually consider myself very good at discerning good from bad in Christian books, but mostly when it comes to theology and doctrine... I am working on the "parenting" part of books, though, because like you said, children are all different and not a one-size-fits-all. My DD is only 2 and Ive only been in the Gentle mindset for about a year now. I have a lot to learn.

And I know Tripp isn't the Bible. It just seems that ALL of the "Christian" parenting books out there say the EXACT same thing, or something very close to it.... When they misbehave, take them to a private place, spank them, tell them why you spanked them, and then give them a hug. Do it every time you believe they directly rebel against you. And it really does seem most of these kids turn out ok (I dont even know anyone who GBD their kids, and all the children at the churches Ive been too are all awesome). So I guess that is my struggle...

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------

Originally Posted by MarynMunchkins

There was a lot of SACH that I really enjoyed. He does focus quite a bit on relationship and communication, and frankly I think those things make all the difference in any relationship.

That being said, I found a lot of his theology flawed and his insistence that spanking is COMMANDED disturbed me. Let me see if I can find the review I did for you...

Here it is!

http://www.gentlechristianmothers.co...highlight=SACH

This is only the first 10 chapters of the book. Life got in the way and I never finished it.

Hey, yes, I actually read your review a few weeks ago. And yeah, the whole command on spanking really made me iffy, too. And saying that practically every other discipline method is unbiblical disturbed me, too.

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ----------

Originally Posted by erinee

Really? I thought it made PERFECT sense!

Hilary, we all believe we're to teach our children to love God and that they need him. But I think the way this is presented to a child, or to any new believer, is essential. I want them drawn to God out of love, not fear. While there may be truth in other components, I want the relationship to come first. The rest of it can come after they love and trust God. I do think children need to know they sin and need forgiveness -- I just don't want that to be the main focus that it is for so many evangelicals (I am an evangelical, but my thinking has changed in a lot of ways).

There are good things about the book -- I just think the good things can be found elsewhere, without having to read the part where he sends his daughter back up for another spanking because she's not "sweet" enough yet. That episode left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that it colored my view of the entire book. For a book that talks about the heart so much, it's odd to me that he spanks a child for not appearing the way he wants her to appear.

I totally understand what you're saying. I also feel kind of "weird" about pointing out every time Charlotte "sins"... It seems to me that doing so could encourage a person to believe that God only likes them when they are good and that they need to earn His love, kwim?

And yes, the "sweet enough" thing really makes me sick. Ugh.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Originally Posted by elcollins

.
Lets unpack this a little bit. First, the idea of connecting to your child and focusing on their 'heart' and not their behavior is a wonderful idea AND the reason this book is a little dangerous - it's hard to weed out the good ideas from the absolute hearsey.

I think the focus is backwards. Yes, we need to address negative behaviors, but by presenting a positive. We don't hit because we want to be kind and we want to have a good relationship with 'whomever'. Introducing the idea to a small child that they have the capacity to 'offend God' is pretty strong stuff. The idea of 'teach them the concept now so when they actually understand it' can totally backfire because childen interalize EVERYTHING - this becomes 'I am offensive to God'. Millions of Christians interalized from a young age the idea that they were offensive to God and struggle with the idea that at the same time God wants a relationship with them. It doesn't make sense to their hearts that accepted early on that they are offensive, so they shy away from His presence.

This plays into the 'spank them till they're sweet' problem. If a child fears they will be hit if they are not 'happy', then they will fake whatever they think the parent will accept (a false positive?). Tripp in essence presents this strange world where he advocates connecting to and molding a child's heart, but then creates situations where the child must present a false self - all resulting in false relationships where the parent can never really know their child's true thoughts or 'heart'.

So if you look at teaching your child from the positive, part of that positive is that our failure to live up to His glory is certain, but God has made a way to keep that relationship through the sacrifice of Jesus.

I would tell a two year old 'we want to be kind and treat each other gently'. Telling a small child they broke a command again is heavy stuff especially when the concept of 'honoring' is so very abstract. I think we teach a child to honor by our actions towards our own elders. I CAN see telling a little one 'lets honor grandma by cooking dinner for her' - keeping the concept firmly grounded in the positive and in relationship.

As they mature you can teach them the harder concepts, but I believe Tripp and others who advocate 'teach them how bad they are now' are putting obstacles between God and His children that are so incredibly hard to overcome in the future and rob so many of the joy of life in Christ.

Thank you so much!! I 100% agree, and I guess that was what I was getting at... Is there a book that talks about how to encourage the positive? I feel like I'm so lost on this Christian parenting journey sometimes!! (Which is why Im SO GLAD I found this site!)

It seems to me that Tripp and others like him preach a "new" message as relates to parenting. Am I wrong? How did Christian parents, like, 500 years ago teach their children? Mostly by example and Bible teaching, I would assume?

[erinee]

Originally Posted by firefighterwife

wow...I am really tired. Reading over what I wrote, it made NO sense to me ...so I will try to come back to this when I have had a little sleep.

Really? I thought it made PERFECT sense!

Hilary, we all believe we're to teach our children to love God and that they need him. But I think the way this is presented to a child, or to any new believer, is essential. I want them drawn to God out of love, not fear. While there may be truth in other components, I want the relationship to come first. The rest of it can come after they love and trust God. I do think children need to know they sin and need forgiveness -- I just don't want that to be the main focus that it is for so many evangelicals (I am an evangelical, but my thinking has changed in a lot of ways).

There are good things about the book -- I just think the good things can be found elsewhere, without having to read the part where he sends his daughter back up for another spanking because she's not "sweet" enough yet. That episode left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that it colored my view of the entire book. For a book that talks about the heart so much, it's odd to me that he spanks a child for not appearing the way he wants her to appear.

[Serafine]

Originally Posted by erinee

Really? I thought it made PERFECT sense!

Thanks. It was the post that I deleted above that was wacky-sounding.

[ArmsOfLove]

discipline means to teach; "train them up" is better understood with the imagery of "steep them in" so yes we teach; we steep them in the way they should go--make it their entire context They know nothing else because it's all they experience.

Leave no option to misbehave--prepare, stop and instruct, prevent, set up for success

And Tripp is offensive on many levels--hitting a 9mo for wiggling in a high chair has nothing to do with biblical discipline, with understanding the development and abilities of a 9mo, or with parenting at all

[WingsOfTheMorning]

I read this thread earlier today, including katiekind's blog post, and I've been mulling it over all day. Thank you, ladies for explaining this. It's like it was in my head before, but now I feel like I could actually explain what I think about sin w/ regards to toddlers (I did to DH at dinner ).

[Hilary316]

Originally Posted by ArmsOfLove

And Tripp is offensive on many levels--hitting a 9mo for wiggling in a high chair has nothing to do with biblical discipline, with understanding the development and abilities of a 9mo, or with parenting at all

I totally understand what you mean here... But how do you explain that to people (like in my church) who believe that babies are little sinners and when they are old enough to rebel, they are old enough to be spanked? I dont believe that, of course, but when my friend tells me she pops her 10 mo old's hand for reaching for the living room plant "after I told him not to already", it just makes me sad at how she must view her child... As a little sinner who must be straightened out or he'll become a reprobate.

Its frustrating. (As Im sure you all know!)

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------

Originally Posted by katiekind

I think generally people do "turn out ok" especially if their parents are involved and committed to them.

That's a comforting thought because we're all making mistakes in our parenting as we go along.

Still, we want to consider whether our means to any given goal is Christlike, and not only the value of the end goal. Because we are Christians, some means -- even to a good goal -- are not open to us.

Yes, many Christians think, "I must spank for direct defiance, even if for nothing else." I do not know where they get that idea but you're right, it is very prevalent.

I don't think direct defiance in a two year old is so very scary. I also don't think that parents have total access to the mind of a two year old to be able to know "THAT was Direct Personal Defiance--and nothing else." Wouldn't it be sad to spank in that situation, and later learn that the child wasn't feeling well, or was scared about something they couldn't put into words?

I remember the time my middle son, aged 4, refused to walk a single step farther at the San Diego Zoo with us. We had one last thing we wanted to do, and that was to see the new tiger exhibit. Middle son politely declined to go.

He was told that we were all going, it would be great, didn't he want to see the tigers?

Then he refused.

"Come on," we said. "No more of this. We're going to see the tigers, and then we'll go home."

Then he sat down and refused to budge. My husband went to pick him up and carry him.

He burst into tears -- tears of despair and terror.

Suddenly I realized he didn't understand he would be seeing the tigers from a protected and safe distance.

After we explained that to him, he was very happy to go see them.

However, that's age 4 or 5.

At two, they will sometimes just take an oppositional stand -- go out on that limb and, if you let them, they'll start sawing it off. I have watched many an unwise parent allow a mere two year old to do that--entrench himself or herself in a needless oppositional, "defiant" position, leaving the parent with no apparent choice than to overcome the child's will, and reassert their own authority, by spanking.

I learned from my husband the dignified and gracious art of simply refusing to "go there" with a two year old. If you see them heading out on that limb, don't let them go there, don't let them saw it off.

I wrote a blog post about this that you might find helpful
http://katiekind.wordpress.com/2010/...g-of-toddlers/

Thanks for the post! It helps a LOT! Sometimes I think, especially as a FTM, I just dont know what comes next, kwim? In my measly mind, I think if I have to redirect her 10000 times away from the TV, or whatever, then I'll ALWAYS have to do that... But hearing that isnt true and that they really WILL get it eventually is such a relief to hear!!!