more rod discussions

[greenemama]

so this mother that we know has a blog on which she gave a glowing review of the pearls and their methods. so i sort of deconstructed her arguments and she was defensive and we really didn't get anywhere so i just dropped it, it was her blog, after all. i left her some links and she has a new post after looking into some of the links and here is some of what she had to say.

I have to say, however, that I believe with my whole heart that physical punishment (call it consequences if you will) is absolutely part of the plan God has for training children; and I believe that it must begin early. This is even born out by one of the links that greenemama gave me ( http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/millstones.html --an article by Rebecca Prewett). I am revising my post to reflect what I have learned by this rebuke. I do not expect these women, however, to agree with me. It is paramount that my conscience be clear before God. I must please Him, not man.

On the side, it occurred to me that, even if "the rod" is symbolic of authority, as these ladies assert in their comments, it must represent something that is practiced in reality. Otherwise, it is null and void as a symbol. For example, water baptism is a symbol of Spirit baptism. Without the reality of Spirit baptism, the symbol of water baptism is useless. Consequently, without the reality of actual use of a rod on a child, the symbolism of it as a type of authority is useless.

This is the problem with authority across the board in our culture. The Bible puts a "sword" in the hand of civil government (capitol punishment), a "rod" in the hand of parents (corporal punishment), and deliverance unto Satan for "the destruction of the flesh" in the hand of church leaders (church discipline). Liberal thinkers of our day demand the removal of these means of restraining evil and, in so doing, charge God Himself with evil Who ordained their lawful use. Is this not calling good evil and evil good? What a sad day we live in. I say "liberal" thinkers because, as I followed the links given to me by greenemama, I found that they inevitably led to the Center for Progressive Christianity (ultra-liberal), women preachers (women who have a problem with biblical authority), psychiatrists and other God-despising secular sources, and professing mothers who twisted the Scriptures to find a conclusion that would agree with never using physical punishment in restraining their children. The only thing I could find that agreed with Scripture was the article by Rebecca Prewett mentioned above.

so, apart from her obvious dismissal of GBD because of women preachers (crystal!) promoting it and her inabliity to take the good and leave the bad("ultra-liberal"), what she had to say about the rod intrigued me. what does the rod represent in reality, as she says it must represent something? or is this a red herring? i doubt that i'll be responding to her at all, but for my own curiosity, what can you tell me?

if you want to read the whole blog entry PM me and i'll tell you where to find it. i don't want to sic the dogs on her. really, i don't.

[ArmsOfLove]

can I just say I find it so humorous when it's suggested that I have trouble with Biblical authority. It really cracks me up. This woman wouldn't know what to do with me if she met me in person All of her stereotypes would have to fly right out the window :P

[hsgbdmama]

Although it would be entertaining to see how she would confront you about your "problem."

How silly! So because someone disagrees with you on women pastors the rest of what they say is useless? She must get her info from a very narrow world. Almost every denomination has women pastors nowadays.

And the rod is symbolic of something actual- authority. Authority not practiced is not authority.

Although I must say, I've had the same problem with the anti-spanking links, being someone who is much more conservative and patriarichal. It's REALLY hard to not begin to wonder if the argument against spanking isn't just coming from people who tend to interpret the Bible in a less literal/more liberal manner. I wish there were more sites that were oriented towards the people who the Pearls/etc. appeal to. However, evidence is evidence. The studies either show what they do or don't; the outcomes either are or aren't. And I'd hardly call Rebecca Prewitt's site a flaming liberal site.

[ArmsOfLove]

yes, Sara, I've found the most convincing argument to be "prove me wrong" As Clay Clarkson found when he actually dug into the Scriptures, it says what it says, not what we've always been taught it says

[TulipMama]

So because someone disagrees with you on women pastors the rest of what they say is useless? . . . Almost every denomination has women pastors nowadays.

Welllll. . . I don't agree with the ordination of women. There are very few people I can give Crystal's book to, without first "preparing" them for it quite a bit. And then because we have other doctrinal differences. . . To be honest, Crystal's book isn't the first that would jump off the shelf as a "reliable resource." Yet, many of the conclusions she comes to and the practical ideas I have found to be reliable.

However, knowing Crystal now, watching her interact with and minister to mothers through the years--I do appreciate and trust her counsel. I still disagree doctrinally on some points that are important to me--and yet at the same time, I've seen how we've come to similar conclusions about many things through very different paths of reasoning.

And what it boils down to is, do we take Scripture very seriously? We do. And do we evaluate our parenting and our discipline through the Gospel of Jesus Christ? We do. Do we rely upon the Holy Spirit to enable us and guide us as we apply the Gospel in our families? We do.


Sure, some people won't accept that. Yet. *grin* They may assume we're just psycho-babble, liberal lefties to don't rely upon the Scripture. But they're wrong.

Grace-based-discipline is Biblical. It's the outworking of the Gospel in our families.

Originally Posted by TulipMama

Originally Posted by TulipMama

Welllll. . . I don't agree with the ordination of women. There are very few people I can give Crystal's book to, without first "preparing" them for it quite a bit. And then because we have other doctrinal differences. . . To be honest, Crystal's book isn't the first that would jump off the shelf as a "reliable resource." Yet, many of the conclusions she comes to and the practical ideas I have found to be reliable.

I haven't read Crystal's book yet (too broke, unless I find it in a thrift store). And I also obviously don't agree with the ordination of women. But what I find funny is the Pearls' book is wacko off the wall theologically according to any branch of Protestantism that I know of (I admit my knowledge is limited to Pentacostal, Salvation Army, and a little bit of Reformed) and certainly according to Catholicism, and yet people seem to be able to "glean the good" from that.

I wish there was different resources out there. I'm facing the same thing from "my side"- Popack is the only AP Catholic author I've been able to find, and he is fairly liberal in some areas theologically, so he's not really a good resource for all the Pearl users at my church- they would see the bad stuff and automatically discount the rest.

what it boils down to is, do we take Scripture very seriously? We do. And do we evaluate our parenting and our discipline through the Gospel of Jesus Christ? We do. Do we rely upon the Holy Spirit to enable us and guide us as we apply the Gospel in our families? We do.

Exactly. Now, I could see it if Crystal was a Unitarian pastor.

[MarynMunchkins]

Um...isn't the rod a symbol of the shepherd and the king? :/ They are in authority - they don't have to prove it. They are. Just like God doesn't have to prove his authority - we can deny it all we want, and he's still in charge.

it must represent something that is practiced in reality. Otherwise, it is null and void as a symbol.

Why must it represent something which is *practiced*? Why can't it simply represent something that simply was/is? (sceptre, shepherd's staff, etc.) or even one of the more conceptual meanings of the word shebet.. ?? She likened it to her understanding of baptism (a physical act/event representing a spiritual act/event) but she equates the rod to not only a physical item but her understanding of a specific way in which it ought to be used (a physical object representing an event--an entire methodology as it were). That's a pretty big jump if she's trying to be logical about it, isn't it? I think she's the one "twisting Scripture" to find a conclusion that will agree with the mindset she already holds..

For example, water baptism is a symbol of Spirit baptism. Without the reality of Spirit baptism, the symbol of water baptism is useless. Consequently, without the reality of actual use of a rod on a child, the symbolism of it as a type of authority is useless.

Didn't she switch this around... ? Shouldn't it have said "Without the reality of AUTHORITY, the symbol of the rod is useless?" Think of those fraction equations you used to do...

2/4 = 4/x If you don't maintain proper relationship between 2 and 4.. 4 and x... then your logic is flawed and you get the wrong answer.

The rod *IS* the symbol.. (sceptre, shepherd's rod, etc... ) the authority is the reality. That's the problem.. she is focusing on the rod as the necessary "reality." There are plenty of parents who use "the rod"incessantly who have little or no real authority in their homes, and plenty of authoritative parents who have never raised a hand *or a rod* to their child.

[ArmsOfLove]

excellent points, Palil

[Heather Micaela]

The whole "women pastor" and "scripture twisting moms" is just an ad-hominim argument - made at the person not the issue.

There are plenty of people who I don't agree w/ 100% on views, yet gain much knowledge from. Dr. Laura is one. She is a jew - not a Christian and sometimes I think her views are legalistic. However I aprrecieate her no nonsense advice much of the time.

And me liberal and scripture twisting? Hardly!

Besides Dr. Sears is a man, a pediatrician, and a Christian - and he also belives one should spank. Maybe he is a more "relaible" source?

[greenemama]

The rod *IS* the symbol.. (sceptre, shepherd's rod, etc... ) the authority is the reality. That's the problem.. she is focusing on the rod as the necessary "reality." There are plenty of parents who use "the rod" incessantly who have little or no real authority in their homes, and plenty of authoritative parents who have never raised a hand *or a rod* to their child.

aha! this is so good.

The whole "women pastor" and "scripture twisting moms" is just an ad-hominim argument - made at the person not the issue.

There are plenty of people who I don't agree w/ 100% on views, yet gain much knowledge from.

this is what i was thinking. i don't understand how anyone can function with other believers and be so narrow and so sure that their view is the only possible *right* view. certainly we all have our moments in which we are casting stones at one another, but to embrace this way of life is just puzzling to me. does she believe that those who do not spank are not christians? she has so many secondary reasons for negating our arguments that the logical conclusion one could reach is that we aren't believers at all! i don't get it.

thanks for all of your input.

On the side, it occurred to me that, even if "the rod" is symbolic of authority, as these ladies assert in their comments, it must represent something that is practiced in reality. Otherwise, it is null and void as a symbol. For example, water baptism is a symbol of Spirit baptism. Without the reality of Spirit baptism, the symbol of water baptism is useless. Consequently, without the reality of actual use of a rod on a child, the symbolism of it as a type of authority is useless.

This is the problem with authority across the board in our culture. The Bible puts a "sword" in the hand of civil government (capitol punishment), a "rod" in the hand of parents (corporal punishment), and deliverance unto Satan for "the destruction of the flesh" in the hand of church leaders (church discipline). Liberal thinkers of our day demand the removal of these means of restraining evil and, in so doing, charge God Himself with evil Who ordained their lawful use. Is this not calling good evil and evil good?

I think I understand what she is saying here. And it makes a difference when it is coming from a punitive mindset, from consequences and pain. I wonder what she would think of the fact that the behaviourist "training" people like the Pearls advocate is really steeped in worldly psychology, namely started by Watson and people like Pavlov. (Watson (I think) was the one who said, give me a child, and I will make him anything I want him to be just by controlling his environment.) She thinks that the authority must be proved, must be meted out by the person holding the rod. Like a boss, whose symbol of authority is his position, can fire an employee for stealing. However, this argument does not hold water. We are comparing apples to oranges. The rod was the symbol of God's authority. When Moses took the rod to Pharaoh, God is the one who worked the miracles through the rod. Not Moses. And look at the plagues that were rained down on the people. Every one corresponded to one of the false gods of the people. God was not "beating" the people -- He was tearing down their gods, and showing the people that their false gods had no power. When a king held the sceptre, it was a symbol of God's authority, not the man's. It was a symbol that God had ordained this person to be in this position, and that person is trusted to carry out God's instructions. But, it all comes back to God. It seems like she is coming from a very harsh, old-Testament God (I know, that's where I came from), who only sees the "punishment" part, but cannot see further. Also, she needs something tangible, like the Israelites needed a king in I Sam. God wasn't quite enough; the people needed something they could "touch".

In shepherd's terms, the rod was held up so the sheep could see it and know where the shepherd was, and it was used to protect the sheep -- to drive away the danger. We need to hold up God's Word to our children and let it work in their hearts. That is the extent of our responsibility, as I see it. As one of those books I'm reading (I'm not sure whether it's "Families where Grace is in Place" or "Grace-Based Discipline", or whatever) so succinctly puts it, we are to prepare the soil for the seed.

Ok, I've rambled enough. (yes -- it's one of those mornings!)

[hollybells]

Originally Posted by Heather Micaela

Besides Dr. Sears is a man, a pediatrician, and a Christian - and he also belives one should spank. Maybe he is a more "relaible" source?

Does he? Now I'm confused and I lent my copy of Christian Parenting to a friend so I can't double check. Does he "believe one should spank" or does he suggest it shouldn't be done, but if you're going to, here's how to do it? Maybe I have a different edition? I do like sharing that book with friends, though I really should get it back sometime ...

Holly