Help responding to pastor recommending Tripp?

[EMama]

I need help/suggestions on how to respond to our family pastor. We had asked if he knew of a family who parented like us who could be mentors and it has turned into a discussion on spanking. Here are snippets of some of his responses:

"Proverbs talks much about not reasoning with a foolish person. There is no point. Proverbs 22:15 says, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.” This verse is speaking of physical punishment for a young child in this context, and could infer a youth. The rod refers to a rod, staff, branch that is used to bring discipline. People often think of the shepherds rod that they use to guide sheep etc, that shepherds gently guided sheep with a rod or staff to help lead them. However, I grew up on a farm and know how stubborn sheep can be. Very stubborn."

"The references you used below needs to be put in the light of this context above – that of a shepherd and his sheep. Hebrews is talking about physical punishment in this case, and when you bring in scriptures such as Hebrews 12, there is a strong case for physical discipline. One of the more compelling verses is Hebrews 5:8, where it says Jesus learned obedience by the things he suffered. When I look in the bible at the results of sin, our discipline or judgment is clearly seen. Our sin or disobedience has very physical implications. God uses physical things to impact us, and to teach us obedience. I think you will agree that when we sin there are physical consequences. Even when we sin under the new covenant there are undeniable consequences to our bodies, our lives, etc. We still have to bear the consequences of our actions and submit to the discipline of God, of Government, and of all authorities. These disciplines show up in the physical world. I believe this one of the foundational things that physical discipline teaches a child – that through suffering we learn obedience. Our hearts are molded through discipline. To be honest, I don’t see or hear a lot of Christians claim that they learned apart from something they suffered. That is God’s grace! I believe physical discipline helps teach children this principal: suffering produces good fruit (Heb. 12, Rom 5)..."

I recommend a book that encapsulates what I say much better – Sherpherding a child’s heart by Tedd Tripp. An older and much wiser man than I!

Sorry it is so long. There was a lot more and I'm new to gentle/grace based parenting, and not sure how to respond to him.

Thanks!

Erin

[NewCovenantMama]

Hi Erin, here's a link to an article explaining why the "rod scriptures" in proverbs cannot be taken as a command to spank small children .

http://parentingfreedom.com/discipline/

Here's another article with a slightly different interpretation, but the same conclusion.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/moodyfa...nclusions.html

Any shepherd will tell you sheep do not respond well to corporal punishment! They certainly will not come when a person they associate with being hit calls them. Jesus used an analogy His hearers would have been familiar with when He talked about sheep knowing their shepherd's voice. Sheep were not hit in that culture.

As for Hebrews 12, I'm amazed that so many Christians take it as an endorsement of spanking. Firstly, if you look at the context, the "discipline" the writer is talking about it persecution. They weren't being punished for wrongdoing, they were being persecuted for doing something right! God was applying discipleship-oriented discipline by allowing them to go through circumstances which gave them an opportunity to grow spiritually. They were learning the disciplines of faithfulness, forgiveness towards those who mistreat us, trusting God in all circumstances, praising God instead of wallowing in self-pity, etc. I expect their prayer lives became more vibrant and consistent, too. And yes, the process was painful! Somewhere on Crystal's website aolff.org there is an article explaining that the reference to God "scourging" His children isn't in the original Hebrew scriptures, but is quoted from an early Greek translation which inserted it. Even if we believe that "everything in the Bible is there because it's meant to be", I believe scourging is merely a metaphor for cleansing - God puts us in circumstances which bring things to the surface which He wants to deal with, eg complacency, resentment/unforgiveness and judgementalism, lack of faith etc. This isn't punishment, just the process of spiritual growth. Hebrews 12 is actually a strong argument for non-punitive, discipleship-oriented discipline.

Jesus learned obedience through suffering - I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it cannot be used as an analogy for spanking.It doesn't say Jesus learned to obey by experiencing the painful consequences of disobedience!!! Jesus never disobeyed Father!! In fact, Jesus' obedience resulted in suffering!

You might find the following info on SACH useful.

http://myblogginess.blogspot.com/200...pping-out.html

http://lutherama.blogspot.com/search...ve%20parenting

MarynMunchkins (GCM member in case you haven't come across her yet) has done a good review of it, but I don't have a link.

HTH

Emma

[AngelaVA]

Do you think he will actually listen to what you say, no matter how compelling it is, if he holds your conformity in this area in such high regard that he has allowed it to totally overshadow your simply stated boundary and request for a mentor?

I am not suggesting you shouldn't defend your stance if you feel it would be productive, it's just that my experience with these debates is that the other person is very invested in his position and there is not anything you could say that would reach them. When Jesus told his parables many of the Pharisees had no idea what he was talking about.

[EMama]

Originally Posted by EyrieHasChicks

Hi Erin, here's a link to an article explaining why the "rod scriptures" in proverbs cannot be taken as a command to spank small children .

As for Hebrews 12, I'm amazed that so many Christians take it as an endorsement of spanking. Hebrews 12 is actually a strong argument for non-punitive, discipleship-oriented discipline.

Jesus learned obedience through suffering - I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it cannot be used as an analogy for spanking.It doesn't say Jesus learned to obey by experiencing the painful consequences of disobedience!!! Jesus never disobeyed Father!! In fact, Jesus' obedience resulted in suffering!

Thank you for the resources. I like your description of Heb 12.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

Originally Posted by AngelaVA

Do you think he will actually listen to what you say, no matter how compelling it is, if he holds your conformity in this area in such high regard that he has allowed it to totally overshadow your simply stated boundary and request for a mentor?

I am not suggesting you shouldn't defend your stance if you feel it would be productive, it's just that my experience with these debates is that the other person is very invested in his position and there is not anything you could say that would reach them. When Jesus told his parables many of the Pharisees had no idea what he was talking about.

That is a very good point. He did come off as genuinely interested in learning more about grace based parenting. We are so new to the church that I don't know this particular pastor that well, but I would like to believe he is actually listening, but who knows?

[AngelaVA]

Originally Posted by EMama

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------



That is a very good point. He did come off as genuinely interested in learning more about grace based parenting. We are so new to the church that I don't know this particular pastor that well, but I would like to believe he is actually listening, but who knows?

If there is a chance he is actually listening, than I would go for it.

[CelticJourney]

Well Proverbs is talking about ADULT fools, so my snarky, less than respectful answer to the first paragraph is 'when you start beating the fools, I might consider what it means for my children, but you go first'.

People often think of the shepherds rod that they use to guide sheep etc, that shepherds gently guided sheep with a rod or staff to help lead them. However, I grew up on a farm and know how stubborn sheep can be. Very stubborn

Yes, and a sheep that is not guided with a staff, but hit with it might comply out of fear, but is there any learning and internalizing the reason for the action? Is there any wisdom developed or just foolishness 'managed'. When the staff changes from a guiding force to an object of pain, there is no trust being built between the sheep and the shepard. Christ, THE shepard, was all about relationship - between us and God and between each other - based on trust and love, not fear.

Our sin or disobedience has very physical implications. God uses physical things to impact us, and to teach us obedience. I think you will agree that when we sin there are physical consequences. Even when we sin under the new covenant there are undeniable consequences to our bodies, our lives, etc. We still have to bear the consequences of our actions and submit to the discipline of God, of Government, and of all authorities. These disciplines show up in the physical world.

I would not agrue the existence of consequences to our actions and our sin. But the additon of a physial pain is placing punishment on top of consequence. We are in danger of teaching our children that 'grace is for everyone...well, except for YOU. You must be punished, experience pain and suffering over and above the consequences of your actions in order to be welcomed back into fellowship. YOU are the least worthy of grace.'

I believe this one of the foundational things that physical discipline teaches a child – that through suffering we learn obedience.

I am leary of comparing little children to Christ. While He is the standard and the perfect example, He was still God made flesh. Through physical suffering we mere humans learn compliance, not obedience. Obedience is a attitude of the heart, an action taken within a relationship, again, of trust and respect, not fear.

I recommend a book that encapsulates what I say much better – Sherpherding a child’s heart by Tedd Tripp

I find a flaw in Tripp's 'bottom/heart connection' idea and what is known in some circles as his 'spank them 'till they're sweet' requirement that children be happy after experiencing physical pain or it should be readministered. If physical pain can change a person's heart, why is it that we reserve it only for those who are smaller than us. Why is that not something we do, as the Proverbs indicated, with adults who have had time to learn and know better than to be foolish?

[MarynMunchkins]

I never finished doing the chapter review, but here is mine of the first 10 or so chapters.

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

Maybe we could make this a sticky? I had to go search for it.

[saturnfire16]

One of the more compelling verses is Hebrews 5:8, where it says Jesus learned obedience by the things he suffered.

The theology behind the idea that Jesus learned obedience by suffering has me
Jesus was perfect, he was GOD. He didn't need to learn obedience.

[katiekind]

Ack! He doesn't understand how figures of speech work in Proverbs!

Proverbs 22:15 says, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.” This verse is speaking of physical punishment for a young child in this context, and could infer a youth. The rod refers to a rod,

The rod/drive imagery is employed as a PICTURE word for "discipline". We're to get the picture of active discipline which eventually extinguishes foolish behavior in a child.

Examples of similar language: "A firestorm of criticism was unleashed as lawmakers on Capitol Hill..."

"Firestorm" is employed as a figure of speech to communicate to us an extreme level of intense criticism. But lawmakers didn't face actual fire and wind. They were just extremely heavily criticised.

Another example: "The storms of life have taught me many things."

We are meant to understand that the speaker endured tempestuous times. But we are not really supposed to be thinking, "yeah, thunder and rain taught him a bunch, I bet."

[katiekind]

I want to add something: I do think that the figure of speech "rod of discipline" was used in the construction of that proverb because people of the time and culture were amply familiar with corporal punishment. The picture made sense to them. I don't think the expression would have been employed if there was a clear message in scripture NOT to use corporal punishment.

So I (personally) don't try to build that particular case. I just argue that the Bible does not teach that one MUST use corporal punishment. That proverb, when you properly deal with the figure of speech, is not evidence to the contrary.

[ArmsOfLove]

the problem is "shebet of muwcar" which is translated "rod of discipline" means "staff held to mark the head of the family or country and their responsibility to reason together". So I can't go there with the idea that our translation and understanding means they had an idea of something

[katiekind]

means "staff held to mark the head of the family or country and their responsibility to reason together"

Could you flesh this out a little? If that's what those two or three words mean, what would a translation of the whole Hebrew proverb be?

Everywhere else I look suggests that shaybet is a rod, and muwcar is instruction or discipline, and we do get those meanings from Hebrew scholars. I know you like to look into the ancient root meanings of words, but it seems that what matters in translation is what the words meant at the time the writer put them down (although the ancient root word meanings can shed light sometimes.) At least, that's how it is with modern languages.

[ArmsOfLove]

Actually, this isn't even the ancient Hebrew. It's the Hebraic understanding of the Jewish scholars I've read and even the resources that I have access to that I got from study Bibles. For instance, In proverbs 29:15, "The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.", where we find the phrase "rod and reproof" or "rod of correction", depending on which translation, means "1) rebuke, correction, reproof, punishment, chastisement
2) argument, reproof
a) argument, impeachment
b) reproof, chiding
c) correction, rebuke"
from the word towkechah

If you click on the meaning in the concordance and then scan down to see the other passages it is used in it is most often used for "plea of my mouth" or verbal correction. During the teen years after Bar Mitzvah the concept of "come let us reason together" was the dominant method of discipline. It was actually illegal to strike a fellow "adult" Jew without the ruling of the elders and you could be (and still can be) removed from the community for doing so. The exception was a slave.

Which is an interesting study all it's own. A Hebrew slave is not what we understand of slavery at all. It was indentured servitude, more like how most people actually got to the New World. They would sell themselves into the service of someone for whatever reason. There were strict rules about this including that it was a 6 year agreement and in the 7th year the fellow Hebrew was to be set free. There is commentary that suggests the reason for this is that the only reason one would need to sell themselves into servitude would be if they had violated Torah and made a mess of their lives. In that case they would go into the servitude of a Torah master who would train them for 6 years in what it means to walk according to Wisdom and then they were freed back into the community to try again. During this time a servant could be beaten but only for very regulated things and if the beating killed them the master was responsible for their death.

No such instruction is offered when it comes to children. In fact, The famous, Prov 22:15 "Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him", is, I believe, the Proverb for which there is a Babylonian parallel that reads almost the same. But that one says, "The rod shall drive it far" while Solomon altered it to read "the rod of correction" which holds such a different meaning.

In this Proverb "correction" is the root word "muwcar" and means, according to Strong's, "1) discipline, chastening, correction
a) discipline, correction
b) chastening" BUT according to the commentary in the Greek/Hebrew Study Bible I have it was "most often verbal correction" and according to the Hebrew scholars I have read carried the connotation "come let us reason together". Which makes it consistent with the word for correction/reproof in the previous verse.

It's vital to understand that to the Hebrew mind the idea of a "fool", which lets remember Jesus instructed us to not call ANYONE!, meant someone who understood better and chose against Torah. It was the adult who rejected Torah. Children were still learning it and prior to Bar Mitzvah there was not an expectation that they would fully understand it. So the idea of the rod for the back of a fool would actually speak to the need for a fool to put themselves into servitude to a Torah master and that master perhaps finding it necessary to strike him. The Proverb about foolishness in children is very often twisted in translation so that it suggests "foolishness binds up the heart of a child" but the actual words (both in Hebrew and in the translation) are that foolishness is what is bound up--tied up, rendered powerless, in the heart of a child. IOW, a child cannot be a fool and with proper use of the "shebet of muwcar" one can drive foolishness far from them.

The ancient Israelite world was much more emphasizing (when living right ) the responsibility of people. Every man had to write their own copy of Torah and have it memorized. Every king was required to have two copies they had made themselves as a reminder that their observance of Torah not only affected their own life but the lives of everyone under their rule. Interestingly we start 1 Kings with David making Solomon king and by the end of his reign he is sacrificing his children to the fire along with his pagan wives and we don't hear about the Torah again until near the end of 2 Kings when in King Josiah's 18th year of his reign he funded a fixer-upper on the Temple and the high priest *found* the Torah. At that time all of Judah repented . . . which goes into the whole Babylonian thing and is another story But the point being the kings between Solomon and Josiah did not have full access to the Torah the way they were supposed to.

As for the Shebet--Solomon was a king. The shebet he would have held was the King's scepter. As we read in the book of Esther when extended to someone in their presence it brought life; when spared, or withheld, it brought death. Solomon would most assuredly have understood the reference to the Shebet to mean extending it to your child to have them in your presence and reason together with them as part of his responsibility. Again, whether or not he did that well is another topic

The other versions of shebet would be the shepherd's staff which was used to beat away the wolves and attackers but never the sheep who were guided and comforted by it's presence, and the staff held by the head of a family that marked their responsibility to lead and judge matters within the family (often incorporated thousands of people as in the case of Jacob and his 12 sons and their many wives and children). It was a practical walking stick but also a sign of authority. In one prophecy it refers to Messiah as the Rod of Jesse. (it's in Isaiah 11:1).

So "rod of correction" or "shebet of muwcar" or "shebet of towkechah" would have meant "your responsibility to reason together" with your child.

Now, there are those in modern and ancient Jewish rabbinic thought who speak to corporal punishment. A few key notes on that, and I had posted some broken links not long ago in the GD forum:

There is debate within Rabbinic thought as to whether or not corporal punishment was even allowed.

Those who argue for it acknowledge that these passages in Proverbs speak only to sons so it would never be allowed for a daughter

There is respect for the restriction against striking a fellow adult in the community and therefore no male over Bar Mitzvah age can be struck (though one known Rabbi does argue that a son who has refused Bar Mitzvah is excluded from this) without a ruling of the elders that he is a glutton *and* drunkard and that he has not responded to verbal correction from his parents. A child who grew into a fool would eventually end up a servant in the house of a Torah master and might be struck there but that was on him as an adult.

The boy, who must be younger than 13, must also be old enough to be expected to understand what he has done AND the parent must be admitting through their choice to use corporal punishment that they have tried everything they can possibly think of to instruct this child on this issue.

The issue MUST be one of the commands of Torah--usually restricted to lying, stealing, or dishonoring your mother/father.

The generally agreed upon implement must be a shoelace. Most rabbis read this as being the equivalent of "lashes with a wet noodle" and imply this is done more for the effect than for any pain--which is MUST NOT cause.

AND, as a caveat, ANY child who is of such a temperament that striking them might cause them to sin, by provoking them to anger, in the form of cursing their parents (in their heart or out loud) OR striking them back must NEVER be struck because to do so would be to put a stumbling block before them and cause them to sin. That would make the parent guilty for their sin which they provoked. This is upheld by Paul in his instruction to parents to not provoke their children to anger. And this caveat is applied to ANY aged boy.

There are other restrictions but I think that's enough

It's also interesting to me that a recent ruling of the high court of Israel has made spanking illegal.

[Abibigail]

Wow! That was really, really informative!!!

[katiekind]

In this Proverb "correction" is the root word "muwcar" and means, according to Strong's, "1) discipline, chastening, correction
a) discipline, correction
b) chastening" BUT according to the commentary in the Greek/Hebrew Study Bible I have it was "most often verbal correction"

Totally with you on this, Crystal. That's what I was saying. But culturally corporal punishment (not necessarily on children) would have been familiar - you gave many examples in your post. ("It was actually illegal to strike a fellow "adult" Jew without the ruling of the elders" among other examples.) That's the actual "rod" that makes the figure of speech work.

I'm probably going to disagree with you that the shebet would have, in the minds of the readers of Proverbs been a scepter. It seems to me that the proverbs relate to the lives of common people. Solomon would have known about scepters, but he also would have known about ordinary rods (perhaps what they used in the above-mentioned beating.) You mentioned that that particular proverb might have been Babylonian in origin, ("rod" coming from the Babylonian proverb, with Solomon adding "of correction".)

You know me well enough to know I'm more of a "likes to keep her facts straight" and "show me the source" kind of person , so I'm going to ask a couple of that kind of question.

There is debate within Rabbinic thought as to whether or not corporal punishment was even allowed.

Isn't there debate within Rabbinic thought on just about any point one could happen to raise? I would be interested in more on this though. Working from the scriptures, what would this be based on?

Every man had to write their own copy of Torah and have it memorized.

That's extraordinary! What period of history are you talking about? From what I understand, literacy was not nearly so widespread in ancient Israel as that. And I don't know how all families could obtain enough scroll material to write out a whole copy of the Torah. Can you point me to the source of this information?

The generally agreed upon implement must be a shoelace. Most rabbis read this as being the equivalent of "lashes with a wet noodle" and imply this is done more for the effect than for any pain--which is MUST NOT cause.

Are you talking about now or in ancient history? If in ancient Israel, how was this ascertained?

Very interesting!