Has anyone heard about this book?

[schmamy]

I'm probably 2/3 through. I think on the whole it's excellent. The chapter on spanking feels very incongruent. Honestly, it's like it's just this huge blind spot. It just doesn't *fit* with the rest of what she's saying. So yeah, that part is frustrating, but you have to read with a filter on for every single book you pick up--some more than others.

I am a bit disappointed because it's *almost*, but not quite, the book I was hoping for (the TulipGirl link above pretty well sums it up). Still, I think the good outweighs the bad. It's the sort of book that my uber-punitive friend would actually be willing to read (because she'd never touch a book that opposed spanking) and there is a lot in there that would help bring her in a more GBD direction, I think.

Just my so far. I realize I am coming from a different place theologically than the majority view around here, so YMMV.

[katiekind]

Honestly, it's like it's just this huge blind spot.

I know exactly what you mean by that. Haven't read the book, but I encounter that blind spot in surprising places.

[beansmama]

Oh no . . . Paul David Tripp is Tedd Tripp's brother? The same Paul Tripp who did "What Did you Expect?" I really liked that marriage series. I thought it all also could be applied to our relationship with children too.

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by katiekind

I know exactly what you mean by that. Haven't read the book, but I encounter that blind spot in surprising places.

Yes, that's (sadly) very true....

[schmamy]

Originally Posted by beansmama

Oh no . . . Paul David Tripp is Tedd Tripp's brother? The same Paul Tripp who did "What Did you Expect?" I really liked that marriage series. I thought it all also could be applied to our relationship with children too.

Yes, they are brothers - and there is a *lot* of true and helpful material in their books. Do I agree with everything they say about children and parenting? Definitely not. But quite honestly, I don't think it's fair to lump Tedd Tripp in with Ezzo and Pearl. I can understand if particularly sensitive people have to avoid SACH altogether because of the spanking stuff, but when I read SACH, I found MUCH in there to really appreciate (and found the spanking stuff to be similarly incongruent there, though not as obviously as with GTG). I just don't think Tripp is in the same league as Ezzo and Pearl.

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by schmamy

Yes, they are brothers - and there is a *lot* of true and helpful material in their books. Do I agree with everything they say about children and parenting? Definitely not. But quite honestly, I don't think it's fair to lump Tedd Tripp in with Ezzo and Pearl. I can understand if particularly sensitive people have to avoid SACH altogether because of the spanking stuff, but when I read SACH, I found MUCH in there to really appreciate (and found the spanking stuff to be similarly incongruent there, though not as obviously as with GTG). I just don't think Tripp is in the same league as Ezzo and Pearl.

But what you are describing is the heart of the issue (no pun intended) - if you have 90% truth mixed with 10% false/bad doctrine, then you have a huge problem. I have learned over the years that many, many parents read this kind of material with a certain level of filter - many don't even remember the bad stuff they filtered it and forgot it. But many new christians or people so desperate to 'do it right' or 'do what everyone else is doing' can't filter out the bad. And I would strongly agrue that the 'bottom heart connection' is, under those circumstances, potentially devastating to a parent/child relationship and more importantly, have had many people who were children parented in this way say that it was a stumbling block to their relationship with God. For someone to teach that you can change a child's heart by hitting them....and require an immediate sign of your 'success' by requiring a 'happy attitude' about being hit......I see nothing of Christ in that, nothing of the gospel of grace. He negates the other 90%.

[Zooey]

Originally Posted by elcollins

But what you are describing is the heart of the issue (no pun intended) - if you have 90% truth mixed with 10% false/bad doctrine, then you have a huge problem. I have learned over the years that many, many parents read this kind of material with a certain level of filter - many don't even remember the bad stuff they filtered it and forgot it. But many new christians or people so desperate to 'do it right' or 'do what everyone else is doing' can't filter out the bad. And I would strongly agrue that the 'bottom heart connection' is, under those circumstances, potentially devastating to a parent/child relationship and more importantly, have had many people who were children parented in this way say that it was a stumbling block to their relationship with God. For someone to teach that you can change a child's heart by hitting them....and require an immediate sign of your 'success' by requiring a 'happy attitude' about being hit......I see nothing of Christ in that, nothing of the gospel of grace. He negates the other 90%.

This.

[schmamy]

Originally Posted by elcollins

But what you are describing is the heart of the issue (no pun intended) - if you have 90% truth mixed with 10% false/bad doctrine, then you have a huge problem. I have learned over the years that many, many parents read this kind of material with a certain level of filter - many don't even remember the bad stuff they filtered it and forgot it. But many new christians or people so desperate to 'do it right' or 'do what everyone else is doing' can't filter out the bad. And I would strongly agrue that the 'bottom heart connection' is, under those circumstances, potentially devastating to a parent/child relationship and more importantly, have had many people who were children parented in this way say that it was a stumbling block to their relationship with God. For someone to teach that you can change a child's heart by hitting them....and require an immediate sign of your 'success' by requiring a 'happy attitude' about being hit......I see nothing of Christ in that, nothing of the gospel of grace. He negates the other 90%.

I wouldn't recommend it across the board, without reservation, to people who can't or won't read with a filter. Beyond that I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry to have said anything about it. Didn't mean to derail the thread.

[CelticJourney]

Originally Posted by schmamy

I wouldn't recommend it across the board, without reservation, to people who can't or won't read with a filter. Beyond that I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry to have said anything about it. Didn't mean to derail the thread.

Please don't apologize - it's a conversation. And I do understand what you are saying about 3/4 of Tripp. I've heard it described many times as 75% wonderful discussion about parenting at a 'heart' level.....and then negating it with the 'heart bottom' connection. For some people, it is only the active, hands-on optons they will try because the adversarial approach is what they know best.

As for me, there are few books I recommend without disclaimer and having thought about it first, so I understand that approach.

[katiekind]

One aspect I consider with these sorts of books is whether the author presents his or her material in a manipulative manner or makes a straightforward argument, showing their work (like we had to do on math class homework) so readers can evaluate the basis of the argument. Authors like Ezzo make a highly manipulative presentation. Authors like Clay Clarkson (for example) show their work. Readers can choose to agree or disagree with his exegesis, for instance, because he shows exactly how he arrived at it.

[schmamy]

speaking of Clay Clarkson - I thought he was doing a rewrite of Heartfelt Discipline. WHEN is that ever going to be available???