how can someone who believes in spanking believe this, too?

[flowermama]

Mark Driscoll says this in his book about being a dad:
http://theresurgence.com/books/pastor_dad/ch6

Since Jesus died for sin, to punish children for sin would be to give them a false gospel.

I think that quote is so good! Yet he believes in spanking and believes that "correction is not to be done in anger, violence, or retribution, but must be loving and calm to associate negative consequences with sin as a loving incentive for the children to choose holiness." The part I put in bold -- that right there is punishing a child. It's a contradiction, and it doesn't make sense to me. It's been bothering me that he could say something so good and come to some of the conclusions he does. I wonder if he thinks that as long as it's done calmly and with loving intent then he doesn't think it's punishment?

[ThreeKids]

It's talking some circles around the word "punish", but Tripp's teachings skirt so close to treating spanking as redemptive, someone does need to use some wording to draw a distinctive line on it, even if Driscoll's line is way too far from the line of "don't do it".

Even Michael Pearl, who doesn't have anything in the way of a circle of accountability for his theology, will hop around the word "punish" for the youngest hitting targets and insist on the word "training".

[Kiara.I]

I suspect that the two things haven't met in his brain. It's a cognitive dissonance.

I do it with things on the calendar. I can KNOW that I have book club on Friday night. I can equally KNOW that I have sports practice on Friday night. And yet, somehow, it doesn't occur to me *that they conflict!* Unless I actually SEE the calendar with both things on it, at the same time, I can continue quite happily having one conversation about book club, and then another about practice, and not realizing I will not be at both!

So I think he's thinking theologically that punishing children for sin would be a false gospel. And then he's thinking that practically, what you do with children who disobey is spank them. And he hasn't actually had the practical application collide with the theological principle in his perception space.

[Rivendell Raven]

I had a similar conversation with my mom about this. I grew up in a punitive/abusive home where my mom spanked us occasionally for the "really bad stuff" like telling lies or stealing, etc. My dad... eh that is another post for another time. Anyway, she was disappointed when I told her that I don't plan on spanking dd, ever.

In her mind, there is a difference between spanking and hitting since spanking "should be done after an explanation ( when you do this, you are telling me you want a spanking, so after a repeated offense, a spanking will be given) and when the parent is calm" and hitting or spanking while angry or because of frustration is abuse. We agreed to disagree about how we interpret certain scriptures (rod discipline to me means guidance, like a shepherd, rod to her means spanking). She firmly believes that spanking when done "right" is effective. I think it creates fear.

[Beth1231]

Theologically,his first statement sounds compassionate and wise.
But in the trenches with the daily mess and big feelings and eye rolling language learners,FEAR grips the punitive parent who was raised by punitive parents and it's "get this child under my control at all costs because otherwise I will have no peace,they will be breaking the windows and probably wind up on drugs and in jail. And I'll look bad."
So they force their theology to coexist with their fear. And then you get all the syrupy "help them choose holiness" messages but what they really mean is "it's way too much work to get off my butt so I'll put the fear of me into them,bless God."

My daily inner struggle for seven long years.

[forty-two]

- it can be really frustrating to see people hold to contradictory positions when some of those positions are hurting people , and you want to yell at them to wake up and *see* the contradiction so they will quit hurting themselves and others .

But here I don't know if it's necessarily a contradiction . One distinction I see a lot is between the eternal consequences of sin, and the temporal consequences for sin. Combine that with Calvin's teaching on the duplex gratia, that justification and sanctification are two separate graces that each flow from our union with Christ, and the related seemingly common ish Reformed idea that while justification is monergistic (100% God and 0% us), sanctification is synergistic (100% God and 100% us) - and that would make sense of Driscoll's two statements, working as he is in a more-or-less Reformed environment .

Wrt the eternal, spiritual consequences of sin, Jesus 100% took care of them on the cross, and any sort of "punishment to pay for your misbehavior" would indeed be a false Gospel as Driscoll wrote. Because that's talking about justification, and that's 100% God.

But per Calvin, justification is entirely separate from sanctification - *two* separate, independent graces flowing from our union with Christ, not sanctification flowing from justification (as in Lutheran theology). So what is applies wrt justification does not necessarily have to apply to sanctification, which is what Driscoll seems to be talking about wrt " as a loving incentive for the children to choose holiness" - that sounds very much like training ourselves in holiness, which seems to be a common Reformed way of talking about sanctification.

And so punishing sin (deliberately imposing painful consequences) to make the experience of sinning unpleasant to encourage kids to choose to not sin (straight up behavioral modification, iow) - to assist in training up in holiness, in sanctification, is distinct from punishing sin in a "paying for your crime" or "experiencing the wages of sin" way. I mean, Ezzo and Tripp talk about kids having the perceived weight of sin lifted from them via spanking - that definitely falls under Driscoll's false Gospel. But spanking/punishing to discourage wrong behavior and encourage right behavior, as part of practical training in holiness, where growing in holiness in no way negates or replaces the need for justification - that *is* different . (Unless you are the sort of Lutheran who sees any attempt whatsoever at trying to be a better person in the world as works righteousness , but even Lutheran me disagrees with that, let alone just about every Reformed person ever .)

Yes, I disagree with the idea of character formation via intentionally inflicting pain , but I *do* agree with the idea that we can try to form character without it taking anything away from what Christ did for us , and that's as a Lutheran who sees justification as the mother of sanctification, and *both* justification and sanctification as completely monergistic. Within a tradition that sees Christians as indeed contributing to their sanctification in a way that they *don't* in justification, it seems natural to encourage training oneself in holiness, without meaning to infringe a whit on what Jesus did . The fact that they are encouraging *punitive* training in holiness is sad , but not inconsistent with (rightly) denying that temporal punishment in any way makes atonement for our sins .

Eta: That said, even though theologically justification and sanctification are different (which I agree with even though as a Lutheran I see the differences as, well, *different* than Reformed theology does ), in practice lots of churches completely obliterate the difference . And then you get things like, "Changing your behavior brings you closer to God" . And under that "training in holiness" turns to an exercise in becoming closer to God . And that completely obliterates the idea of justification being 100% God .

[flowermama]

Originally Posted by ThreeKids

It's talking some circles around the word "punish", but Tripp's teachings skirt so close to treating spanking as redemptive, someone does need to use some wording to draw a distinctive line on it, even if Driscoll's line is way too far from the line of "don't do it".

Yeah, Tripp's teachings about that are really messed up. Driscoll, though, likes Tedd Tripp's teachings about discipline, so much so that Tripp had a "Biblical Parenting" conference there years ago, and the sessions can be listened to online.

Even Michael Pearl, who doesn't have anything in the way of a circle of accountability for his theology, will hop around the word "punish" for the youngest hitting targets and insist on the word "training".

Oh, that's right! I had forgotten about that!

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Beth1231

Theologically,his first statement sounds compassionate and wise.
But in the trenches with the daily mess and big feelings and eye rolling language learners,FEAR grips the punitive parent who was raised by punitive parents and it's "get this child under my control at all costs because otherwise I will have no peace,they will be breaking the windows and probably wind up on drugs and in jail. And I'll look bad."
So they force their theology to coexist with their fear. And then you get all the syrupy "help them choose holiness" messages but what they really mean is "it's way too much work to get off my butt so I'll put the fear of me into them,bless God."

My daily inner struggle for seven long years.

Oh, Beth, that's such a difficult struggle. Thank you for sharing.

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Kiara.I

I suspect that the two things haven't met in his brain. It's a cognitive dissonance.

I do it with things on the calendar. I can KNOW that I have book club on Friday night. I can equally KNOW that I have sports practice on Friday night. And yet, somehow, it doesn't occur to me *that they conflict!* Unless I actually SEE the calendar with both things on it, at the same time, I can continue quite happily having one conversation about book club, and then another about practice, and not realizing I will not be at both!

So I think he's thinking theologically that punishing children for sin would be a false gospel. And then he's thinking that practically, what you do with children who disobey is spank them. And he hasn't actually had the practical application collide with the theological principle in his perception space.

Yes, that may play into it. That's helpful to think about.

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Rivendell Raven

I had a similar conversation with my mom about this. I grew up in a punitive/abusive home where my mom spanked us occasionally for the "really bad stuff" like telling lies or stealing, etc. My dad... eh that is another post for another time. Anyway, she was disappointed when I told her that I don't plan on spanking dd, ever.

In her mind, there is a difference between spanking and hitting since spanking "should be done after an explanation ( when you do this, you are telling me you want a spanking, so after a repeated offense, a spanking will be given) and when the parent is calm" and hitting or spanking while angry or because of frustration is abuse. We agreed to disagree about how we interpret certain scriptures (rod discipline to me means guidance, like a shepherd, rod to her means spanking). She firmly believes that spanking when done "right" is effective. I think it creates fear.

I agree with you. I'm sorry; that must have been so hard to hear her say those things. Thank you for sharing about your experience.

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

Forty-two, what you wrote is so interesting!

I used to be Reformed and Baptistic, which is what both Tripp and Driscoll are. And come to think of it, I guess Ezzo has a Calvinist and Baptistic background, too. I don't know what he believes these days, he must have since he was part of John McArthur's church and McArthur is a Calvinist and Baptistic. And of course there's John Piper. They are all so punitive.

When we first left the Reformed Baptist church we had been attending for 8 years we started going to a Lutheran church for awhile, and it was so beautiful and like balm to our souls. Reformed Baptist churches can be so harsh. . . there tends to be so much focus on sin and how sinful you are and how good it is to feel that you are sinful.

As we were talking with the Lutheran pastor back then, he expressed agreement that children didn't need to be punished because Jesus paid the price for their sins. That's always been an encouragement to me knowing he felt that way.

When I saw that Driscoll said that it felt so confusing to me, and discouraging.

What you wrote helps me understand better why he could say that. You've given me a lot to think about. I really appreciate it.

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by flowermama

Forty-two, what you wrote is so interesting!

I used to be Reformed and Baptistic, which is what both Tripp and Driscoll are. And come to think of it, I guess Ezzo has a Calvinist and Baptistic background, too. I don't know what he believes these days, he must have since he was part of John McArthur's church and McArthur is a Calvinist and Baptistic. And of course there's John Piper. They are all so punitive.

When we first left the Reformed Baptist church we had been attending for 8 years we started going to a Lutheran church for awhile, and it was so beautiful and like balm to our souls. Reformed Baptist churches can be so harsh. . . there tends to be so much focus on sin and how sinful you are and how good it is to feel that you are sinful.

As we were talking with the Lutheran pastor back then, he expressed agreement that children didn't need to be punished because Jesus paid the price for their sins. That's always been an encouragement to me knowing he felt that way.

When I saw that Driscoll said that it felt so confusing to me, and discouraging.

What you wrote helps me understand better why he could say that. You've given me a lot to think about. I really appreciate it.

Thanks . "That children didnt need to be punished because Jesus paid the price for their sins" - that was what convinced dh (a Lutheran seminary student at the time) to reject punitive parenting .

Wrt Reformed Baptist, from an outsider perspective, it's always seemed to me that the combination of Reformed total depravity (believing that infants and small children *need* to be saved like everyone else) and Baptist credo baptism (no way for infants and small children *to* be saved the way everyone else was; since infants and small children can't make a profession of faith, you could never be sure whether they were saved until they were old enough to tell you) - that that was so very *hard* on parents . I can understand the appeal of Tripp et. al., that give parents something to *do* to somehow make their kids' salvation more likely .

Plus, imo, the common emphasis on looking to evidences of regeneration in us as part of how we can be assured of salvation can end up contributing to people seeing "training in holiness" as equivalent to "proving I'm saved" - and by extension, connect how well their kids behave with the state of their kids' souls . It's an example of the badness that confusing justification and sanctification can cause .

[gdzprncess]

I was reading one of the best articles I've ever seen on discipline vs punishment. One of the main points was that punishment is payback for the past and discipline is teaching for the future. On the very next page, he outlined how to spank.

Spanking according to his definition could only be punishment, which he said to avoid. Completely illogical

[TenderLovingWillow]

Forty-two-

I'm your theological fan girl.

That tis all.

Ahem-basically growing up with a lot of similarities to reformed baptists-Forty-Two explained so succinctly what I have been wrestling through for years.

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by gdzprncess

I was reading one of the best articles I've ever seen on discipline vs punishment. One of the main points was that punishment is payback for the past and discipline is teaching for the future. On the very next page, he outlined how to spank.

Spanking according to his definition could only be punishment, which he said to avoid. Completely illogical

Idk, I think the idea of teaching via "make the consequences painful enough so that people will quit doing it in the future" is pretty common, and that pretty well fits into his concept of discipline as teaching for the future . Just because punishment has to be painful by definition doesn't mean that discipline *must* avoid the deliberate use of pain, just that discipline doesn't *have* to be painful the way that punishment *must* be. IOW, it becomes a practical matter of "will kids actually learn if failure to learn isn't made painful". With his idea of discipline, pain is only required inasmuch as kids won't learn without it, which is very different from working in a punishment/payback view, where pain is required by the very nature of the beast.

And actually, I think that's is a *huge* step in the right direction. Because there's nothing stopping them from using positive discipline except worries about effectiveness - and that's far easier to demonstrate than to overcome a belief that punishment-as-payback is necessary.

[rjy9343]

When Ivy was born I had a similar philosophy. I believed that punishment was a negative reinforcement that was vital to a child's upbringing. If you did not cause something bad to happen when your child stepped out of line, you were condemning them to a life of crime and possibly H3ll.
It was easy to give up spanking, but to give up all punishment entirely was just radical. It was dangerous and possibly rebellious.

[MariJo7]

What this Driscoll and all the others of the spanking camp are doing is a play with words. Jesus took the punishment for our sins on the cross, that's true, every Christian believes it. It sounds logical and just that a child must not be punished for his/her sins for they have already been paid for. Sound theology. But spanking is not called punishment, it is called correction, and correction we all need, don't we? Correction, according to the Bible, is something that we all should value and look for and not despise it, and "who hateth correction" is not wise, and we should not withold it from our children either. So, they call spanking correction instead of punishment. They give it a name that refers to something good and desireable in the Bible. And if a parent chooses not to spank, (s)he is blamed of witholding correction.
Larry Christenson wrote in one of his books how his son had done something not-so-good and Dad send him to his room to be spanked. While waiting for dad, the child was fervently praying, and when dad came with his belt, the child told him he did not need to be spanked any more because he had already asked God to forgive the offense. Did it help? Nope! Daddy Christenson told his son that the spanking was necessary anyway. God had forgiven the sin, but without experiencing due consequences, the forgiveness would be meaningless to the child. What kind of theology is that, I wonder. I believe "spanking theology" has very little to do with sin, forgivenes or even correction. It has everything to do with justifying the use of parental power over a helpless little being. If it really was a matter of forgiveness or correction of future behaviour, why are the grown-ups not spanked in the church, when they go for counseling and they confess their sins to the pastor? If spanking is correction, and "who hateth correction" is not wise, should we not all just stand in line to be spanked? That would at least be consistent.
I just wonder why the pro-spankers do not go first and provide us with an example...

[rjy9343]

I really think that it is the fear that keeps parents from making the connection. Think about those books, they play on every parent's worst fears. Your child lives a dangerous life of crime, your child leaves your faith, your child spends his or her life in therapy trying to fix the damage you did, your child has broken relationships and so on. I can attest to being willing to do anything to save Ivy from that. Once that fear takes root, it is really hard to think about discipline rationally. Especially if reason says that hitting is wrong because we have been taught that anything that feels wrong is just the corruptness of our hearts. Or that doing the right thing can be painful and we have to die to ourselves.