"Provoke not your children to anger"

[Benjaminswife]

Couldn't this verse sum up why the Pearls teaching is so very wrong?

Colossians 3:21 "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged."

Because it seems to me that if you are setting your children up, you are provoking them to anger.

I know the Pearls want you to set up situations so that your child will get in trouble so you can "train" them.

It just seems like this verse would be 100% against that.

Yet most Pearl followers will tell you they are following the "Biblical" way.

[CelticJourney]

That's the way I read it.

I agree!

[LoveIsGentle]

I completely agree!

[slingmamaof4]

I was just talking about that scripture too (and some others as well)...
http://www.gentlechristianmothers.co...?topic=78463.0

[Benjaminswife]

Originally Posted by slingmamaof2

I was just talking about that scripture too (and some others as well)...
http://www.gentlechristianmothers.co...?topic=78463.0

I know Thanks for adding that verses because it stuck out to me in your thread

That was a key verse for me in my journey to GBD. It really hit me that there was no way I could use the "rod" as it is typically interpreted and still obey the command to not provoke my children to wrath. And since scripture cannot contradict scripture, I knew that I had to have misinterpreted one of the verses. The only one I could have misunderstood, was the rod verses. So, basically, that started the whole thing.

When I read through some of Pearl - the bit where he talks about putting a vase in front of the child and everytime the child goes for it whack them (or the like) -- I remember thinking --

okay if someone struggles with p*rn or alcohol or overeating would we put the temptation in front of them and expect them NOT to touch it? (and then whack them ) -- you steer WELL clear of it right??? Hence baby proofing your house...children are naturally curious and for goodness sake does he really want to crush them??

I mean who in there right mind wants to set their child up for failure???? That is totally provoking them???

(Okay I am finished now )

[TulipMama]

Related to that. . .

http://www.gentlechristianmothers.co...s/gcmfifth.php

[Benjaminswife]

That's a great article

What I just can't wrap my mind around is setting up your children in that way. I heard of a mom setting up papers in front of her child that she didn't want her to touch. Why not move the papers? Do her important papers need to be out in reach? Do they not think that at some age the child will understand they shouldn't be touching the papers without being hit? It is just a different world to me.

They defend that practice by claiming that God set the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "in the midst" of the garden. Basically, that God was tempting Adam and Eve, and that He put the temptation right in front of them, where they would see it and pass by it everyday.

First off, that's making a huge assumption and drawing something from Scripture that's not clearly specified. We don't know what parts of the garden Adam and Eve frequented, and "in the midst" can just mean "among."

God placed the tree somewhere in the garden with all of the other trees. There's no indication that He singled it out somehow and drew their attention to it.

Edited to clarify: The commandment not to eat of it *did* draw attention to it, of course, but we are not given any indication that the tree was positioned in a prominent place or continually set before Adam and Eve in such a way as to tempt them, as Michael Pearl claims.

God also was not seeking to "train" Adam and Eve, as the Pearls claim, else He would have "zapped" them when they touched the tree, and then given them more chances to do wrong and be punished for it. When they violated the boundary He had set, He simply removed them from the garden.

And M. Pearl does address the issue of not provoking our kids to anger... It's really one of the better parts of his book, IMO, and I find my nodding in agreement with the things he says in that chapter/section. Unfortunately, his misunderstandings about the rod are so profound, and the arrogance of what he teaches (in regard to being able to control the hearts/attitudes/feelings of children) so intense that he doesn't see how "Biblical" hitting (spanking, switching) could be included in that provocation.

Basically, since he *starts* with the belief that spanking is Biblical, that automatically excludes spanking from being included in the notion of "provoking." He HAS to define provoke in a way that doesn't contradict his belief in the doctrine of spanking. And that's true of so many other pastors, teachers, and Christians.

[slingmamaof4]

"...lest the be discouraged." I would find it discouraging if someone was setting my up for failure...and then when I did as they knew I would...whack me. And I wouldn't feel I could trust that person. I don't want my kids to feel they can't trust me or that I am expecting them to fail.

I always quoted that verse to my parents when I was younger. I would struggle with intense anger for days after being spanked or harshly punished, and then made to feel I was a failure and a terrible child. I would rage and wish my parents were dead after being spanked and yelled at. I would believe that they definetely provoked me to anger, and it is unfair fto expect a young child to "maturely" be able to handle anger, spankings, and other harsh methods without getting angry themselves. And therefore, based on that verse, spanking would be wrong... I am so HAPPY I have found an alternative. At age 15 I was determined to the exact thing but even harsher than my parents (dont' ask me why???) I had read TTUAC...and agreed with it!!

[hey mommy]

I agree.. I often quote this verse to dh when he's picking on Ds....