Remind me about Ted Tripp

[HadassahSukkot]

Originally Posted by MariJo7

Perhaps Ted Tripp has silently changed his mind about spanking.

According to his Youtube channel, he hasn't. Also, he hasn't dropped ties with Sovereign Grace Ministries either, and was recently in Germany for a conference up north. Some of his chats were to be in relation to parenting, yet, his parenting methods are not allowed in Germany.

I watched several videos to put together information to pass on to Samuel Martin so he could send as much info as possible to authorities here on him, and I was extremely triggered and it was terribly upsetting.

In the least triggering one, he advocates John Piper's position that it's a swat and then water under the bridge as it creates a "clear break" in behavior and correction. It's ok, because, you're not supposed to discipline while you're angry. https:// www.youtub e.com/watch?v=fBNoIw z_9qg <--- broken multiple times.

This is his talk from 2 years ago in Switzerland about the proper role of parents, Kindergarten and child-rearing. https: //www.youtu be.com/watch?v=mS86UuvB-nU

The bible verse they quote from Ephesians was from the Schlachter 1951 version and says: " Und ihr Väter, reizet eure Kinder nicht zum Zorn, sondern ziehet sie auf in der Zucht und Ermahnung des Herrn." -- Depending how one takes that, especially if leaning fundamentalist; it says right there that you need to spank your children and rebuke/admonish them. That is one of the most often quoted text by the Twelve Tribes to justify to the courts that "we're just obeying the bible! it's just a few swats and they're not harmed. We go on about our day. The bible says we have to! "

They leave it unsaid, but it is there and obvious to people who follow that line of thought. This is what makes it difficult to fight spanking in the church here. Fundamentalists have their own language and it flies under the radar of people who investigate such things.

At minute 20, they discuss spanking and that Evangelical Christians in Europe spank their children more than any other Christian religious group and it needs to be eliminated.... but "we're not beating children...!" Then he goes on to name drop John Piper and quote him on disobeying the law and still teaching in the church to spank children. "Right now, the issue is physical discipline --- the next step is that you can't teach your children your faith!" Slippery Slope much?

[MariJo7]

I really hope he is not trying to "recruit" new spankers into his ranks by writing a book without spanking at all, and then, when people buy it and trust it and see it's advice work and come to his courses...he will refer to the other book where spanking is mentioned 117 times and say: "well, actually, even this non-spanking version of my advice works best when combined with spanking". That would be a nasty trick. I hope he is a man of integrity indeed who does not fall for such a cheap trick.
It's very puzzeling indeed...

[rjy9343]

I very strongly object to the idea it is a few swats and done. I have heard more than once that little kids forget about being hit five minutes later. That you hit them and everyone goes on with their lives.
If that's true, then hitting them is not just ineffective, it is a special kind of cruelty. Not to mention it misses the whole point of punishment.
If untrue, it is nothing more than a comfortable lie to make this practice more palatable.
Either way, that bit of instruction needs to go back to Satan and stay there.
Rant over.

[mom23sons]

Last fall I spent time with friends whom I hadn't seen in 4 years....and they follow Ted Tripp's parenting.....and while on the surface the kids may seem obedient, the underlying behaviors were awful. Sibling relations are horrid and I can say that I was glad it has been 4 years since spending time with them.
I tried the spanking route and found that it produced an angry hateful child.....I stopped(thankful at a young age) and I now see the benefits of having an open honest relationship with my teenage sons.
While SACH may look good from the surface, down deep the results are not what I would want my kids to be. From what I have seen it causes kids to hide their emotions and bury their feelings. Then when mom and dad aren't around it causes them to see what they can get away with......just don't like any of it!

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by MariJo7

I really hope he is not trying to "recruit" new spankers into his ranks by writing a book without spanking at all, and then, when people buy it and trust it and see it's advice work and come to his courses...he will refer to the other book where spanking is mentioned 117 times and say: "well, actually, even this non-spanking version of my advice works best when combined with spanking". That would be a nasty trick. I hope he is a man of integrity indeed who does not fall for such a cheap trick.
It's very puzzeling indeed...

Honestly, even your bolded would be a *major* departure from what he taught in SaCH. In SaCH, he emphasizes that spanking is *non* optional. It is an integral and *mandatory* part of his parenting paradigm. So to even *have* a book that doesn't address spanking *at all* - it's a departure .

But what does that departure *mean*???? It's driving me nuts . Is it as a trojan horse? Or is it that he truly is changing from his previous position? Albeit in such a way that he doesn't see his old position as *wrong*, let alone dangerously wrong, but more as changing emphases, de-emphasizing spanking and its role. (Although if it's the latter, and he keeps changing, he's going to have to take a close look at how *others* are interpreting SaCH. *Tripp's* conferences might be de-emphasizing spanking (at least given the complete lack of the word in promotional materials, and looking at the sessions, even *SaCH* conferences probably only focus on it one session out of five; 20% ain't good, but it's still quite different from the 50%+ of the book itself), but per google, many/most seminars put on by churches from the book (without Tripp himself present) still seem to have a *strong* spanking focus .)

What I *really* want to know is whether he still sees spanking as *mandatory*, and whether he still believes that the Holy Spirit works through spanking to change a child's heart . Because spanking as the ideal *option* - but still an *option* - is a major difference from spanking as *non* optional. And spanking as merely reinforcing the seriousness of misbehavior is a *far* cry from spanking having a spiritual, eternal purpose.

It seems that a lot of spanking-is-good-but-not-required advocates don't see any significant difference between "God *mandates* spanking" and "God *allows* spanking" (just as many spanking-is-detrimental-and-NOT-required advocates often see no important difference between "God *forbids* spanking" and "God doesn't command us to spank" ). So maybe if Tripp has changed from seeing spanking as required to spanking as good-but-not-mandatory, he doesn't really realize the magnitude of the change. But the real issue to me is whether he still sees spanking as having a spiritual purpose - does he still think the Holy Spirit works through the spanking itself, or does he reserve the Holy Spirit's working to just through the words of God's Law spoken?

In SaCH he saw spanking as God's way to have the Law work in the hearts of children too young to understand the spoken Law - spanking and speaking God's Law (the vaunted communcation part) were two complementary means the Holy Spirit used to work the Law on our hearts - either was effective. In IaCH, though, he only talks about the communcation of God's Law, and his big emphasis is on *formative* teaching - teaching God's Law (and the Gospel - Tripp makes a far greater effort to distinguish between Law and Gospel in IaCH than he ever did in SaCH) all the time, not just when children misbehave.

(Tripp confused Law and Gospel a *ton* in SaCH, to the point that I really have no idea whether my original claim that he treats spanking as a means of *grace* is correct (i.e. part of what brings *salvation*), or whether he truly just means that the Holy Spirit is doing the work of the *Law* through spanking (IaCH would support the latter, assuming he's still claiming that spanking has a spiritual effect ). It's more charitable to assume he "just" meant the Law, but honestly, he confuses the Law and Gosepl so very, very much in SaCH - if he mis-attributes to the Law some of the Gospel's work, then when Tripp teaches that the Holy Spirit is applying the "Law" in our hearts through spanking, he does indeed teach that the work of the Law is helping to save us . And so means of grace, while not entirely accurate, does indeed apply .)

Lost the plot . Yeah, I do wonder if his original distinction stands: spanking is to young children what hearing the Law spoken is to older children and adults - the means by which the Holy Spirit works in our hearts, killing the old Adam. And that is the *most* wrong thing of all the wrong things he's taught about spanking . How then would he justify not saying word one about spanking in IaCH? IDK.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 AM ----------

Honestly, looking at the available evidence - which is that's he's clearly de-emphasized the role of spanking, while still teaching it and without having repudiated anything - my best guess of how that works together is this:

He still believes that the Holy Spirit works through spanking to affect hearts , but now that he has a greater understanding of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, he's limited that working to strictly being the Law, with no salvific power; and he includes the Gospel in parenting in a much more central way. He also seems to have a greater respect for the ability of young children to believe and to understand the spoken Word, so that a) their *salvation* isn't dependent on b) having the Holy Spirit work through *spanking*.

Also, the main thrust of IaCH, as compared to SaCH, is in *formative* instruction - teaching the Law and Gospel at *all* times, not just when children misbehave. As such, spanking, as part of "corrective discipline", has no role there, and it correspondingly de-emphasized. But despite the reduced role of corrective discipline, he still thinks it's necessary, and given that he still teaches both SaCH and that spanking has a role in parenting, it's likely that he sees spanking as having the same basic role it did in SaCH .

Which is a terrible shame, because it doesn't have to be that way .

[Katigre]

Forty-two - can you email his ministry and ask? It seems like the kind of thing he'd respond to with a clear answer. I'd be interested to know .

[forty-two]

Originally Posted by Katigre

Forty-two - can you email his ministry and ask? It seems like the kind of thing he'd respond to with a clear answer. I'd be interested to know .

That does sound like a good idea - I'll try to do that in the next few days . (Certainly better use of time than spinning my wheels with endless speculation on not enough facts .)

[Katigre]

Originally Posted by forty-two

That does sound like a good idea - I'll try to do that in the next few days . (Certainly better use of time than spinning my wheels with endless speculation on not enough facts .)

This is where my ESFJ is a good complement to your INTP .

[forty-two]

Ok, here's my letter draft:

I was wondering how Shepherding a Child's Heart and Instructing a Child's Heart fit together, particularly with respect to the role of spanking.

In SaCH, spanking is treated as very important, both in its role and the amount of text about it. Spanking is non optional, and has a spiritual benefit - God works through spanking to affect the heart, which is of especial benefit to children too young to understand the Law when spoken.

But in IaCH, spanking is not mentioned once. The corrective discipline chapter talks only about natural and logical consequences, and the role of corrective discipline as a whole is merely to underscore the importance of God's Law. In a sidebar that talks about children too young for formative instruction, spanking is likewise never mentioned, but rather advises the parent to stop misbehavior in the moment and to start teaching early to lay the foundation for formative instruction.

I don't understand how they go together. It seems like Dr. Tripp has changed his views on the role of spanking - diminishing its importance (from *the* non optional method of corrective discipline to not even being mentioned at all) and its power (from God working through spanking to change the heart to corrective discipline as a whole just underscoring God's work through His Law). Yet he still teaches seminars on both books and IaCH is generally presented as a *sequel* to SaCH - it seems that to Dr. Tripp both books are in fundamental harmony.

So my question is twofold: what does Dr. Tripp currently believe and teach on the role of spanking? *Is* spanking commanded in the Bible, and *does* God work through spanking to change the heart? And how does Dr. Tripp intend SaCH and IaCH to work together?

Thank you,
"forty-two"

Thoughts?

[Hermana Linda]

Looks good to me.

Sent by Tapatalk from my phone

[Kiara.I]

Looks good. It doesn't look like you're trying to argue for a position (which would net you a non-response), just that you're trying to look for clarification on exactly how it's all "supposed to work."

[forty-two]

It's sent . (After several attempts, because I couldn't answer the not-a-computer validation question correctly. I said, mulitple times, that 12+13=15 , and it wasn't until dd8 looked over and told me that 12+13=*25*, not 15, that I managed to get it to go through .)

[Kiara.I]

Well, at least you know you're teaching her something.

[Hermana Linda]

Would you consider allowing me to post the letter and its response on my page?

[HadassahSukkot]

Originally Posted by rjy9343

I very strongly object to the idea it is a few swats and done. I have heard more than once that little kids forget about being hit five minutes later. That you hit them and everyone goes on with their lives.
If that's true, then hitting them is not just ineffective, it is a special kind of cruelty. Not to mention it misses the whole point of punishment.
If untrue, it is nothing more than a comfortable lie to make this practice more palatable.
Either way, that bit of instruction needs to go back to Satan and stay there.
Rant over.

I agree 100%.