While I do agree that Tripp does not go as far as the others - he may very well fall short of effectively claiming means of grace level for spanking, although I'm not so sure it is something to boast about - he is nowhere near orthodox.
Why? Because of this: Tripp claims that "God commands spanking":
The use of the rod is an act of faith. God has mandated its use (109).
Spanking is not "one tool among many" to Tripp, but THE tool. "Spanking" is now synonymous with "discipline". As far as Tripp is concerned, if you don't spank, then by definition you aren't disciplining:
If you fail to spank, you fail to take God's Word seriously. You are saying you do not believe what the Bible teaches about the import of these issues. You are saying that you do not love your child enough to do the painful things that God has called you to (149).
And if you aren't disciplining, then you are disobeying God, and your children are effectively lost:
The rod is a rescue mission. The child who needs a spanking has become distanced from his parents through disobedience. The spanking is designed to rescue the child from continuing in his foolishness. If he continues, his doom is certain. Thus, the parent, driven by love for the child, must use the rod (110, emphasis mine).
Spanking cannot guarantee your children's salvation, Tripp says, but NOT spanking will pretty much doom them. How can that be, unless spanking has some sort of power that no other method of discipline has? (Of course, according to Tripp, there isn't any other method of discipline: Spanking is the only way mandated by God.) But never fear, Tripp has the obvious answer: he says spanking DOES have power - the power to change the heart:
[S]panking enables you to deal with issues of the heart....The heart is the battleground. The spanking comes only because it is God's method of driving foolishness far from your child's heart (153).
The child is a sinner. There are things within the heart of the sweetest little baby that, allowed to blossom and grow to fruition, will bring about eventual destruction. The rod functions in this context. It is addressed to needs within the child. These needs cannot be met by mere talk....[F]oolishness is bound up within his heart. Allowed to take root and grow for 14 or 15 years, it will produce a rebellious teenager who will not allow anyone to rule him. The spanking process drives foolishness from the heart of a child. Confrontation with the immediate and undeniably tatile sensation of a spanking renders an implacable child sweet(105-106, emphasis mine).
The rod returns the child to the place of blessing. Left to himself, he would continue to live a lust-driven life. He would continue to seek comfort in being a slave to his desires and fears. The rod of correction returns him to the place of submission to parents in which God has promised blessing (115).
There you have it, folks. Spanking is "God's method of driving foolishness far from your child's heart". "It is addressed to needs within the child." "These needs cannot be met by mere talk." "The child is a sinner...Left to himself, he would continue to live a lust-driven life." "Thus, the parent...must use the rod." "The rod returns the child to the place of blessing."
So, Tripp may not say spanking saves, but he DOES say that it must be used, and not using it has catastrophic consequences. That is completely unorthodox, and is more than bad enough to warrant jettisoning his advice entirely. This is a good example of how ONE wrong doctrine can so thoroughly poison an otherwise correct book.
11 comments:
42,
Me again from the earlier post!
I still don't think you are representing Tripp's book fairly.
If you look at his chapter headings:
8. Embracing Biblical Methods: Communication
9. Embracing Biblical Methods: Types
10. Embracing Biblical Methods: A Life of Communication
11. Embracing Biblical Methods: The Rod
12. Embracing Biblical Methods: Appeal to Conscience
There you can see quickly Tripp is NOT strictly teaching about the rod;
instead I see Tripp concentrating more on Communication, and the rod in the midst of communicating.
Even in the quote where you quoted him:
What is the rod? The rod is a parent, in faith toward God and faithfulness toward his or her children,
undertaking the responsibility of careful, timely, measured and controlled use of physical punishment to underscore the importance of obeying God,
thus rescuing the child from continuing in his foolishness unto death (108).
Tripp begins with the parent as the rod, who "undertakes" a controlled use of physical punishment. The focus is the parent communicating and he spends several chapters on that even before he discusses the "rod" as physical punishment.
Next, in Chapter 15 "Infancy to Childhood: Training Procedures", spanking is discussed, BUT as the child ages and can be reasoned with, Tripp doesn't use the tool of the rod in the following chapters and to the end of the book.
My object is that you are representing Tripp as teaching: 'Spanking is not "one tool among many" to Tripp, but THE tool.',
and that is not the case as I have shown above. Focusing on Chapter 11 and 15 only is not a fair representation of the entire book.
Back to the proverbs, is not God commanding their use?
John
Actually, no Proverbs is not commanding anything. Proverbs is not a book of law, rather it is a collection of wise sayings. If you are to view it as commands you will find it contradicts itself.
John - good to see you again =),
I agree with you that Tripp believes there is more to discipline than spanking; at one point he comments there are two components to discipline: communication and the rod (74). So it is not surprising that he devotes a good chunk of SaCH to discussing good communication techniques - most of which would fit right into any book on gentle discipline.
But while he does not believe spanking is sufficient for discipline by itself, he DOES still believe it is necessary for proper Christian discipline. Tripp has made it very clear that "mere talk" is not enough, and that parents must spank. This is where I part ways with him.
I do not believe the Proverbs "rod" passages mean that God has commanded us to physically beat our children in order to teach them the Law. For one, as Dr. Luther pointed out, Proverbs are intended as wise sayings - things that are generally true - rather than binding commands.
More importantly, I believe that the rod is more properly seen as a physical symbol of God's authority, and that "using the rod" means to teach God's Law. This can be done by whatever means that are compatible with Scripture. Spanking may well be one of those means, though I consider it to be a sub-standard one, but it certainly isn't a required one.
42: "Spanking may well be one of those means, though I consider it to be a sub-standard one, but it certainly isn't a required one."
Then am I to conclude from your stmt that God's wisdom from proverbs is sub-standard?
Are you associated with the LCMS or the ELCA?
21st: "collection of wise sayings"
Then shall I conclude from your stmt that it would be unwise to use this collection of wise sayings?
Are you associated with the LCMS or the ELCA?
LCMS, and no, I do believe that Proverbs is a valuable book, and worth heeding - they are *wise* sayings, after all, and ones inspired by God at that. I just disagree that "using the rod" means spanking, that's all.
42:
Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die(Proverbs 23:13). [NASB]
Then for this verse you'd recommend using a stick instead of your hand?
Note: I DO find it helpful to discuss stuff, it sharpens my mind as I expect it does for you as well. I'm as fallible as the next person.
Thanks,
John
Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die(Proverbs 23:13). [NASB]
Then for this verse you'd recommend using a stick instead of your hand?
Not quite (though many who believe that "God commands spanking" do). Rather, I believe the phrase, "strike him with the rod," is Solomon using figurative language to illustrate that discipline - teaching God's Law - can be painful, but it is far better than the alternative. It's similar to saying "he has to get hit with a 2x4 before he sees sense"; it doesn't mean getting whacked by an actual, physical piece of wood, but refers to a metaphorical, yet real, rude awakening.
Why metaphorical? Well, taken 100% literally, the statement isn't true: striking with the rod - a thick, sturdy wooden pole - CAN kill, and often was used as such. As well, it just doesn't make sense: the word for child means newborns on up, and hitting a newborn with a pole to "teach" them is asinine, and certainly not what God intended.
Modern spanking advocates tacitly agree, as they discuss when to begin (sometime AFTER birth), and what size of "rods" to use (generally something thinner and more flexible than a 2" pole). They are not even taking the verse 100% literally.
Once that is conceded, it is a given that the correct meaning is going to be somewhat figurative in nature. We must square our interpretation of this verse with the rest of the Bible's teaching. So which of the following matches best:
"Don't hold back discipline; spank him, and he will not die."
OR
"Don't hold back discipline; teach him God's Law, and he will not die."
As far as I'm concerned, the second version matches the rest of the Bible's teaching on this matter FAR better; there is no contest.
(Having to spell out my position so that it is clear to others does wonders for ensuring clear thinking; defending it, even more so. It's a great way to really learn.)
42 said: "Well, taken 100% literally, the statement isn't true: striking with the rod - a thick, sturdy wooden pole - CAN kill, and often was used as such.
It seems to me there's no difference between saying "strike him with the rod, he will not die" and "sticks and stone may break my bones". Just because an act could or can cause death, doesn't necessarily mean that the stmt should be discounted. If the word was something other than rod in this proverb, you'd be able to say that could kill the person just as well.
Finally, and I think this will be my last comment on this subject, Luther himself said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child. It is true. But beside the rod keep an apple to give him when he does well." [DSB - Colossians, 163]
The problem I have with SACH is the disconnect that I see in the focus to "reach the heart" and then, really, such a strong focus on outward compliance and spank-'til-they're-sweet and very little on conveying the Gospel to our children.
In contrast, Tripp wrote a really great article that seems to communicate more about the power of the Gospel in parenting. I would love to see SACH revised to reflect what he writes in that article.
I've found that the Holy Spirit works on my children's hearts. Coming alongside them, pointing out their sin, pointing out their need for Christ, modeling and helping them learn to repent, acknowledging my need and theirs for Christ daily--these things have been far superior parenting tools than spanking ever was. . .
Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment