An Incarnational Missiology for the Emerging Church. (HT to Moi)

Elizabeth and I are raising two children. Our daughter is 18, a university fresher. Our son is 10 and in the 5th grade.

We are raising them without rules. By this I mean that we have never seen fit to codify a set of laws for our family or for the behaviour of our children. We have no written code. Not even a set bed-time. But don’t get the idea that we have a lawless, cahotic household. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don’t have rules but we do have expectations.

Expectations differ from rules in that they are unpublished and, largely, unspoken. I don’t imagine that our children ever say to their friends “I’m not allowed to do _______.”. But they do know, most of the time, what behaviours would disappoint us, would make us sad or even angry. They know what we expect of them. How do they know? Mostly by example. It is our parental responsibility to model right and wise behaviour. It is their responsibility, helped along by us, to imitate. So for example we seek to model the virtue of love for others by the way we help people in need, by having our home open, by making meals when a friend is sick, etc. We expect our children to follow that example in the way they treat people: by being helpful to those in need, sensitive to people’s feelings, tolerant toward those who might be different or odd or all too easily dismissed. To example we add wise precept when issues arise. So if a classmate is in trouble with drugs, say, we might discuss how she is making unwise decisions and what might come of this if she persists. Another way in which we communicate our expectations is by belonging to the church and confessing the Christian faith. Through the ministry of the church  – through her readings and songs and sermons and prayers and people – the children learn about Jesus and His way of love, joy, peace, justice, truth, sacrifice, self-control, grace and mercy. They hear these things as well as our hearty “Amen!” to them all. We also trust that they see these Gospel values lived out in our daily lives. Following Jesus becomes a glad expectation.

There is a place for correction when one or more of the expectations are not followed. Most of the time correction is a matter of simply clarifying expectations. So a child will have to be reminded, sometimes with no more than a glance, to be gracious with the annoying playmate, to share, to pick up toys when asked to, etc.. Words are sufficient for this daily task. At other times, however, words are not enough and punishment is required, usually in cases of willful disobedience and/or disrespect. We only have used corporal punishment when our children were little (up to 5 or 6), and then very rarely. A quick swat on the bottom, with the open hand, was all. Not hard. I hit my children much harder in roughhousing games than I ever did in discipline. If the child knows he is being punished for good reason the slightest tap will do. We have never “grounded” either of our children – never had reason to. For what it’s worth the “Time-out” method has always worked well for our family.

We are not completely “rule-less”. We make ad hoc rules that serve well for a given time or situation. So, for example, if a child has fallen behind in his homework the ad hoc rule might be “no tv tonight” or “no tv this week”.  The whining seldom lasts very long. We also make a few “pre-emptive” rules at our discretion. So, for example, our son is not currently allowed to go on the internet unless he is at school or in our living room. That’s not a corrective rule but simply a prudential choice on our part. One day, I expect, this will cease to be a rule but the underlying expectations will remain.

This style of parenting requires love and trust in both directions. We make it a daily discipline to foster this. They have to know that we love them, that we care for them. So we invest in this. We spend time with them. We listen to them. We respect them as individuals. We are there. We speak to our daughter in university every day.

It’s parenting by feel rather than by rote (to my knowledge we don’t own a single Dobson book!). The goal, of course, is to see the expectations become values and virtues planted deep into our children’s lives. What a joy to see that happening. So far (God be praised!) it has worked for us.

Well, if the roads don’t get too ugly I’m off for my cult’s one-week brainwashing which I’m sure will include the word “missional” at least once.

Michael, that was a fascinating and informative article. It fits right in with my own research into the history of Catholicism and puts a lot of pieces in the puzzle. My own friendship with a Jesuit priest has led me to realize that church decrees are just that…decrees. A bad decree has to be eroded from the bottom before it will be reversed at the top. So, I welcome Catholics who talk like this Oakes fellow.

However, the “official” view on Protestants is that we’re not heretics. You have to be in the Church and repudiate the teaching you have received before you can be a heretic. Since very few Protestants were ever part of the Church and never received the sacraments or teaching of the Church to begin with, we’re not heretics. From the conservative, dogmatic point of view, saying your local Baptist pastor is a “heretic” makes as much sense as saying that your local imam or rabbi is a “heretic.”

Further, he risks running afoul of his church’s ecclesiology when he says that “the Reformers took a portion of the essential patrimony of the Church with them.” The essential patrimony of the Church is inextricably tied to the indelible character which is transmitted through the succession of bishops via the laying on of hands. According to numerous papal declarations, no Protestant cleric is validly ordained. Therefore, there is no more of the Church among us than there is among Muslims or Jews. Period. We don’t have sacraments, we don’t confer grace, and we don’t have the Tradition. It is not possible for us to have any essential part of the Church that the True Church does not already have in all fullness.  Anything we have is fundamentally no different than whatever goodness God decided to manifest among Greek philosophers or Turkish scholars and not something essential we took from the Church.  The Church is one, it cannot be divided, and it cannot lose its essence.

Holy Smokes, Batman!

Wait, that’s not fair. This is a Barbie moment… 

Are Protestants Heretics?

I know I am.

I’d like to hear Pirate’s thoughts on this one.

BWIII makes a strong case that Lazarus was the beloved disciple. There are some very strong points in this presentation.

But I am going to look at this like a pastor looking out at a roomful of the married couples I know. The note he is trying to hit- covenantal, Christ resembling marriage or “What about me?” – is a vital element in pastoral counseling.

Yes, definitely. I admit that my reaction is not pastoral; it would be very unwise for me to say “Because I have problem with how/what is said here which runs over something important to me, I hereby reject this word of yours.” I’m not trying to suggest that at all. I realize that seen in the context of pastoral guidance for a roomful of actual Christian husbands and wives what I’m saying sounds like carping or making a mountain out of molehill. I’m not trying to do that either. We need to hear what he’s saying, I agree. He has acquired the target and delivered the package.
My vocational context, I suppose, forces me to lean more heavily on common grace. The sermon crossed my field of vision at a moment when I’m ruminating on a very moving film, some recent related experiences, and so I’m just making a personal observation about something that touched a nerve with me and I wanted to add to the discussion. It could have been the word of Elijah himself; it still would have bugged me. That’s my problem, not Piper’s. I honestly don’t remember the suburban despair bit. But it sounds like it would be good. :-)

>So I guess what I’m hearing saddens me because I see a great gift, in the admittedly needful task of trying to correct and guide to healthy forms of love, being despised where it isn’t perfected or still disordered.

I haven’t read much on common grace from Piper. I’d agree it’s absent and likely a weak area.

But I am going to look at this like a pastor looking out at a roomful of the married couples I know. The note he is trying to hit- covenantal, Christ resembling marriage or “What about me?” – is a vital element in pastoral counseling.

If I am talking to a couple whose marriage is in trouble, and the marriage is not acknowledged, but the “needs” of the individuals are…then I know we have to get to a point that the marriage itself- almost like a third person- takes on significance that puts my view of my own “needs” in some perspective. If I am trying to get a couple to stay together, and to work through a long term process, I am going right where he’s going in exalting marriage. The extra personal emoting about the sad state of the culture also doesn’t particularly bother me, because common grace or not, I can’t think of much more currently perverted by the culture than the idea of marriage and family. If we aren’t living in an era where economics has triumphed in defining relationships, I can’t imagine what it would look like. In taking marriage into a completely different, radically God-centered context, I think there might be some hope for people who think marriage is an arrangement for material benefit, social advancement, economic success and a quota of orgasms for good measure.

I’m just a bit surprised that you found the “suburban despair” piece so on target, but this one off target. To me, this is about a strong a response to the despair of the “Desperate Housewives” version of marriage as I’ve heard in a while.

Okay, alright. Look, I agree the positive advice, the practical application that follows from Piper’s well-ordered, Christ-centered, Scripture-soaked understanding of marriage is good, and, I hope at least a little bit, reflected in my own. I see what you’re saying about its humanism, Michael. I suppose what I was getting at was the foundational message being framed in such an exaggerated fashion. I know well enought that “the world” consists of lots of sin, evil and sewage. What I meant by pressing the antithesis too far is how this exaggeration effaces common grace. Since logic is fresh on my mind, what I think is going on here is a genetic fallacy. And I appreciate that he isn’t offering an argument; he’s preaching. Fine. Good. Suppose our culture’s views and practices of marriage are totally messed up. No argument from me. But, in point of fact, there are glimpses of grace even in the sewer. Imago dei and all that. Rubbing out common grace from our lived experience is ethically dangerous, I think. Given our own sin-sickness, the other living and enjoying the sewer easily becomes to us the Intolerable Other. So, okay, make all the relevant and excellent points about our idolization of Hollywoodified love. (I will not besmirch the noble name ‘romantic’ by associating it with what you and Piper are addressing.) But Eros, erotic love, is just the desire, no, the yearning, to be one with the beloved and always so. True erotic love is never only self-serving. So I guess what I’m hearing saddens me because I see a great gift, in the admittedly needful task of trying to correct and guide to healthy forms of love, being despised where it isn’t perfected or still disordered. Commence my discipline.

Mr. Kelly said “You’ve got heat.”

Then it went “boom”

I still have heat. What’s a small explosion or two?

Denise and I are off to see Children of Men.

Hopefully, it keeps working.

I so appreciate this column. For years, I have said that the language of romanticism fails to capture the glory of Christian marriage. THIS is what I meant.

John Piper answers the question: Is He In Love With His Wife?

Imagine if a Republican said that black politicians were dirty, stupid and couldn’t talk, which is what Joe Biden basically said today: Biden also had fighting words for Barack Obama, calling the Illinois senator “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…. I mean, that’s a storybook, man…” Way to get out of the gate, Joe. If African-Americans needed to know what Democratic pols think about them, they can phone Mr. Biden. Wow.

I’m reasonably sure that Michael and Leif will like this post from Dr. Stone, but I’m hoping that all of us can enjoy it.

Joel: Sorry the sermon hits a sour note. I’m going to distribute it to my men’s group. It impresses me.

I think that Piper’s first sermon in a series teaching on marriage is foundational, and not meant to draw out all the implications of pastoral care. He believes the compassion of the Gospel comes from a God-saturated vision of reality. Some of our closest friends are on the verge of divorce precisely because they, as Christians, can’t put their situation in the very framework he lays down in this sermon regarding what marriage is and isn’t. This isn’t the pastoral counseling sermon, but it is the sermon that allows me to say, “What are we trying to save here? And why?”

Far from finding this sermon anti-humanist, I find it to be a powerful statement of what makes marriage, indeed, human and divine at once.

Now…it’s 42 degrees in my house. Anyone have an idea?

So here I sit eating my reuben in between my Basic Philosophy course and Intro to Logic. The two areas couldn’t be further apart today. I concluded our showing of the masterful Wit, and it has me in a humanistic frame of mind. And I think I am a better person when I am in such a state of mind. And so I read the quote you just posted Adam, and skimmed through the sermon, and it puts me in a funk. I’m not being critical for the sake of scoring any points. There is something about the quote and the sermon that deeply bothers me. “Brilliant rhetori©.” Yes, if by ‘brilliant’ you mean effective. Actually, the quote sounds a lot like Muggeridge. But to what bothers me: it presses the antithesis too far. Most of what he says is truthful and accurate, but put so starkly that it distorts. I just had my students watch Wit, an HBO movie, that confronts head on the reality of pain, suffering, fateful choices, regrets and death. It most assuredy does not entertain. One of my students astutely observed: “Why make this movie? It’s everyday stuff.” Those very human “shrines” do, sometimes without their knowledge, wrestle with ultimate questions and anxieties that eventually find us all out. So, okay, let’s honestly talk about the source of all this trouble, our condition of sin-sickness, and what God is doing about it. Yes, our souls are screwed up and we bring that brokenness to our institutions like marriage. But here the sermonizer’s simplicity cuts through deep folds of the human heart. In all of our uncompromising stands and actions, let’s not forget to comfort the afflicted with simple human kindnesses. Touch the hurt one, and let their flesh touch you. God gave us a primal need for love, not only for Himself, but for one another. Respect that, too.

In defense of the theater, I have a friend who majored in theater and and currently works as a director, and having attended most of his shows never once did I see one that featured nudity or outrageous sexual themes. Granted, he’s currently employed in children’s theater.

When I first saw that pic, I thought that the woman was the actress who plays Hermione. Now that would have been scary.

If that was the case back then with the sober, Jewish world in which they lived, how much more will the magnificence of marriage in the mind of God seem unintelligible to the world we live in, where the main idol is self, and its main doctrine is autonomy, and its central act of worship is being entertained, and its two main shrines are the television and the cinema, and its most sacred genuflection is the uninhibited act of sexual intercourse.

Whatever else I might say about Piper, he is a brilliant rhetoretician.

You guys pray for us. We have no heat in the house. This isn’t the week for Denise- who has high anxiety about cold weather anyway- to have to deal with this.

Every so often Piper really hits one out of the park. This sermon on marriage- first in a series- is one of those. It’s quite a critical look at the contrast between the cultural idea of marriage as “being in love” vs a Christocentric, covenantal view of marriage. This is really foundational stuff for troubled marriages, on the way to marriage, etc.

Willimon has two great pieces at Christian Century. One and Two. Get them. Here’s a sample from this weeks lectionary reading that follows the sermon in Nazareth in Luke 4:

Personally, I’ve got a better theology of ministry on Good Friday (“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures”), with all sorts of sound sociological, psychological reasons for death and defeat, than I have a pastoral theology robust enough for Easter (“He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”). Most of my sermons, even in Epiphany or Easter, work the theme: “Ten reasons why you are not really the Body of Christ even though you thought you were when you came to church this morning.” There’s a reason why Marcus Borg, in The Heart of Christianity, labors to disjoin the “pre-Easter Jesus” from the “post-Easter Jesus.” It is easier, I think, to be in the boat with Borg’s historical Jesus—wisdom teacher/movement initiator/social prophet—than with Jesus the Resurrected Christ who rocks the hell out of my dead and dying world. Though Jesus tells us, “Don’t be afraid” when he promises to teach us to fish like him, it’s scary. Get out of here, Jesus.

When did “theater” become pretty much interchangable with “pretentious sex show?”  I notice that’s been the case ever since I became aware of the theater reviews in the newspaper, which invariably centered around sex.  “Two Boys in a Bed on a Cold Winter’s Night” is the title I remember best.  Too bad I had to miss that one.

Kent, Melanie is reading, at this very moment, The Vicomte De Bragelonne (she’s on page 1,427 or something).

Via an NPR Religion & Ethics podcast I just now learned that the appropriate way for real men to end a “prayer huddle” is:

Pastor (shouting): All for one!

Congregational Men (also shouting): And one for all!

Jack’s story made me think of my dad except that the moment my grandpa punched my dad there was a hate that smoldered until the day Grandpa died.  I wish things would have been different and I think that relationship is probably one of the bigger barriers to faith that my dad has.

Jack, again, I agree with you.  For older kids, corporal punishment turns into humiliation very easily and likely has to be overly harsh.  Also, hopefully when I said push-ups sound odd, you didn’t take that in a bad way.  I just realized it sounded a little terse when I read it again.  I just meant it was not what I was accustomed to.

I have heard so many of those stories about father and son having their one standoff.  It is almost like a rite of passage in some places.  Right now I have all girls (2) and they are little princesses who do not require discipline.

Here’s a link to Atkinson’s Merton documentary page. Scroll down for downloadable clips.

Our school has given swats (2 with a wooden paddle on the butt in the presence of 2 witnesses and after a bunch of legal questions) to our students- right up to age 18 and even beyond- for 107 years. (Yes, it’s legal in Ky.) Our students actually have a bit of an affection for swats as a quick way to get a consequence out of the way. We assign them as a consequence for really correctable things, not major or chronic things: 4-5 tardies (6 is a day of suspension), smoking during school day, refusal to go to bed, room not clear when you leave for school. That sort of thing. About 40% of our students get swats during their career. About 10% of our kids get 90% of the swats. Our kids definitely prefer them as opposed to extra work hours, which would be the other usual punishment.

That being said, I oppose swats and would eliminate them if I could. I think they hurt us in admissions, and I think we could deal with the situation other ways. Jack’s suggestion would actually be harder and more painful than swats, and that would be good. Running laps, running stairs, writing essays, and of course loss of privileges to leave the dorm, go to the grill, free time or sporting events are also used.

Some houseparents have kids copy Bible verses as punishment. If I hear of it, I throw a #%@! fit, but I haven’t gotten totally rid of it.

Our internationals expect corporal punishment, especially the Africans.

My parenting questions have mostly been about dealing with small children in families.

Brian: I agree, the sit-ups/push-ups thing is weird. But it works for the 6- & 10- y/o. What if the child just flat-out rebels? It depends on the age and the relationship. Effective discipline requires the 3 dimensions I mentioned. Spanking (on the fleshy part of the bottom, not the back of the legs), can be effective with children up to puberty. Post-pubescents are generally rational, and are able to comprehend the connection between their offensive action or attitude and whatever discipline you impose. For the record, I think depriving a pre-adolescent of rights & privileges, (through “grounding” or “time-out”), is pretty ineffectual because their reasoning abilities are so poorly developed. In fact, they are actually “pre-rational” at this point. Such discipline can be much more effective with post-pubescents precisely because their reasoning abilities have matured.

Sometimes, though, there is nothing that gets through like corporal punishment.

I have a friend in his late 40s now, the middle of 3 sons, raised on a cattle ranch in Oklahoma. The three boys were 4 years apart and always butting heads. My friend was about as thick-headed as they come. He was a relatively normal, healthy, hell-raising son of a rodeo-cowboy-turned-surgeon. One day, when he was about 16 and really feeling his oats, he crossed the old man for I guess the last time. The old man just simply cold-cocked him. It is a testament to the relationship the two of them had that my friend continued to idolize and adore his father even after that episode, but the story horrified me as much as it amused me.

Oh, my friend is good, solid, upstanding, God-fearing citizen today, who remembers his now-departed father with great affection, so I guess that particular episode of “discipline” worked. I think it settled once and for all who was boss in the home, and sometimes that’s what a child needs to know: “Who’s The Boss”.

Michael and the rest of you guys:

Thanks for the affirmations. Like I said, it’s easy to talk about. Quite another thing…

BTW: Oh Harry! Good gureef!

Great.  I’ve been avoiding Drudge all day ‘cause that freaky picture has been right in the center of the page, and Michael has to go and post it here.

Nancy Pelosi’s daughter has done a documentary on evangelical Christianity. John Rabe has seen it, and answers the question of what we have here:

So what did I find? The truth is that Pelosi (daughter of House majority leader Nancy Pelosi) allowed her subjects to speak largely without commentary and that evangelical Christianity comes off looking like the trite, shallow, often-creepy mess that it all too often is. To be sure, the film is far from objective. While Pelosi adds little verbal commentary, there’s no question in the film that she views the Christians she’s talking to with a somewhat jaundiced, superior eye, and this underlying commentary shows up in her choices of shots and subjects. The interviews, for instance, are filmed at frighteningly close range through a fisheye lens that subtly distorts the appearances of the interviewees, making them look like odd, “Napoleon Dynamite” characters. But mostly she just lets the camera run.

And the sad fact is, plenty of what her camera captures is disturbing regardless of the photographic technique. Watching Ted Haggard, for instance, it’s almost impossible imagine that large numbers of people who knew him didn’t see his fate coming. I had never seen the man speak before the scandal of last fall, but his effeminate mannerisms are startling in the segments Pelosi devotes to him—which were shot a full year before his downfall amidst allegations of homosexual misconduct. As she travels the country, Pelosi encounters an evangelical Christian pro wrestling circuit, a drive-through church service, a Christian “comedian,” and a low-rent Bible theme park, among other things—all of which frankly made me want to cry.

My children’s grandparents.  Not mine.

1. Flip them end over end if they aren’t sleeping at night.  It will reverse their internal clocks.

2. Tickling them will make them foolish.

3.  Never.  Ever. Ever following your pediatrician’s advice regarding your children unless his advice matches what you have already gotten from his/her grandparents.  I mean it.  Don’t.

4. Always gasp or shreik loudly whenever your child falls, or bangs a body part on something.  It comforts and reassures them.  They demonstrate this comfort and reassurance by wailing loudly in a prolonged manner.

5. Don’t let them cry.  They will hold their breath and die.

6. It’s a grin, stupid, not gas.

7. Children never cough.  They choke.  You must intervene in such a way (back patting) that, if they truly were choking, you would surely kill them.

Thanks for that, Sharon.

>I also, would not buy the first Batman or Barbie.

Except for this. Now gotta have them superheroes. :-)

Sharon: Thank you.  Beautiful, brilliant, and inspiring.

Thank you Phillip. We had a nice day.

Effective parenting is easy to talk about. So, let me talk some.

I wish I could do it all over again, with some ‘see into the future’ glasses. However, they are expensive and someone told me that they do not even sell the ‘do-over’ model for parents. I know that there is a nifty version for grandparents which come with ready made scripts.

• If you let that baby stay sleep on his back, it will flatten out his pretty little round head.


• If you let her climb that tree she will fall and break her neck


• If you let her go to school with those black children she will think it’s ok to marry a black boy.


• Boys who are too affectionate to their mother will be gay.

As I recall those were some ugly frames on those glasses.

But, seriously, if I had it to do again I would use as my mantra “Love and Routine” “Structure and Consistency” “Love and Routine” “Structure and Consistency” “Love and Routine” “Structure and Consistency” “Love and Routine” “Structure and Consistency” “Love and Routine” “Structure and Consistency” “Love and Routine” “Structure and Consistency”

I would play “Blackbird” a whole lot more.

If my kids pitched a fit in Walmart, or the grocery store, or in the mall over one more Barbie or Batman figure I would pick the kid up, leave my cart and walk OUT of the store and go straight home. I would not speak any words. I would do that the first time and the second time. There would not be a third time. I also, would not buy the first Batman or Barbie. Bedtime would be set and it would stick, because we would all go to bed at the same time—but not in the same bed. I would serve more meals at the table. I would start taking my antidepressants sooner not later and not regret that I had to start taking them at all. They are my friends. I would have been nicer to my children if I had taken them when I needed to.
Things I’m glad I did include introducing Tobasco—at the table—on darn near everything they ate and teaching them to distinguish between hot and really hot peppers. Those are snacks at my house.

I’m glad I let them decorate their rooms the way that they wanted to and I’m glad that I snooped through every drawer, behind every poster and into every jewel case.

I wish I had been more creative in disposing of the stuff that I found.

I’m glad I taught my kids good manners and that I never let them get away with raising their voices to me. I did let a few snooty sarcastic remarks get past me and for that I’m sorry. I think that if I had been more diligent with those hateful eye rolls and curled lips and the occassional ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’ then I wouldn’t have lost it that time and went “mama’s beserk” all over number one kid’s smart ass that time. All he said that time was “so?” It was just one time too often.

I would have popped their butts when they were little even less than I did (MAYBE that time she ran out toward the street was ok)

I would have found a more culturally diverse neighborhood for them to grow up in, black folk, and Indian folk, and Asian folk. I would have kissed the boys even when people (my mother) were looking, Camille would have climbed more trees. As I recall none of my kids had flat heads. Their hard heads came from hard knocks but none of those from the my hand or from their father, whose head—uh heart, happens to be on the soft side.

Oh yeah I would have kissed that old softie a LOT more in front of the kids.

I am trying to read the book Shepherding a Child’s Heart by Ted Tripp. Let me go ahead and start with the obligatory “I don’t agree with every single thing in the book” statement and move on. If you are staunchly anti-spanking then just move on to another book. But, that being said, I like a lot of what is in the book. He makes the point that seeing hearts change is our goal and we should never primarily seek to change behavior. He has strong words for this type of motive. He is also fairly careful to point out that only God changes hearts. But we, as parents, have the authority and duty to be involved in this process. Another thing I like about the book is that he includes the Gospel. He goes through how to use children’s transgressions as a way to point out why they need Jesus and that you, as an imperfect parent, need Jesus too. I think this is solid thinking. In the OT, the Law points us to Christ. When a kid lies, this is a chance to point her to Jesus. I am not finished with the book but it definitely has some good food for thought.
I would like to comment on the tongue discipline but I don’t want to read that article.

Michael will be selling HWJP (how would Jesus Parent) bracelets over at IM before the week’s end. Should I type sw?

MOD: Since Ted Tripp is highly thought of in Reformed and TR circles, I’d love to hear something from him that in any way pertains to the use of hot sauce to punish a child for inappropriate language. I’d also love to hear something by Dobson that speaks to this kind of BMod parenting.

AUTH:  Since I have read two pages of his book, let me put words in Mr. Tripp’s mouth.  While being emphatic about not sparing the rod, he is actually very narrow on what to discipline small children for.  Open defiance and disregard for authority are the big problems in his opinion.  He is also adamant that many alternative (i.e., not spanking) forms of discipline are cruel because they isolate the child from the parent and offer no effort to restore the child to right behavior, a big theme in the book.  So I think putting hot sauce on a child’s tongue for bad language would be out of the question based on the other specific things he writes.

I don’t know if you will find your Dobson resource or not.

RIGNEY: Your phone is ringing. Clay wants to go see the Merton film. PLEASE get him there, so I can send him to the monastery.

I’ll be on the Catholic Channel, 159 on Sirius Radio, today at 5 p.m. EST, talking about depression.

Christianity Today’s 10 Most Redeeming Films of 06. “The New World” is laughably bad. A horror tale of a bad movie. What the heck is this reviewer thinking?

I have students wanting to come to soli deo. I like that a lot. Oh….we got a Christian Chinese student today. That’s an answer to prayer. We call him David for now.

Meanwhile, true baseball prophet Marty Brennaman tells the painful truth about the Reds lug of a left fielder. The truth hurts, Cinci. Face it.

What about outfielder Adam Dunn (40 home runs, 92 runs-batted in in 2006)? Could he be the key?

Brennaman: “I am pretty close to giving up on Adam Dunn. I don’t know if he is capable of changing his approach to the plate, based on what the count is, and can be happy with shortening his swing, hitting the ball the other way and showing a measure of discipline. I am at the point where I don’t know if it can happen. He is a guy who drove in five runs in the month of September last year and didn’t even get to 100 runs batted-in. “People constantly ask if the club is trying to trade him. I think this team waited one year too long to try and trade him. If they had traded him after 2005, they would have got something good. I don’t think there was a team in baseball that had any interest in him after last year. “He is going to make $10 million this year. I get tired of people saying he hits 40 home runs and drives in 100 runs. Wonderful. This is a guy who should hit 50 plus home runs and should drive in 130 runs or more every single year. And he can’t do it because he leads the world in strikeouts. I think he was overweight last year. He walks to his position. He walks off the field. You see no energy whatsoever and that disappoints the heck out of me.”

“Clothespin on the tongue?” Are you kidding me? A Christian actually advocates that as a disciplinary technique? Where? All I Ever Learned About Parenting I Learned at Gitmo?

MOD: Read what Lisa Whelchel says in the Washington Post article I originally linked. Rather late in the article.

Invisibility Cloak system failure.

Actually….it’s worse :-)

Ready for my stupid parenting test?

Can I picture- reasonably- Jesus doing it? (I already know there are some quirks to this, as parenting is a fallen business with fallen people, but I still believe this has a lot of practical implications for those who need “practical” guidance.)

Here’s where I come out:

Corrective swat on butt for younger child: Yes.
OBI style swats with wooden paddle for older child: No. Absolutely not.
[So sue me for inconsistency.]
Hot sauce: No.
Clothespin on tongue: No.
Verbal humiliation: No.
Denial of access to material goods: Yes.
Physical restriction: Yes.
Loss of privileges: Yes.
Permanent loss of privileges: Rarely.

I think that signing Jesus up as an advocate of behavior modification techniques- which is what these modernists with the book of Proverbs under the arms are pushing- is impossible to pull off.

Know the person. Study them. Connect, understand and communicate. Not just control, but true influence.

Jack, your post about discipline was very good.  I agree with your points.  The sit-ups/push-ups thing seems a little odd but it does make sense to use something constructive.  One question—I don’t know what age children you are thinking about but what if your kid lays down and says “not doing any sit-ups”.  Where do go from there?  I suppose ideally you have the sort of relationship with your kids that makes this kind of thing rare but I am just wondering what your thoughts are.

Thanks for the links to the Phillips and Bauer posts, Joel. To Rick’s credit he has offered an apology for his rhetoric. But I wanted to focus on something Rick touched on that I’ve given a lot of thought to in the last few years: 

We see this, for instance, in the logical fallacy so weightily employed by Bauer in her article: that between the abolition of slavery and gender equality. The analogy is made because both involve the loosing of former restrictions and the rejection of cherished traditions. But in this case the analogy is false because in the case of slavery we are dealing with a matter that is clearly forbidden in Scripture, while in the case of gender restrictions to church office we are dealing with a matter that is commanded in Scripture. Moreover, discrimination based on color is both irrational and immoral, whereas proper gender distinctions are rational, natural, and biblical.  

I am not sure how this is a fallacy. It is only a fallacy if we agree to Rick’s terms: that slavery is forbidden in scripture and patriarchy is commanded. Yes, I used the “P” word, but only to illustrate a point. Evangelical feminists deny that patriarchy is intrinsic to gender differences—something we all recognize. In our way of thinking, from denying patriarchy it does not follow that we are obliged to eradicate all gender differences—a persisting device of rhetoric that constantly distorts how complementarians frame the issue. On the basis of texts like Galatians 3:28 we believe that patriarchy is forbidden as is slavery. But we also recognize that certain commands are given that seem to participate in those structures. After all, submitting to slave-owners is commanded is it not? Many modern day ethicists would deem this an endorsement of slavery because to participate in the system is to affirm it. Paul didn’t think this way (and neither should we) so it should not surprise us to find him issuing similar commands subjugating women. 

I know this opens up a whole host of other interpretive questions, but I what I’ve tried to say is it is no fallacy to compare slavery and patriarchy and draw an analogy where our thinking on the former informs the later. 

You Moleskine people can spend all you want on flat pens and such. Me, I’m upgrading my Hipster PDA to the new Hipster Shuffle!

Sharon: I apologize for not saying this yesterday, but Happy Anniversary!

Willimon speaks on the feminization of the church.

It ain’t sexy but it gets the job done

Each week I listen to Darrin Patrick’s preaching from The Journey Church in St. Louis. Seems that the Journey took some SBC money, and now there is some controversy because the Journey actually reads and practices the mission of Jesus as described in the Bible. So discouraging….

In the same issue of Books & Culture that had the article on evangelicals’ use of statistics that Adam pointed us to, there appears Susan Wise Bauer’s review of Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender, by John Stackhouse. Rick Phillips wrote a review of the review. Phillips’ post ends with these words:

(...) once the arguments made by the feminists are conceded, fairness and consistency will demand (...) that such arguments will have the effect of dismantling the entire doctrinal structure of the Christian faith.

Mrs. Bauer offers a substantial reply. I know this is pretty much a dead-horsed topic in here, but there are more benefits to reading this exchange than what you might learn about the topic in question.

Awhile ago, Joel Garver tagged me for the “best contemporary theology book meme.” Like him, I didn’t want to repeat any of the great selections that others have made. Joel had also tagged Alastair, who was far more prompt with his reply than me. And it seems that the list has been completed. I notice that one of my favorite theological themes is somewhat prominent: the body, embodied life, life together. I am also pleased to see that one of the figures on my list appears on the top 15: Jean-Luc Marion places 14th.

I have chosen the three books published in the last 25 years that have had the most profound effect on my thinking of and about God in the last year or two. They are ranked from profound to most profound:

1. Prologomena to Charity, by Jean-Luc Marion.
2. Between Noon and Three, by Robert Capon (published correctly in 1997).
3. The Runaway Bunny, by Margaret Wise Brown (originally published in 1942, but I read the board book, which was published in 1991).

What Jack said.

Hot saucing is pretty odd to me, and I wouldn’t choose it, but perhaps if that was your culture it might not be such an outlandish punishment.  I take issue with this quote from the article.
Our job as parents is to build character, not to adjust behavior.

Ultimately, yes, but why are those exclusive?  Learning that there are negative consequences to wrong behavior can be very character-building.   Otherwise, you end up with the kind of discipline philosophy found in places like Parents magazine.

Timmy, it really hurts Mommy’s feelings when you poke me in the eye with your fork. 

One of the challenges of parenting is figuring out how to communicate to your child – in an age-appropriate way – that his behavior is unacceptable.

I’ll define terms:

“Unacceptable” means “we don’t do that in this family”. If you want to extrapolate it to society and the world, that’s your business. You’re the parent, you define what is acceptable behavior in the family.

“Age Appropriate” means delivered at the child’s maturity level. This requires a general understanding of how and when children become rational and a specific understanding of your child’s capacities. Reasoning with a 4-year-old is a waste of time. Reasoning with a 10-year-old is challenging but not impossible. Reasoning with a 14-year-old – although difficult – is very possible.

For better or worse, we live in a world where sometimes the only way to prevent great pain is to inflict small pain. We vaccinate our children, a process that usually involves pain and sometime even mild sickness. We do not recoil from this because we know that whatever pain is involved in vaccination is mild, short-lived and well-worth the benefit received by the child. But some people seem to believe that – in the realm of child-rearing – you should never do anything to your child that causes that child pain. This is not merely wrong, it is stupid.

To be effective, child discipline needs to have four characteristics:

1. It must be immediate. The child must clearly recognize the link between his offending action and the discipline you impose.


2. It must be unpleasant. Discipline that is not unpleasant to the child is not discipline at all. It has to be something the child actively wishes to avoid. If you have a child who loves to sit in his room and read, then sending him to his room is not discipline. If you have a child who loves hot, spicy food, “hot saucing” is not funny.


3. It must be finite. The child must know that at a specific time in the future, the discipline will be finished. Otherwise, you can engender hopelessness and resentment in the child.


4. It must be resolved. After the discipline is ended, it is essential to reconnect emotionally with the child and communicate that the relationship is fully restored.

The trick is figuring out what kind of short-lived, mild pain to inflict on your children in order to vaccinate them against the damaging results of whatever behavior you are trying to correct. In the grand scheme of things, “hot-saucing” seems to meet criteria 1 and 3, and depending on the child, criterion 2. It might be an effective means of training a child.

I personally prefer to find activities that the child finds painful but which are directly beneficial to the child. Here at our house, we are currently using situp and pushups. They meet all three criteria. If a child talks back, she is instructed to get down on the ground immediately and do 20 situps. (The number has to be adjusted to the abilities of the child. It has to be enough to to be difficult, but not so many as to be impossible.)

I got this idea from reading about coaching professional athletes. One of them spoke about being forced to run laps for making mistakes in practice. It struck me that this athlete could simply tell the coach where to stick it, but because he wanted to play, he submitted to the discipline. Further, the discipline actually helped the athlete as well.

I came from a family that spanked, and I spanked my grown children a lot. I now think I spanked them too much, not because I think spanking is wrong, but because I think I could have used something more positive such as we are doing now.

I’ve got a LOT to say on this subject…

I’ve been contemplating parenting a lot as it seems to be looming on a long 12-15 month horizon (quite long gestation periods in the Runge clan). I must confess much ignorance and negative examples…I was utterly frightened of my parents. What I have done is to ask peers who have already raised great kids (this is a major bonus of becoming a ‘beginner parent’ in your late forties) if they would mind being pestered with appeals for guidance when the time comes.

Due to my aforesaid fears I’m planning to be very careful. One thing that has solidly ‘stuck’ with me is a vision of parenting that Michael & Susan Card offered in their book on homeschooling. They seemed to consider parenting the art of lovingly learning who their children were created by God to be and as a call to relate lead their child in growing to be whom they were created to be. Seems real basic considering Proverbs 22:6, but such an approach seems rather rare.
It seems cool in theory, something that in-part my parents were able to accomplish when they were at their best, I’m hoping I can pull it off.

I do like this guy’s approach a lot, I’m finding that I’m able to effectively apply a lot of his principles at work.

Richard, I heard on a Kindling’s Muse podcast that Leonard Sweet originally wanted to name the book The Gospel According to St. Arbucks.

When it comes to painful punishments, I think the more creative you get, the more weird and off-kilter it’s going to seem later in life.  Stick with spanking, if you’re going to use physical pain.  (Even then I think it should be rare, reserved for offenses that are dangerous to the child or others if repeated (but I realize that may be too soft for some people)).  The tobasco on the tongue thing, for instance: the child is always going to wonder, Why didn’t mom just spank me?  Why the creativity?  At least in memory, I think such a thing could even take on the overtones of torture.  I think of Mommie Dearest with the Comet and the coat hangers.  I’m thinking the pain was bad, but the surreality of the punishment was somehow worse.  Maybe I’m wrong.

Michael: Sorry you can’t come to see the film.  Anything you want me to ask the film-maker?  I’ll find out if it’s going to be on DVD.

How about you other Lexingtonians or nearby-ers?  Anyone care to meet up?

No kids here either, so I’ll have to go with my Mom’s method.

Mom didn’t spend a lot of time screaming at us. Frankly, if you got spanked, you were really, really, really asking for it. Instead, she set things up so that the consquences of your actions bit you hard. Here’s one example:

She didn’t care what your room looked like during the week as long as you kept your door closed. The only rule was that, on Friday nights when you wanted to go out to youth group and inevitably out for a bite to eat afterwards, the room had to be clean before you left.

One particular Friday night, I managed to sneak out of the house without cleaning my room. When I returned late that night, my room was spotless – truly spotless. Mom wanted a clean room and she cleaned it for me. The problem was that she put things away where she thought they belonged, which was so different from my own way of organizing things – and she knew it.

I couldn’t find anything for weeks and couldn’t even complain because I knew I had brought the disaster on my own head. It never happened again.

The Gospel According to Starbucks

Thanks, Michael (and Leif) – mmm, podcasty goodness

Ever wonder what a bluegrass version of U2 would sound like? Here ya go.
(HT: Waving or Drowning)

Jason: I did a podcast recommendation post a while back at IM.

Now I know why I grew to so love Tabasco.

I’m presently childless, so I’ll relate how my parents raised me.

My Dad has the ability to be imposing when he needs to. I took a few swats to the backside when it was needed, but most of the time, the threat was enough. The only thing I’d say in hindsight was that sending me to my room was never a good punishment. I’m introverted (in the M-B sense), so spending time alone in my room was awesome.

Seriously, though, are we so pampered anymore that a swat on the @$$ is considered abuse?

Hot sauce. What ever happened to good old fashioned butt whippins? This has got to be at the core of what is wrong with our beloved country (along with that men go to hairstylists instead of barbers). Remember the fear that came with going and picking your own switch?

My opinion on the hot saucing/parenting article is this: you take the good and you take the bad.  You take them both and there you have the facts of life.

leif: I’d like nothing more than to see the film, but the fact is I will be in and out of Lexington with 5 seniors that day on a visit to UK. I have to get them back at a decent hour. Wish I’d have known earlier. It really frustrates me that there is no single place to find out all that’s going on in Lexington. Now I’m depressed :-( If it’s available on DVD, please let me know.

I’m going to start some writing at IM on the subject of raising children. Despite the fact I’ve raised a cigar-smoking poet and a daughter who ran away to Ohio to sell insurance, I still think I can write something worth reading.

I am fearful, however, that some of my friends, both virtual and actual, will be offended. So if that is the case, I’d like to get started as soon as possible.

This Washington Post piece on the use of hot sauce and other “tongue” punishments will be my starting place. I’d like you folks to read it and tell me what you think. Honestly, please. Other than say why in the name of all that’s holy does anyone care what a former sitcom star turned Christian shill has to say about parenting, I’m entirely neutral. If you don’t have kids, please say so, or otherwise acknowledge that you are talking about how you were raised rather than what you’ve done.

So help me out here. OK?

Mark Hornes writes about William Cowper. I cannot help but note the timeliness of this appearing on the heels of Michael’s posts on spiritual experience and depression, and also Denise’s confessional masterpiece.

More »« Less

Jason:  It’s not stand-up exactly.  It’s Gervais and Stephen Merchant (co-creator of The Office) mostly making fun of Kyle Pilkington, a guy who can’t possible be as stupid as he sounds.  If Ricky’s high-pitched, hystrionic laugh doesn’t chase you off, you’ll really like it.  It’s pretty random and goofy.

I just bought this today.  I’m listening to it right now, and I love it.  It’s everything they say it is.  And what’s more there are some interesting Christian threads running through the album.

By the way, the only reason for the label is to get that pony out of the category stable.

Richard - for folks with that particular affliction, the question still remains:

Is it the site itself that is unholy or is it the owner? And, in either case, would the visitors then be considered minions?  ;)

Sonia: I’ve identified the problem. It’s called Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia (try saying that three times fast)