>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)

Go Perky!