See, the question you’re thinking is that I’m introducing myself but, if you’re reading this any point after I wrote this, considering how I’ve changed from unknown events, wouldn’t you be meeting me a past version of me? I mean, in 1974 there was a Rey Reynoso (R1.0)that was born in New York City and that thought certain thoughts about life and self. Years later (2010) there is another Rey Reynoso (R2.0) who lives elsewhere and has very different thoughts about life and self—how are these two Rey’s related?

Maybe there’s something behind the mind (Rey’s thoughts) that is connects the Rey Reynoso’s—a meta-person of sorts. So even though RR2.0 is different from RR1.0, they’re both “driven” by this meta-individual who is the real Rey Reynoso. But how would we ever get to know him (me)? He transcends the physical, transcends thought, and transcends characteristics.

Poppycock someone else might say: there is no invisible you that is behind the real you. The fact that you think of yourself as “I am Me” doesn’t mean that there’s some infinite regress of real you’s that drive the real you—it just means that you are self-aware. You have consciousness. That fact is the only thing that makes you, you.

Which generates questions about folk who aren’t self-aware—does that make them non-persons? Someone might be quick to say “yes!” but then have a problem if some non-self-aware person comes back (say out of a coma), picking up from where they were before. What happened? Did they momentarily stop being a person? Did the invisible driver go elsewhere? Or is the picture even more fictional than we thought?

For example, when RR2.0 goes to sleep and dreams he is completely unaware of his life but RR2.5 kicks in and has his own unique experiences. When RR2.0 wakes up he taps into what he remembers about RR2.5 and incorporates it into his “story”. Maybe RR1.0 and 2.0 are just variations of a dream by someone else? Worst, if RR1.0 is equally real as RR2.0 and the future RR3.0 (which would be the one you don’t know about as you’re reading this post) maybe they are all real beings that together make up I—sort of like a trinity but with many more beings that permanently exist in different moments of time?

Of course some of this can be cleared up if the problem isn’t what makes up RR2.0 or RR1.0 but rather if RR1.0 is numerically the same being as RR2.0. If so, then questions about multiple beings existing through time start to recede as well as the different between RR1.0 and RR2.0 being any real differences at all. We can just say that Rey Reynoso was born in 1974 and today, 2010, Rey Reynoso wrote this post without anything at all about versions. Sure, we’ll still have some questions about Rey Reynoso going on into the future—especially if parts of Rey Reynoso dies—but that’s for another post. I’ve butchered enough philosophy for one day.

Technorati Tags: fridays, identity, personality, philosophy, self

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Up front: a warning—this will not be the last time this sort of examination has to come up.

Parents are like soldiers in the trenches. They’re afraid. They’re living in the moment. They’re wondering if they’re doing wrong and what they could do better while trying to discover what their parents did right (and wrong) in their own experience. Quick fix books, especially the short and easy to read variety, will keep showing up on the web and in bookstores. For Christian parents, these books will cite Scripture and give a façade of being Biblically grounded. The spurious glitter of their treasures of pseudo-wisdom will fade, but sometimes not before doing incalculable damage.

The current culprit is Michael and Debi Pearl’s To Train Up A Child. Their ministry (No Greater Joy) is known within individual fundamentalist circles for their training methods and some of their other writings regarding the marriage relationship. Up front: their book and their teaching is dangerous. Not only is it Biblically naïve, it is theologically confused and potentially damaging, at the very least, physically and mentally.

Warning: Use this Post Properly
If you are planning to read through this post, note that some of the earlier sections do not contain my opinions. I will cite the Pearls, I will underscore what they teach, which verses they cite and in what context, and try to read the lines and between them to see the theological grid work their ideas are based on. DO NOT THINK THAT I AM ENDORSING THEIR POSITIONS IN THESE EARLIER SECTIONS; I’M ONLY SUMMARIZING.

What They Teach
The Pearl’s teach that their method isn’t technically a method at all, just the Biblical model seen in reality; evidenced as working in their own practice.

You may have strong feelings that prevent you from spanking your child, but it is ignorance to claim that love is your motive. The God who made little children, and therefore knows what is best for them, has provided them parents to employ the rod in training up their children. To refrain from doing so, based on a claim of love, is an indictment against God himself. Your actions declare that either God does not desire what is best for your child or you know better than him. (pg 38)

This method (which includes Pearl training, the fact of homeschooling, etc) is a requirement that is taught in the Bible.

If you are seeking to avoid the rod because you are an emotional coward or you are a product of contemporary philosophy, then not obeying God in this matter should not be considered an option. The Word of God teaches us the best method of child training, and proper use of the rod is a part of that program. Furthermore, if you abstain from use of the rod because you believe there is a better way, then you have revealed a fundamental flaw in your thinking that will leave a giant hole in any method you adopt. (Online )

But it is also a requirement that is mandated by the fact that morals are still being formed in the child.

From birth , parents must assume control and accountability for the moral development of their children. During the early years, we certainly do not want to destroy the child’s natural drives, but we must constrain him to exercise temperance and self-control. The parents’ role is not that of policemen , but more like that of the Holy Spirit. When a child has his sails full of wind (strong drives), but no compass (moral discernment), his parents must serve as his compass and navigator. When a child is incapable of holding moral values, parental training and example will be his “standard”. Before he can DECIDE to do good, his parents must CONDITION him to do good. There was a time in the womb when the child’s mother breathed for him, ate for him, and handled his waste. Likewise, in the moral realm, until the child’s reason and moral faculties develop to the point of independent operation, parents must be the voice of his fetal conscience. Parents must provide initiative and instill a set of values (pg 18)

They must be taught at home by their parents.

Never even consider sending your children to private Christian schools, much less the public, automaton factories. Whether a classroom is based completely on Christian education or on secular principles is not the issue…God didn’t make teenage boys and girls to sit together in a classroom every day while real life outside passes them by. (pg 101)

God fearing Christians should be concerned about raising their children (specifically with this Biblical method.) Doing otherwise will result in children that don’t obey their parents, that are seeking their own pleasure, that ultimately rule over their parents and eventually will be lost as they train in answering to no one beyond themselves.

Once he learns that the reward of a tantrum is a swift, forceful spanking, he will NEVER throw another fit….If a parent starts at infancy, discouraging the first crying demands, the child will never develop the habit (pg 84)

So the goal is to have children that respond immediately to command for their own good. The parent wants to break down their will, and especially their will to dominate, by making them obedient followers of their parental authority thus resulting in joy (for themselves), blessing (to their parents), and peace (in the household).

The rod is not to be used only for punishment (after the fact) but for training (before the fact).

This book is not about discipline, nor problem children. The emphasis is on the training of a child before the need for discipline arises. It is apparent that, though they expect obedience, most parents never attempt to train their child to obey. They wait until his behavior becomes unbearable and then explode. (introduction)

So whereas many parents keep issuing warnings and then, when they get annoyed enough, they lash out against the child in punishment, the Pearls say that the training is done up front in a calm voice and situation.

Training is not discipline. Discipline is the “damage control” part of training, but is insufficient in itself to effect proper behavior. Training is the conditioning of the child’s mind before the crisis arises. It is preparation for future, instant, unquestioning obedience. (pg 4)

The other method merely results in children who know how far is too far—they’re training the parents and themselves to know when they shouldn’t push it. But if training is done properly, the child is commanded up front and the command is emphasized with the rod so that they can be obedient at all times.

Dogs can be trained, Soldiers obey their leaders therefore children should in like manner be trained.

The military uses real bullets in training men to avoid enemy fire. Replacing the rod with hollow threats would be to your children like replacing live bullets with blanks. It would get the men killed later in battle. (p 53)

An athlete trains before he competes. Animals, including wild ones, are conditioned to respond to the trainer’s voice command. (p 5).

Children need to be trained with the rod to realize the consequences up front and sometimes this means personal learning/exposure. For example, in chapter 10 — 14, the Pearls offer a bunch of examples of quick, decisive training. Chapter 10, specifically has these examples of things they did: Gun Safety? Place an old empty gun within arm’s reach a child , say “No” then have hand-switching sessions. Hot stove? Heat up the stove till it’s hot to the touch; open the door to get them attracted to the flames. As they run to the door to grab it say “Hot!” and the kid winds up learning in one try that it is hot. Pond out back? Walk the kid over to the pond and stay behind them as they lean over it and let them fall in. With one child, he actually had to nudge the kid in.

Punishment must always be for things that are punishable. If a child has been fed, slept, has toys, has used the potty and isn’t in pain then the parent knows that there is no reason for the child to be crying. This can be punished. If one of those necessary things are in place (say, the child is tired) then put the child to bed; don’t punish him. But otherwise, the child, no matter the age, must be trained with the rod—not your hand.

As a rule, do not use your hand. Hands are for loving and helping. If an adult swings his or her hand fast enough to cause pain to the surface of the skin, there is a danger of damaging bones and joints. The most painful nerves are just under the surface of the skin. A swift swat with a light, flexible instrument will sting without bruising or causing internal damage. Many people are using a section of ¼ inch plumber’s supply line as a spanking instrument. It will fit in your purse or hang around you neck. You can buy them for under $1.00 at Home Depot or any hardware store. They come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility keeps the kids in line. (online)

Which Scripture They Cite

• Evidence that God entrusted Abraham with the promise with the expectation that Abraham would train his children Gen 18:19 (p 117)
• Desires must be controlled else the sowing of satisfying those desires becomes awful at a later date Prov 23:2, Gal 6:7,8 (pg 93)
• Guarding the heart of a child against having a bad attitude by eradicating the bad attitude. Prov 23:7 an 4:23  (pg 81, 87)
• The (favorable) example of a three year old girl who beats their doll with such admonishments like “stop it. No crying.” (Switch, switch, switch) then praising the doll for now being happy. Prov 23:7 (pg 65)
• 1 Sam 15:23, child’s rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (pg 55)
• Gal 3:24 strictly enforcing the rules teaches respect of the Lawgiver to bring to Christ (pg 54). The rod increases the seriousness of the moral law (Prov 9:10) because there is no fear of God in their eyes (Rom 3:18). Fear is reserved for God (Luke 12:5; 1 Pet 2:17). Military uses real bullets to properly train soldiers (pg 53)
• Rod accompanied with instruction Prov 29:15 (pg 52)
• Ps 23:4, 2 Sam 7:14, Psalm 89:32  The rod is a comfort for the child (p 46). Prov 19:18 for giving hope to a rebellious child and to give rest to you and the entire household Prov 29:17 (pg 47)
• Stripes are to the soul what the healing blood is to the wound (Heb 12:6) so a child properly spanked is healed in the soul and restored to wholeness of Spirit (Prov 23:13,14)
• Eph 5:29 everyone loves themselves and think in terms of what benefits us (pg 43) regarding guilt and self-loathing
• The child is in a body of infirm flesh with natural lusts (Deut 12:15) that entice him (James 1:14,15). They go astray as soon as they are born (psalm 58:3). God doesn’t count his lies as sin at this early age (James 4:17, Rom 5:13)The rod is your divine enforcer (Prov 29:15) pg 42
• God spanks his children (Heb 12:6-11) as a sign of love (Prov 13:24) pg 40-41
• The authority of God’s word in spanking. The same God who said Mark 10:14 says Prov 19:18; Prov 13:24; Prov 22:15; Prov 23:13-14; Prov 29:15; Prov 29:17. If you love him you must spank him (Pg 38)
• Eph 6:4 as an example of teasing one’s children (pg 33) and creating a bully.
• Every child faces his own tree of knowledge (Deut 1:39) and everyone eats of that tree. God won’t condemn a child until he has grown into that state (p 20) and after they eat they are categorized as sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). Therefore parents must bring the child’s flesh into complete subjection. (p20-21)
• The child leaves the protection of your sanctification and stand alone in the light of his conscience (1 Cor 7:14) p19
• Prov 22:6 Training not Discipline by highlighting commands with the rod (p 4)

What are Their Theological Underpinnings
The theological underpinnings are a bit difficult to nail down since the Pearls decry labels while citing what the label believes and how they are not that. They obviously think that all flesh is sinful so that the natural bent of a person is towards sinfulness and yet they don’t think this is necessarily something that is culpable.

I have taught my son the Word of God long before I thought he would need to be armed against sin. I don’t want him to go into battle with an unloaded gun. Instead of bringing us shame or grief, our son has brought to us great joy. I am proud of the boy he is, and am looking forward to the man I will help him become.  (Online )

They also think that God doesn’t hold children accountable before a certain individually focused moment. At that moment each child faces his own tree of knowledge of good and evil and then knowingly chooses to sin. When they do their flesh is then categorized as actual sinful flesh—but before that they had the bend that later becomes sinful if often gratified.

The root of all sin is found in the runaway indulgence of God given desires. Although the child may not have matured to the point of accountability, still, his unrestrained indulgence is the very essence of future sinfulness. (p 17)

The child’s brain can be trained to submit to authority to make that decision moment lean favorably—otherwise children would go down a very dark path indeed.

Training a child in this manner informs the child that he/she is not the master—the parent is.

For a little while, God has placed the soul of your child under your tutelage. Your home is a moral workshop where you help God prepare your child for heavenly citizenship. The developing child benefits from growing up in a home that mimics the government of God (pg 53)

When a parent subjects themselves to the authority of the child, he/she functions as the authoritative chooser who controls them to satisfy him/herself. This gets them used to functioning without an authority and therefore makes their later decision all the more likely to end in catastrophe.

This all goes back to the garden. Adam and Eve failed when they sinned but beforehand they had God given pleasure seeking abilities

Even before Adam and Eve sinned, the element in their natures that drew them to disobedience was a desire for pleasure—the pleasure of taste, the pleasure of sight, and the pleasure of mental ascendancy. God created us with a desire for pleasure, something that is an essential part of his nature. God seeks the pleasure of his own will. Pleasure in any form is the elementary motivation of the human heart. (Online)

Now this pleasure isn’t bad in itself.

God created us to exist in a constant state of desire and appetite. The tension in this continuous struggle provides the background for moral development. This is most apparent in the small child. He desires food, water, warmth, companionship, entertainment, and a dry diaper. God endowed him with strong compulsions for taste, smell, hear, see, and a desire to touch and feel “almost everything”. (pg 15)

But when it is constantly sated, the child develops a behavior that seeks self-satisfaction—the desire to dominate. Their spiritual compass had no guidance (which is the purview of the parent). Anger, hostility and so forth from the child are signs that the child is not submitting to the authority placed over them because they want to satisfy their own desires because they are gods in their own eyes.

The bottom line you must recognize is that the infant is born with all of the passions of body but with no capacity for self-restraint. (Online )

So the fact that children are disciplined with a device (be it a switch, rod, whatever), it is specifically to train them to submit to authority above them so that they may, at some near-later date, subject themselves to the Ultimate Authority who is God.

Nature is controlled by fixed laws. If a child violates them he may break bones, get burned, drown, poison his body, or suffer harm in a thousand ways. The laws of nature must be discovered and respected. In the natural world all actions have consequences. Nature never forgives. If parents allow a child to break the laws of nature, but somehow protect him from suffering any consequences, they would be communicating a false sense of reality.

In their formative years, proper application of the rod will condition children to believe there is a day of certain reckoning, in this life and in the next. The rod makes better citizens.

Children raised in homes run by the rule of law, enforced with the rod, understand the concept of law and accept their duty to submit to it. To appreciate the laws of God and his jurisdiction, a child must first respect the lesser laws that govern his daily life.

Without the rod you are giving the child a false concept of the nature of God.

Though children cannot understand coming judgment, they must be trained to make decisions with consequences in mind. If you allow the child several years of living without consequences, it is difficult for him to ever accept the truths of coming judgment, the character of God, and the nature of sin.

The sure application of the rod will sober a child and cause him to give very serious thought to his conduct and attitude.

When a child is bound in self-blame and low self-esteem, parents are not helpless. God has given them the gift of the rod. The rod can bring repentance, but it goes much deeper than that. The rod in the hands of a righteous authority will supply the child’s soul with that moment of judgment that he feels he so deserves

If God’s love is expressed by the “scourging” He gives, then can we not love our children enough to chasten them unto holiness? I heard one rebellious teenager longingly say, “If they only loved me enough to whip me.”

A child that has been timely and properly chastened for his offense will be purged of his guilt and will feel that he has paid his due and that the court is satisfied. (Online)

Now this time of decision isn’t final. It is very possible for children to come to a time of decision, decide for the Lord, be saved, but then fall away.  In such a scenario the child would never be saved again.

My doctrine is better summed up as “Once lost, once saved, twice lost, never saved again,” but that is for another time. Get my messages on the Security of the Believer, as they address that subject in a good bit of detail. (Online )

The Error of Their Scripture Usage
I don’t trust when someone cites Scripture and tends to (A) decontextualize it, (B) woodenly literalize it to justify a point, (C) build a theology mostly from the book of Proverbs, (D) ignore the cultural milieu: the Pearl’s do all four.

I believe all Scripture is infallible and inerrant—they are the words God wanted recorded and they are true. But I also think that Scripture was made in such a way as to have very nuanced application without solely jumping to the woodenly literal meaning.

Standard literary devices have to be taken into place. Things like metaphor, simile and analogy have to be taken into place. Genre has to be considered. Of course, the original audience has to be considered.

For example, I don’t see the Pearl’s taking Deut. 21:18—22 as a mandate for punishing a child but the text is pretty explicit. They might try to get around it by saying that that passage was for the Jew  but then why the distinction from the Proverbs that were written by the Jew for a Jewish society? Well, they may try to get around that by saying that there’s direct correlation to the Gentile believer in the proverbs as it speaks directly to our situation but then, I think they’re still mistaken with the Genre of the Proverbs.

The Proverbs are wisdom sayings, they’re not merely mandates. That means that they find application in time during specific situations, and those who employ them properly are in fact revealing wisdom in their usage.

So you’ll find proverbs but next to each other that are widely contradictory:

Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly

And yet they are not to be read as two commands, but as two wisdom passages that apply in different situations. Sometimes you have to answer a fool according to his folly; other times you don’t.

It is a categorical mistake to take the book of Proverbs as a list of commands when the Proverbs themselves don’t present themselves to be: they are, in contrast, the riddles employed by the wise, the young, the unlearned and the up and coming to become wiser (Prov 1). If they were a list of commends then the book would be generally teaching the futility of dealing with fools and, ultimately, you shouldn’t even bother. For example:

Proverbs 27:22 Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, his foolishness will not depart from him.

Indeed, with the Pearl Methodology, I can actually use passages like above to build a theology that makes the child out to be a fool who can be beaten to no avail, so why bother.

Decontextualization adds to the Pearl Methodology as they quote passages like Eph 6:4 as an example of teasing one’s children (pg 33) and creating a bully—but is that what Paul is saying? Why not look at the similar exhortation in Col 3:21 to see that perhaps something is going on with the discipline that isn’t making bullies but rather destroying the goal of the instruction? In context (Eph 6:9) and (Col 4:1) it seems to mean that the parental authority is to be properly used: avoiding unnecessary harshness, and unnecessary beatings, and unnecessary demands, and unnecessary restrictions—all which the Pearl’s employ under the ridiculous category of training.

Pages 67-68 relates a story of Deb Pearl babysitting (on the condition that they have full liberty to discipline and train). A fifteen month old was grumpy and, according to the Pearl’s, was “highly overindulged and showed it”. Deb had all the children on the table for a snack and the little boy wouldn’t take the food, throwing it to the floor. Deb Pearl, picked him up and put him in a chair and put a roller skate upside down and spun a wheel saying “See, turn the wheels.” And the boy said no. She repeated it. He said no. She got the switch (“twelve inches long and about the diameter of a small noodle”) and playfully said “Turn the wheels”. Again defiance. So she, knowing “he fully understood it to be a command”, repeated the command and upon his disobedience, she “switched his leg”.

After ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheels, he did what every human being must do—he humbled himself before the highest authority and admitted that his interests are not paramount.

Later, Deb saw he was turning the wheels on the roller skate and laughing with the other children without the surly attitude.

The “rod” had lived up to its Biblical promise.

The Scriptures are much more nuanced. Sometimes chastisement is brought in the form of a parable, sometimes it is brought in the form of a lie, sometimes in the form of a beating, at other times in the form of persecution, at other times in the form of disease, at other times in the form of embarrassing blessing of another. Extremely nuanced and wisely applied to a situation that mandates chastisement. The Pearl’s method, on the other hand, is abusive folly which needlessly provokes children, using Scriptures as a club to justify their method and sometimes stumbling across correct statements while actually destroying what Scripture teaches.

The Error of Their Theology
Theology has some real practical ramifications. Some theologies have no effect on someone’s practice—a person believes it and goes merrily on their way doing what they normally do. There are not many theologies like that, but there’s some.  Most theologies though have some practical ramifications. One can have a field day just exploring how off the Pearl’s theology is, but I will only limit my comments to a few of them.

Humanity and Sin: If you have a theology of what being human necessarily entails you will most likely act on that theology carrying out your humanity. If you have a theology of what sin necessarily entails you most likely will act on that theology trying to spurn (or embrace) sin.

The Pearl’s circle of sin has a lot of overlap into what it is to be human. That means that there are certain things that are fine for human beings but are the groundwork for sinful desires—therefore they must be tightened before that stage.

Scriptures teach that sin is much more pervasive but yet much less capable of being purged. We do good, yes (Acts 10), and good that is praised by God—but there is no good that attains to the glory and perfection of God (Romans 3). Ultimately everyone falls short. It’s not that our good is sin, not at all; it is that our good is done apart from God for the glory of self (Rom 1, 2) in rebellion against God. So also our evil. We are altogether acting in opposition to God.

The Pearls, believing that our desires and nature are the groundwork for sin to blossom in, seek to till our desires and nature until it can (somehow) refuse to go down that sinful path. But Paul already illustrated to types of sinners: those who fly down the road of depravity exulting in their autonomy, and those who are morally upright standing on the side of God but in just as bad a rebellion.

This means that, sorry Pearls, (1) children are under the system of Sin if they had those desires or not and (2) they know it, even if only peripherally (Romans 1). Sure, these children are still dependant on the grace of God, whether they make evil after evil decisions or good after good decisions.

Grace and Mercy: The Pearl’s seem to have some concept of grace. They have examples of a Michael who snipped a string of connection his son and how he went back to retie that string of connectivity—it was a beautiful example. But any real teaching on mercy and grace seems to be extremely foreign to their methodology, which is strange since they purport to be Biblical and in light of the Gospel, we’re not to be lights of Law but Lights that reflect Christ by whom came grace upon grace and truth upon truth. There’s a profound richness to that which they don’t even touch on as they rear children to obey, submit to the greater authority, bring to bear God’s divine moral law, etc.

Of course, they deny this by saying their method teaches grace.

The end a Christian has in view for his children is not simply submission to the rule of law, but that the child should understand the grace of God. Only through the naked “sword’ of the law are we pressed into an understanding of grace. The law is “our schoolmaster to bring us until Christ” (Gal 3:24). God could not show Himself on Mount Calvary until He first showed Himself on Mount Sinai.

By strictly enforcing the rules of the household through legislation, accountability, and punishment, you not only teach your children to fear and respect the Lawgiver, but you create opportunities to demonstrate grace. What a sacred and wonderful responsibility! (p 54)

But one is hard pressed to see how. The parent must remain consistent in the Pearl method (p 122), not being consistent might result in a hell-bound child, this is the God given responsibility of the parent. Indeed, their training sessions are so necessary under the Pearl’s Law that I don’t think they can make room for mercy or grace. The Pearls don’t help us out by explaining how they are revealing mercy and grace beyond the fact that the parent is teaching the weightiness of Law. But, when Galatians 3 is seen in context, the Law being a schoolmaster is actually teaching those under it that they can’t survive under that system, that they need God’s grace, that they need Christ to do anything. That would mean that the parent’s role is not really pointing out to grace at all but breaking down the child so they see the hopelessness of their situation which would be a real strange interpretation of teaching the child the way he should go (ie: away from mom and dad who are complete unmerciful and ungracious!).

Age of Accountability: I think it’s possible that there is an age of accountability. For example, maybe Bathsheba’s son goes to heaven (2 Samuel 12:21-23); God had concern for the innocents of Ninevah (Jonah 4:11); Christ made provision for sin for the world so that He can act on their behalf (1 John 2:2)ensuring that Christ is the only way (John 14:6). Because I believe the God of heaven will do what is right, I think he does save babies who die. But, I deny that kids are born in a situation where they are not under the banner of sin (Psalm 51:5). I might not have a comprehensive system of depravity as some Christians, but it seems to me that there are enough questions there that I can’t really formulate a rite that I must do (beat my kids) to ensure a favorable result (so that they can be saved from hell) when they reach their moment of accountability (their personal tree of knowledge of good and evil). In other words, I don’t know how someone can base so much on this concept.

Vocation and Authority: I’ll said some of this up in the Scripture usage portion, but the Pearl’s big emphasis on Parental Authority seems to be a real confusion of their vocation. They are called to be parents and that entails everything that comes with parenthood and the raising of persons—they are not called to be dog trainers, nor are they called to be soldier trainers. They have to exhibit God’s grace and mercy and righteousness in the home and over the children’s lives as benevolent rulers; not as tyrants who have no consideration for the persons under them save their vision of them. Examine passages like Ephesians 6, Col 3, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 8-10, Romans 13, 1 Cor 13: the love of God is free to act in any given situation but is bound in the betterment of another. Paul sees the connection of authority and the home so tightly that he makes ruling of the home well a requirement for elders who will rule the assembly well. It’s a tight connection that has real implications on how one functions in both those areas.

The Error of Their Teaching
There are some good things in their teaching. The fact that a child needs to be chastised for wrongdoing; that children should be trained in what is right and wrong; that this is a responsibility given by God towards the parents; that it is a serious charge. Even some of the practical counsel they give is very helpful: not spanking in anger; having a goal with chastisement; tying strings that unify the bond between parents and children; sharing in activities. These are all good things—but they are so covered by the rest of the stuff that the Pearl’s teach that it isn’t worth trying to glean these few things.

First: The Pearls essentially offer a one-size-fits-all model without consideration of the broad range of characteristics and temperate nature of children. Some children respond with a spanking; others won’t respond after any amounts of spankings and in these cases the Pearl method can be fatal. Some children respond to a time out, others only respond if you take things away. This isn’t surprising. We’re human. We all act differently and respond to different criteria of pain and rebuke. This is possibly why God himself doesn’t chastise his children with all the same types of punishment. The children of Israel rebelled in Numbers 11 and they were punished with fire and with food—something they didn’t’ want and something they wanted. That sort of thing happens throughout Scripture.

Second: The Pearls confuse “The Rod” for a literal device/tool to be used for spanking when Scripture uses the picture of the rod to speak of punishment but not of only physical punishment. The Proverb states (Proverbs 26:3) that a whip for the donkey and the rod for the fool but is it suggesting that people should go around beating up atheists (Psalm 53:1)? Indeed, Paul tells the Corinthians that he would rather they respond to his letter than him coming with the rod (1 Corinthians 4:21). He pits the rod in that portion against love and gentleness (1 Corinthians 4:21) meaning that he’s not coming to Corinth to physically beat them but to lay personal hefty words against the arrogant.

Third: By putting this onus on Parents as failing to do God’s mandated task, they have robbed parents of the joy of parenting and of the true God given vocation: being an example. Parents cease to be an example of the loving and merciful God but become the taskmaster of Law. The Pearl’s seem to know this because they then tell parents to make sure they don’t use their hands when spanking and only a tool. This way the Law is placed on the device and not the parent. I’m sorry: kids don’t know the difference.

Forth: The Pearls essentially make children an extension of what it is to be a grown up. Follow me for a second. Society says when you reach such and such a stage in a relationship you get married. Then they say before you reach such and such and age and this or that income you then have children. Our society then says that those children are taken care of by someone as long as they’re not a bother to the Parent. The Parent is a Parent now but that doesn’t mean they have to suffer with all the stuff that comes with raising a human being. The Pearl’s do the same thing. You’ve reached a certain stage that God decides to entrust you with children. Now that you have them you have to keep them in check and break their wills so that they ultimately aren’t an embarrassment in public or a nuisance in private. Oh they surely won’t say this—but they make repeated statements taunting the parents who have unruly children in public.

Fifth: The Pearl’s present material not only boastfully, but as if it was obvious, a catastrophic combination to new (and old) parents. This is strange since they seem to have no degrees, no credentials beyond that of being parents and no fame beyond having self-published books. And yet, they sit in a position of judgment against fellow believers with such confidence that these believers capitulate to their will. I said earlier that the capitulation is understandable. Parents are deathly afraid of doing something wrong. The Pearl’s speak to this fear and say “You are doing something wrong; this is how to do it right.”

Sixth: The teaching is a patently dangerous. The method that the Pearl’s prescribe is not only excessive, it is done without emotion, without a conscience, and sheer cerebral resolve. This allows for people to be abusive because they consider themselves not being abusive because they’re not doing it in anger. This is not only wrong, it’s evil. The parent calmly and consistently continues to strike the child, who doesn’t seem to capitulate, until the child’s will breaks: that’s the rule. And then the news reports parents who have beaten their child nearly to death and everyone is surprised because they’re so calm, nice and respectful. The Pearl’s weapon is fully loaded and pointed at the children of those parents.

Seventh: The teaching is ultimately raising sub-humans. The Pearls rightfully acknowledge that humans have the inborn desire to run without authority but then they take that to mean that it must be purged out of the child’s system so that they can submit to authority immediately and without question. That’s absurd. Paul would have us submit to authorities but knowing why those authorities have been established (Rom 12). Peter and John knew which authorities were established but, when need be, they obeyed God over men (Acts 5). Peter says that the submitting to authority is for proving a point to those authorities—not merely because they’re in power. (1 Peter 2)

Closing Thoughts: The Non-Simplicity of Solutions
In conclusion, the Pearl’s have not only fallen into the trap that so many Parent Preachers have fallen into before them by making a law of their own practice that others must follow; they have endorsed a system that is categorically confused, lacking the mercy and grace of God, endorses abuse as long as it is done without anger, and ultimately gives a poor reflection of the nature of God.

The Pearl’s theology is confused, naïve, lacking in mercy, and results in a strange and poisonous mixture. They have some good things in their books and writings but those things are so obscured by filth and error that they are rendered not-good, but evil. One wouldn’t drink a glass of water if it had cyanide and poo mixed in, why drink in writings that might have some nuggets of truth but are mostly crap and poison?

Honestly, reading and writing all of this was a strain on my emotion since I wanted to remain objective but at this point, at my concluding thoughts, I’d like to say—quite frankly—that what the Pearl’s have done is evil and their repeated proud proclamations that they are correct (even in the face of reported abusers who have ably, rationally, carried out the Pearl doctrine) reflects a heart and mind darkened with error. That’s harsh. Purposefully so. I think their pride is getting in the way of questions they should be asking themselves.

For instance, if they started with Christological questions, maybe they would fix some of their stances. For instance, if they were asked if Christ needed these types of training sessions up front before he reached a certain age: if they answer “no” then why not? If they answer “yes” then the question about the uniqueness of Christ has to come up. They might think it’s strange to ask a Christological question, but the reason I would is to expose what they think is actually going on with God-given-desires.

They also need to ask some serious questions about the image of God and what it entails in a human person. How (and why) does Paul think that the condemnation on sinners is both obvious and personal—not something obscured that ultimately depends on their parents’ proper teaching?

I think that a lot of parents are so afraid of having problem kids that they invest in just about anything—and honestly, abuse  mostly works. Kids with certain types of personalities might just burrow deeper into their core; other children might just find a devious way to express themselves (not acting up around mom and dad); and yet other children might just die at the hands of their parents. Surely, this isn’t the only way that children will react but people who abuse their children will usually get results: kids who listen to their every whim.

May I take a moment and speak seriously to my Christian brothers and sisters?

Use discernment. If you’re reading this stuff and some of it makes you cringe, then there’s something wrong. If you agree with this stuff, why do you agree? I challenged some things in this very post (ie: the reading of wisdom literature, theological presuppositions, the role of the parent)…if those challenges are valid, why do you embrace these things?

Think about your vocation. Are you rearing people to be afraid of Law? Are you training them to not bother in public? Are you training persons in the way they should go—not just because it’s your way? Really think about that. You’re not raising someone to be Paul, or Peter, or you; you’re raising someone to be the type of person that can be a Paul, or a Peter or a you. The Pearl method pigeonholes persons into a specific slot—but Scripture’s lessons are broad in their pointing to the Lord.

***

I’ve cited quite a bit of the Pearl book already. If you wish to do further research here’s a listing of articles and Biblical passages —this is not exhaustive, so don’t take it as such. There’s no easy passage that tells you how to be a parent. There’s a passage that tells us to be imitators of Christ and that speaks volumes over what the Pearls are suggesting.

Limited list of Biblical Passages for further examination:

• Dt. 21:18—22 Regulation of chastisement handed over to Elders for stoning
• Jb 5:17 Happy is the man who God reproves
• Jb 36:10 He opens their ear to instruction and commands that they return from evil
• Psalm 89:32 I will punish their sin with the rod
• Psa. 94:12  Blessed be the man the Lord chastens
• Proverbs 1 with the purpose of the Psalms
• Proverbs 5:12-23; 6:23, 24 Discipline needed for keeping from sexual sin
• Proverbs 6:23 Discipline for the way of life
• Proverbs 14:7 Leave the presence of a fool or you will not discern knowledge
• Proverbs 17:10 A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more than 1000 lashes
• Proverbs 19:10 It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury; nor a slave to rule over princes
• Proverbs 27:22 Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him
• Proverbs 29:19 A servant cannot be corrected by mere words;  though he understands, he will not respond.
• Proverbs 30:32 “If you have played the fool and exalted yourself, or if you have planned evil, clap your hand over your mouth!
• Proverbs 3:11 Do not despise the discipline of the Lord
• Proverbs 12:1  whoever loves discipline loves knowledge
• Proverbs 22:6: Train a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it.
• Proverbs 20:11 A child is known by his actions
• Proverbs 22:15 Folly is in the heart of the child but the rod will drive it from him.
• Proverbs 10:13 Wisdom on the lips of the discerning; the rod on the back of those who lack judgment
• Proverbs 14:3 A fool’s talk brings the rod to his back
• Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod spoils the child
• Proverbs 22:8 He who sows wickedness reaps trouble, and the rod of his fury will be destroyed
• Proverbs 23:13 Do not withhold discipline; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
• Proverbs 23:14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
• Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a halter for a donkey, and a rod for the back of fools!
• Proverbs 29:15 The rod of correction imparts wisdom; but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.
• Proverbs 29:17 Correct your son and he will comfort your soul
• Proverbs 17:26 It is not good to punish an innocent man or to flog officials for their integrity
• Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly
• Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly
• Mt 5:17 – 48 Self Discipline as stated by Christ
• Rom 8:1 – 8 Law of Spirit in Life in Christ Jesus
• Rom 12:2 via the renewing of the mind
• Romans 12 Rulers established to chastise
• Romans 13 Love to be our ruling example
• Romans 14-15: the Law of Liberty
• Heb 12:4-9 Disciplining of God’s Sons just as our earthly Fathers
• 1 Corinthians 4:21 Shall I come with the rod or the spirit of gentleness
• 1 Corinthians 8-10: Liberty subjected for Love’s sake
• 2 Corinthians 10:5-7 demolishing arguments and punishing disobedience until your obedience is complete.
• 2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture for correction and reproof
• Eph 6:1-6
• Col 3:21-4:2
• 1 Peter 2:13-15 Governors established to punish those who do wrong.
• Rev 3:19 Those whom I love I rebuke

Things To Read:

• Blog Post
• News story
• An Examination
• CBS Examines
• Chicago News
• TulipGirl has an EXTENSIVE list over here.

Technorati Tags: child-rearing, deb pearl, michael pearl, no greater joy, the pearls, to train up a child, training

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

So the questions were raised. Is lying always wrong? Are we obligated to always tell the truth? What about fiction? What is lying anyway? Is there fiction in eternity?

Scripture makes some hefty statements against lying: demarcating Satan as the Father of lies (John 8:44); one shouldn’t bear false witness (Ex 20:16); God is the God of truth (Heb 6:17-18); no lie is of truth (1 John 2:21); a prophet that lies about God is to die (Deut 13:1-18); God hates a lying tongue (Prov 6:17, 12:22, 19:5); Paul demands truth speaking among the local assembly (Eph 4:25); the deceitful are marked out as the wicked (Rev 21:27).

Well, then is lying always wrong? We see some situations in Scripture where lying plays a favorable role in the story: like Exodus 1:15-21 where the Jewish midwives lied to Pharaoh (or if you’re generous, told a half-truth); where Rahab deceives her countrymen by hiding the Jewish spies (Joh 2:3-6, James 2:25); Jael’s deception of Sisera so as to kill him (Judges 4:18-21; 5:24-27); David pretending he’s insane (1 Sam 21:13); Jesus acts as if he intends to go further engendering a response (Luke 24:28); Jesus’ ministry is full of parables; Jesus telling his brothers that he is not going to this feast because his time hasn’t arrived (John 7:8); God sends a powerful delusion against those who reject the truth (2 Thes 2:11); God tells Joshua a battle plan that consists of deceiving the army of Ai (Josh 8:3-8); God sends a lying spirit against Ahab (1 Kings 22:19-23).

Are we obligated to always tell the truth? When examining a situation we have to wonder if this is one of those tragic moral choices that is part of a world enveloped in Sin, another example being Christians hiding Jews in Nazi Germany. Are they obligated to tell the truth because they’re told to not-lie or are they obligated to lie so that People aren’t murdered? Either way, it’s tragic, right?

Well, I don’t know. In Rahab’s situation the deception doesn’t seem to be wrong; it seems that in that situation the wrong thing was actually standing up against God’s army. Even in the situation with Ahab, it looks like the man was already rejecting God’s truth so that when the prophet comes he truthfully tells Ahab that his prophets have been lying to him—which Ahab rejects and believes his prophets anyway. Indeed, in 2 Thessalonians the people to whom God sends the great deception are the people who don’t have a love of the truth in them.

So it would seem to me that the truth isn’t always necessarily an obligation if what’s going on is a rejection of a fundamental truth. So if people are rejecting the life of another (like in the case of genocide) they have appropriated a world view that is actually a lie; feeding that view with the truth (yes, Jews are in the house) is harmful to the truth, the Jews in the house, and the people doing the killing.

Is telling a story necessarily lying? Nathan employed a story, probably not true, to teach David a lesson which David was ignoring (as a King) but could be easily seen as a shepherd (2 Samuel 12). He had appropriated another man’s wife—an obvious evil—but only saw it when he heard the story of a shepherd appropriating another shepherd’s single sheep. The point of the story was to underscore truth even if the story wasn’t true.

Some folk like to say that the parables Jesus told were all factual stories but I don’t know why they should be. If he had a point in telling a parable then the story wouldn’t have to be true (something that I think the audience would be cognizant of since the Disciples asked why he spoke to them in parables—Matt 13:10) it would just have to convey the truth. Interestingly enough, Christ’s response for giving them the parables (Matt 13:13) was to obscure understanding.

So what is lying anyway? If we have all of these qualifications throughout Scripture then, some might assume, it can’t do much good to have statements that stand in opposition to lying. Plus, considering Gervais’ movie, not-lying covers a wide area. Gervais had posters with a bottle of Coke that read “We’re famous”. I imagine this world would also have people signing letters only with their names instead of “Sincerely Yours”. Websters says that a lie it is an untrue statement with the intent of causing deception. I’d up that by adding “harm”. So lying on one’s taxes is an untrue action which steals from the government. Lying to a Nazi is actually doing good! I’d have to think about how to formulate that better since lying for matters of self-preservation (ie: David acting insane) seems okay but might be evil (ie: Judas or Peter).

So, is there fiction in eternity? I don’t know but I can’t see why not when examining fiction alone. Of course people might just be too busy for fiction in general so there’s no way to substantiate that, but I can’t imagine a reason why having fiction in eternity would be deemed an evil thing. And honestly, there’s fiction in the Bible which I think will still be around in eternity so there should be some, at least.

Technorati Tags: lying, truth

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Progressive Dispensationalism
If there is a category 1 offender, it is this one. When people hear the term, in-and-outside Dispensational circles, they hear “This is a New Form of Dispensationalism that has progressed in a lot of its understanding”. In fact, some Covenantal Theologians on the popular level have made a point of hanging on to the terminology in their effort to prove Traditional Dispensationalism wrong.

But Progressive Dispensationalism is still very much Dispensationalist—the reason they use the term “Progressive” is to speak about how their view of the dispensations (most count four) progress instead of having the crisp ending that some dispensationalists would underscore on their charts. The reason? The Covenants have some underlying connection that find their root in the promises to Abraham.

What’s funny about this is that most Dispensationalists say the same thing but have balked at some of the conclusions the PD’s have been making.

Indeed, academia was so upset with the terminology from Blaising and Bock that they started using Normative Dispensationalism and Traditional Dispensationalsm while fudging the detail that they were already a revised version of Scoffieldien Dispensationalism and that Darby Dispensationalism.

New Covenant Theology
Folk hear this and they tend to assume that this is a new version of Covenant Theology. Quickly, when Cocceius drew his conclusions defining Covenant Theology, he did not say that the Covenants in Scripture are the way history is divided (I say this because some have mistakningly thought that because Covenant Theology uses the word “covenant” that therefore Dispensationalists don’t use that term.): instead he saw a Covenant of Works (in the Garden) which resulted in the fall and a Covenant of Grace exemplified in each Covenant—including the Mosaic Covenant—for redemptive.

New  Covenant Theology, noting the redemptive language of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 33) draws a distinction in regards to the Mosaic Law. That, they might say, is part of the Covenant of Works—it is not redemptive; the New Covenant is. Sure, their underlying structure looks more like Covenant Theology but it’s not a new version of CT.

New Calvinism
This is used mostly on the popular level and honestly, I don’t know why. They’re just as Calvinistic as any Puritan, they emphasize the sovereignty of God just like any of them, they’re strict five-to-seven pointers with the best of them and yet, they try to differentiate themselves by wearing jeans, talking about how they interact with society and some of them using foul language. I guess Marc Driscoll tried to make some big difference but the stuff he’s talking about doesn’t affect the central tenants of Calvinism…so why use the label “New” at all? At least the labels up top made sense in their usage and wound up not being about advancing the system—but this one just ignores the system altogether and says something about the adherents.

Technorati Tags: semantics, terminology

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Frame thinks that the only possible reasons to send children to public schools are abject poverty and total inability to home-school.  Why? Well, this sounds pretty standard fare, the values the schools dictate are secular humanist, relativist, New age and so forth. In such an environment, also in light of after school activities, parents will have to spend a lot of time unteaching certain values and epistemological facts and it is doubtful if they can properly provide the Word saturated environment demanded by God.

Young children he thinks should definitely be in a home-school environment (at best) or have some of the responsibility delegated out to a Christian school (with the caveat that you will do some serious teaching and unteaching at home if need be).

They should be taught in such a way that they will be able to go to secular schools without being damaged, but rather salt and light in that situation. Indeed, more advanced levels of education fiels will require first-hand interaction with non-Christian approaches.

And

Students differ as to when they are ready for secular study, or for employment in “the world.” Some will be able to handle it in high school, others in college, still others not until graduate school. But one should not go to a non-Christian institution until he is well enough grounded in Scripture and the Reformed world-and-life view to discern what is true and false in non-Christian teaching. And he should not go to such  a school until his Christian characters is well formed, until he is able to say “no” to the temptations of non-Christian society.

The position sounds fairly standard until you see the undergirding thought.

John Frame is a: a Calvinist; philosophically he’s Van Tillian; he sees certain ethical values as being tied to the nature of a human, contingent to God, and solidified in covenant to God. For instance, when he looks at philosophy, he sees it as primarily concerned with three branches which, given the reality of God, have real interplay. So metaphysics (the intangible…minds, God, pain, etc) , epistemology (how we know what we know), and values (ethics) wind up changing drastically given the revelation of God. A Christian philosopher dealing in metaphysics automatically has some metaphysical facts (the existence of another mind who is God) which also ties into epistemology (God has revealed himself) which also ties into values (“Thus says the Lord”).

When  God explicitly tells Israel that they are to know God (He is One), they are to Love God (with all their being) and they are to obey God (his given commandments) he is not making an optional request, rather he makes a covenantal demand because they are bound to Him. This is why he would then say to impress these things on their children, in their talk, in their homes, in their walk—everywhere (Deut 6:4-9). This is something that would be required as a human created in the image of God (Genesis 1, 2) but since mankind is in active rebellion one finds education separated from all of this.

Frame doesn’t segregate the reality of God from education. This is primary for him. We (people) know what we know in the world (nature) and in our own situation (internal, conscience, identity) because God really exists and has spoken in word and action—to separate any part of this is to ignore the basis of education as rooted in God. The Christian knows this already because of the revelation of God and must ethically act on the basis of this information.

So whereas some homeschoolers decide to home-school to keep their children away from a certain environment, Frame does the same but because he sees Word-saturation as an ethical, existential and epistemological requirement.

Well, what about teachers in the public school environment? Surely there is some sort of redeeming qualities about them being there. He agrees and thinks they should be in there but he says that the way the institution is set up, in light of the governmental obligations, the Christian teacher can’t saturate that environment in the Word. He jokingly said that if he were given a chance to be a public school teacher he’d be a skeptic of everything—all philosophies, all positions, all epistemology—just so as to destroy the humanistic hope of knowledge or beliefs without God.  That’s pretty funny but man, it sounds awesome.

I think I’d like to see a treatment of his presuppositionalism explicitly tied to his view on education (pdf warning). I tied the purpose of education to personhood, and ultimately the imago dei, but in the end I balked from tying an ethical dimension to it via the reality of God. I’m not sure if I’m doing right by that or not, but it bears consideration

Technorati Tags: homeschooling

Bookmark It

Hide Sites