Man-Shaped God
A few months ago I found myself consumed with the determination of Spiritual Gifts. My guess is that every minister has been in that place at one time or another… looking for the perfect questionnaire; the perfect gift-list to prove that everyone’s got one. Administration, Teaching, Service, Giving, Hospitality, Shepherding, etc, etc. I was trying to fuse the gifts with the four personality types to find the correlation, and to help people understand how their dispositions can both fuel and obstruct their work for God.
But then in a moment of boredom I picked up Henry and Mel Blackaby’s book, "What’s So Spiritual About Your Gifts?" I have to confess, I didn’t even read a whole chapter, but my eyes did fall on a particular paragraph, that encouraged me to ask myself if the answers to my Spiritual Gift Questionnaire would have been any different before I was saved. I had to wonder. Was I dealing with a mere Christian regurgitation of a Career Assessment Exam? Was I ascending to the eternal truth of God, or chopping Him down to size?
When Karl Marx said “religion is an opiate for the people” he was absolutely right. An even better quote (although I don’t know the source) is, “God created man in His image, then man returned the favor.” Although Augustine implied (and Pascal echoed) that there exists within each our souls a God-shaped hole, we’re learning the hard way that you can’t fill a God-shaped hole with a man-shaped god.
Have you ever been taught a formula to relate to God? How about “Come to church every week, pray, read your Bible and give your ten percent, and God will take care of you”? Or this one: “Be a good, godly parent, and your kids will grow up to be courteous, successful and content.” Or else: “Just keep saying ‘God Bless America’ and our military will never be defeated (again.)”
Is God a vending machine? Is He a software program? We have all taken advantage of God’s faithfulness in the worst way. Just because He will never break His promises doesn’t mean He is a predictable God, racking His brain for ways to keep His children fat and happy.
I agree with the idea of the God-shaped hole. We humans recognize our emptiness, our neediness, and we have tried possessions, power, drugs, hobbies, romance, friendships, family, philosophy, fashion, food and on and on to finally feel fulfilled. But these things are not God-shaped. Ultimately, many of us find ourselves at the foot of the cross, surrendering everything to an infinite, mysterious, omniscient, compassionate, fearsome Spirit and discover that we are whole.
But soon we decide it’s too much work to live His presence all the time. We want the fulfillment, but the constant surrender gets annoying.
Have you ever wondered why Christians build grandiose churches, compose bombastic hymns, preach stirring sermons, and do anything necessary to gather large crowds of people? Is it the true handiwork of God? Maybe.
But for the most part, these are our divine imitations, our man-shaped gods. And if the world laughs at us like a 4-year old wearing his daddy’s shoes, it’s no wonder.
Labels: spirituality
Posted at 3:45 PM
View 45 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
45 Comments:
"Be imitators of Christ." Ephesians 5:1
Amen.
The only other thing i can say on this topic is that if we are not called to MAGNIFY Christ, which is to do our BEST to demonstrate His greatness, His otherness, His holiness in every aspect of our lives, and through every medium, then i want nothing to do with that religion. Just because God doesn't create "man-made" things, doesn't mean He didn't give us certain types of creativity to magnify Him. Our use of the different gifts He gives us IS a reflection of Him, however dim it may be.
A dim reflection is better than no reflection at all.
Many are tempted to place levels of priority on the ways we magnify God, but that's just simply ignorant. Caring for the poor cannot be neglected. Living in holistic community cannot be neglected. But these involve about 0% creativity. If creativity wasn't important to God, 1) He wouldn't have done it to begin with, and 2) He wouldn't have created expressive beings capable of using all available means to paint a picture of His greatness.
I pray that we, as a church, do not dismiss our creative calling as trivial at best, or sinful at worst.
I suppose I am most inclined to quote a verse that I know Beloved to be fond of:
"Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain."
I do not mean to trivialize or condemn the use of creativity to paint a picture of God. Those whose undertake such endeavors with a pure heart, truly seeking to magnify Christ and recognizing that they are empty vessels without Him, will succeed. What they produce will be a true picture of God, no matter how faint.
It is those who have abandoned the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit, in order to do their own will and invoke His blessings, who are worthy of the ridicule of the world.
Word. I feel ya on that. You need to listen to that third "Main Session" cd from Thirsty, b/c Andy Stanley talks about that issue in depth. There were points during that message that i really felt conflicted with the thrust of McManus' message. But again, Stanley was directing the message at those who have tried to replace true faith in the centrality and supremacy of God with their own methods and means. I look forward to your response after listening to that message. :)
I think you must be way smarter than me because I didn't understand this post. But I'm glad beloved "gets ya" because you'd be in trouble otherwise ;) How are you guys doing by the way? Church stuff moving along? You should use your blog to keep all of us in the know.
I doubt we're any smarter than you. Maybe we're just on the same wavelength from talking to each other so much.
What part was the most confusing to you? I have to admit that, although I like the point I was making, it's not the clearest writing I've ever done. But I'm sure you understood at least part of it.
To whittle it down, my central message is that, rather than striving to discover the true nature of God, we often create an imitation of Him to worship. Essentially, an idol. When your picture of God starts to look too much like man, and seems more concerned with our comfort than our character, then you have created a man-shaped god that bears little to no resemblence to the True God.
Hey Fisher,
Good to hear from you. It's been a while. To be honest, things are going pretty "steady", with one new individual who has been coming to our gatherings the last 3 weeks. That's about all the noteworthiness that's been happening. Ryan and i attended a Missouri Baptist church planting workshop a few weeks ago, which was interesting, though far from earth-shattering. We are currently in the process of exploring what the least evil is that we have to choose from, in regards to affiliating with a "covering body" of some sort.
Let's face it. We can't do much they way we are set up right now. House church tends to be exclusivistic by nature, though not necessarily by motive. We don't want merely a tight-knit core group (although all successful church plants start there and STAY there for a while, which i'm sure you can attest to). We want to branch out and provide ways for outsiders to "belong, then believe". And to be honest, we're not really ready to split into multiple house churches yet, nor will we be for some time. There's the whole issue of unity, being on the same page, and marching forward with a common vision that just debunks our original plans. But that's ok. That's why we're organic and fluid. If something doesn't work, pitch it, and try something else. No regrets.
Hope that gives you a little insight into the current phase of our journey. Please pray for us in the processes of figuring out the downtown property and the staff person issues. Currently, i don't find a lot of promise in the prospects of none of us being paid part-time, at the very least, if we want to open a "front porch" downtown. Only God knows how this will all turn out.
Thanks for staying in tune.
Grace.
Lest Fisher or any other reader of this blog think we're giving up on house church, I wanted to add to Beloved's latest comments.
Some house-churchers are against paid staff. Some are against using property outside the home. Some are against official leadership.
None of those characterizes us. If you never have paid staff, you'll never have anyone who can focus their lives on the building of the body (which includes building individuals and building groups.) If you never use outside property, you run the risk of becoming exclusivistic, as Beloved said. If you have no leadership you cannot endure. This last one is the only one I strongly disagree with. The other two represent honest differences that help to make us a wonderfully diverse Universal Church.
Although we still believe in house church, and in each believer participating in such a gathering as one's primary fellowship, we are opening up our options a bit, especially for the early stages.
We are not just trying to figure out the best way to do church for US. We are trying to reach a community with what, for many, is a whole new type of Christianity. It only looks new because the people we're reaching out to are so used to seeing disingenuous imitations of God and His Church. If we were just trying to build a happy little church for ourselves, then we've basically done it. But we are called to start a movement in downtown Springfield, and to do that, you have to have a lot of people on the same page.
So I think the current plan is to use a larger space whenever necessary to be able to invite more people to participate with us. We will still eat together, and emphasize interactivity and intimacy as we learn, worship, and fellowship.
But Father, help us not to abandon your plan for us as we make these adjustments. Don't allow us to get used to the convenience of a neutral space, and forget to open up our lives and our homes to people.
Amen.
But why do you say you "strongly disagree" with the idea that without leadership, the Church will not endure? Do you disagree with it on a theological level, or on a realistic level? Theologically speaking, God could do whatever He wanted with His Church, however He wanted, without "our help". But this is all based upon whether He chooses to do it a certain way. If we believe His word (all of it, not just parts of it), we have to believe that leadership is God-ordained. It has been throughout history, and the Church of Jesus Christ is no exception.
Now maybe you take exception to "strong" leadership, which is open to interpretation. Most people who are opposed to leadership (at least the sane ones), are actually opposed to the abuse of leadership. But since God has called people throughout history to shepherd His people, including apostles and pastors, we don't have the option of concluding that He no longer chooses to use leaders (regardless of whether He "needs" to).
I have misstated myself, and I apologize. I meant that I strongly disagree with those churches who shun all forms of human leadership.
Christ is the head. If He is not, that's got to be 1st priority... putting Him back where He belongs. After that, we can see clearly that He ordains apostles and administrators and prophets and teachers and elders and deacons, etc, etc. Although we are all equal, we must accept that God's will for some people is to lead, and for others it is to follow. However, those who lead should be aware that we are to lead through service, and that we are held to a much tougher standard. We should consider ourselves blessed and challenged, but never privileged.
Thanks for the clarification... i was wondering for a minute whether you'd undergone some sort of personal Reformation. ;-)
ok, I get your post now, thanks for clarifying.
thanks for the update :) I enjoy hearing what other plowers and planters are up to. it sounds like the Spirit is nudging and poking and prodding you along and getting you on His path and His timeline...I know that experience all too well...we're going through it now. Enjoy the journey brothers :)
I like your approach. I think it's clear that there were leaders in the early church. Timothy, Titus and James. It's also clear that they met in every house. I've struggled alot with spiritual gift tests. I've wondered myself what my presalvation spriritual gifts test would look like. My assumption is that it would be identical. I've taken many personality and strength finder surveys. They all say the same thing. Wild thing is that they're shockingly similar to spiritual gift tests. I always have the outspoken, hang loose, make friends, love 'em and leave 'em strengths/gifts/personality quirks. I'm a fun guy to hang around apparently, but not someone who would go out of his way to have a meaningful conversation with you.
Maybe that's why every spiritual gift test says I have no compassion or mercy or hospitality, but I always tend to have shepherding. I always thought shepherding was about compassion, mercy and hospitality. Maybe I'm just messed up. Who knows
I said all that to say, "Right on." Keep searching for the answers. The truth is out there. He is waiting for us to rediscover Him.
I like the idea of meeting in houses separately and coming together corporately various times throughout the year. A big monthly meeting could accomplish that.
My question is what does children's ministry look like in a home church?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thanks for elaborating on the spiritual gifts, JK. I was using the issue merely as a springboard, and I think I left a few people wondering what I was getting at. But you have nailed it for me.
I think as soon as you use the words "Children's Ministry" you are asking the wrong question. Maybe not... but I know that when I think of Children's Ministry, I automatically think of kids being (entertained) separate from the adults. Just keep 'em happy and keep 'em out of the way, and you've got a great ministry. Oh, and throw in some Bible stories.
In our house church, we recognize that sometimes kids just get too distracting or fussy to be around the adults. And sometimes the answer is a video, or some other form of entertainment. But for the most part, we keep the kids around. They eat with us, sing with us (our kids are all too little to really sing... but they love percussion) and contribute to the fellowship by keeping us from taking ourselves too seriously. The hard thing is unlearning the "right" we thought we had to experience God in a totally predictable environment, sans distractions. All throughout history, and in most parts of the world today, the kids are part of the gathering, and the adults see the distractions as part of life. It really contributes to the authenticity of the experience, if you ask me.
However, we do take turns handling the kids when they get to be too much, so their parents get some opportunities to be freed of their duties.
Oh, and may I ask how you found us,JK? And where are you from?
I've always struggled with the children's ministry model in churches today. I always wonder when kids start learning to own their faith. It's more of a parent's faith. I have two boys 7 and 4. My 7 year old likes to listen to my bible studies, but my 4 year old just wants to bounce off the walls.
I'm in the St. Louis area, but I might be moving to Springfield soon. I found your site with a google search for churches in St. Louis. I think I actually found a link on another site. I don't remember.
the Gifts are there, we have them, we are to seek after them, we are to discover ours and use them...the key is to remember what the gifts are for and where they come from.
RE: Children's ministry. I couldn't agree more. I totally believe that our society is so unfriendly toward children and our churches have embraced that attitude. I think it's sad. I also agree that most americans think they have some kind of "right" to an uninterrupted, selfish worship experience...equally sad. IMO, children should be welcome, included and involved in church. I've seen and read about some awesome ideas and models for doing that so it is being done, even in large settings.
I think the issue of children is more an issue of parenting than it is with the children themselves. If a child is trained to behave appropriately in small or large group gatherings, then he or she can be an instrumental part of the experience. If the child is unruly, then they take the spotlight for themselves and for their parents, and consequently, off of God.
Now, i've heard a couple of interpretations of the latter scenario by folks who are not of this opinion. They believe one of two things. Either 1) everyone is a "part of God" and therefore focusing on any human being is, in fact, focusing on God, or 2) because "Jesus loved the little children" and said "let them come to me", that that means focusing on them as God's precious creation is just as much worship as focusing on the Transcendent God via contemplation, imagination and reflection. The first is not a Christian view, while the second holds at least some Biblical merit.
To the first, i have nothing to say except that you and i cannot have unity, because the object of our faith differs. To the second, i both concur and digress. On the one hand, focusing on the beauty of God's creation, whether it be the awesome landscapes of earth and space or the magnificence of humanity, can be worship if that worship is reflected to God and does not end at creation. But this is merely one form or expression out of the countless modes of worship that demand our expression.
We cannot let creation alone drive our worship of the infinitely creative Creator. There is a time for everything under the sun... a time to be somber, a time to shout with joy, a time to tremble in fear, a time to rejoice in celebration, a time to love intimately, a time to love obediently... you get the picture.
There is a time to let children be on the mainstage, which our society and the Church too often neglect. But there must also be opportunity to sit in silence before God corporately (and individually) and to express reverence in solemness and sensitivity, and to focus on God's otherness without focusing on any other human being whatsoever, including oneself.
Now, i didn't speak to the first scenario, which was that children be an integral part of the entire corporate gathering without being disruptive. If parents, and the community of believers, teach their children how to behave appropriately in this context, then i am all for it. And to be honest, that's where things get tricky. Telling a parent that he or she needs to do something different with their disciplinary habits (i don't merely, or even primarily, mean punishment, although it is an integral part of discipline) is an incredibly personal and usually offensive task, even when done graciously.
Let's face it, any group with more than a few families will have unruly children. And sometimes it's the parents' fault, sometimes it isn't. It makes me very angry when people suggest that it always is, or that it never is.
So any philosophy regarding children in the church must take into account that there will be some easy kids, and some challenging kids, and that, even if the parents are to blame, the answer is not simply to try to fix the parents. Beloved alluded to that. We have to take what we get, and use it the best we can.
And of course, using the verse "let the little children come to me" is no excuse for allowing the kids to run the show. Jesus didn't say that during one of His moments of solitude on the mountainside, or during an intimate time with His disciples. He recognized that a well-rounded life of worship includes times of solemn focus as well as times of fellowship and activity.
I guess both of my responses here can be boiled down to... BALANCE.
Right on with that, brotha.
Actually, i didn't single the parents out completely. I said:
"If parents, and the community of believers, teach their children how to behave appropriately in this context, then i am all for it."
Now, i realize that some scenarios are beyond the control of parents and the rest of the community, and these situations require special attention (such as physically and/or mentally disabled children, children with disorders such as ADHD, etc.). I think this takes the "distraction" issue to a whole 'nother level. One of our members told a story about how blessed she was seeing a group of mentally disable individuals singing to God at the top of their lungs, off-key and the whole bit. To God, this was most assuredly AT LEAST as worshipful as Chris Tomlin's band playing in stride and singing in tune.
So the real issue doesn't stop at children. It stops at all individuals who make us less-than-comfortable, uneasy, annoyed, distracted. Homeless people who smell like a chicken barn... manic depressives who suck the life out of you at one point and blow up at you at another... rowdy, obnoxious kids... whoever. It takes special skills to work with "non-normal", "adult-like" people. And that's where i believe we need to focus.
Part of it is just sucking it up and learning to "deal with it". But if we want to be successful as ministers who are inclusive of the "undesirables" of ministry, we have to learn--some by experience, some by experts-- how to relate to and manage difficult people.
The second thing, going back to "gifts", is that certain people are more naturally gifted by God to care for difficult people than others. That doesn't give those of us who lack those gifts a license to ignore and avoid them, but it does require utilizing people who are gifted in those areas to lead the way in those efforts.
I would disagree slightly with the "punishment" comment - but then again, I'm pretty vocal about the fact that I disagree with much of traditional fundie ideas about discipline of children.
Children are children and they will act like children - no matter how well "trained" they are (reminds me of training a dog when people use that word). As coreman said, some children are just more compliant - lucky for the parents - and it's often not because of the parents.
I think we have a lot of kids in churches who can't successfully participate in "big church" because they are always wisked away to kiddie church. in Eastern Orthodoxy, the kids are there with everyone else and they are uncharacteristically well behaved - not because they're "special" but because they have had the chance to learn and experience and the parents have had to teach their children how to behave in that environment.
I also agree with beloved that this doesn't stop at kids. in american churches we're just bad at handling anyone who doesn't "behave".
Ditto... I was involved with a church recently who had only two rooms which were not part of the regular buidling... mobile out-buildings, if you will.
On their list of Sunday school classes, under "children" was listed "special needs children & adults... located in out-building"
Talk about a double-whammy! The Special Needs Adult Sunday School Class is listed under "children" and held outside! I tried to talk them into fixing this, but to no avail.
wow, that's horrible
Unbelievable. I don't know if i could be "involved" somewhere for very long that had that mindset (or should i say heart-set).
Makeesha, as to the point regarding discipline, we should at the very least agree on this: there are differing psychological/sociological camps on the topics of discipline and punishment. There are exceptions to just about every rule in the book. That's why we were given brains, so we could figure out when something doesn't apply. Whoops, there are even exceptions to this! (some people's brains do not allow them to engage in even simple reasoning)
To say that disciplining a child is ungodly, unbiblical, or even unsubstantiated by a majority of early-developmental research is either naive or intentionally ignorant. It's not like there's this one obscure verse in Proverbs that addresses the issue. It's woven throughout the entire Bible. "As a father disciplines his child, so God disciplines those He loves."
It might sound "inhumane" or "un-PC", but to say that people, especially children, are in no way affected by the interactions we have with them is the most bogus thing i've heard in my entire life (more bogus than evolution from apes). Everyone who knows anything at all about early childhood development knows that children's personalities and future behavioral traits are determined within the first 3 to 5 years of their lives. That's a cold, hard fact. No intelligent scholar disagrees with this fact.
If you want to apply this to the adolescent and adult world, the reason we have laws, rules and regulations is because without them, there would be complete chaos and nothing productive could be accomplished (not to mention that noone on the face of the planet would be safe). I would strongly doubt you are an anarchist. But those who view discipline as unnecessary seem to me that they are familial anarchists. "Let's just let the kids rule the house!" Baloney.
All that said, i wonder if you really believe what you seemed to be saying, or if we just have different definitions of discipline. Some people define the term "discipline" the same as "punishment". But as i said, discipline is more than punishment, and often does not require punishment. The better you are at providing structure, consistency, and assertiveness to your family (or organization, or society...) the less need you will have for punishment. However, there is a need for punishment in every family and every society, for reasons you cited: some people require a harsher "incentive" than others. This is neither unfair to them, nor is it a license for them to behave undecently. The more misbehaved a child is, the stricter you must be with him, and if necessary, the harsher and more frequent his punishment should be.
Now, to be honest, none of this matters an inkling if there isn't research to substantiate it. I can talk till i'm blue in the face about how necessary discipline and punishment are, but it doesn't matter unless i'm right. So the real question is, in the LONG run, what WORKS? I mean, once a child develops into an adult, what are the patterns of his/her life? Is he/she irresponsible or responsible? Is he/she organized or unorganized? Is he/she disciplined or undisciplined? Does he/she manage money well or not? Does he/she work hard at his/her job or not? Is he/she violent, addicted, rebellious toward authority, lazy, unhealthy?
See, feelings won't get you through life. You can feel however you want about something, but you can't do anything about it until you have the skills and wherewithal to do it. And that's really what this is. A difference between a "thinker" and a "feeler". I respect feelers, because i need them to remind me that people need to be CARED for, and that they are not means to ends. My wife is one of these. But my wife will be the first to tell you that feelers need thinkers too. We make a beautifully diverse team. :)
Peace.
I don't intend to derail the discussion of discipline, but another observation i find incredibly interesting is the Primacy-Recency Effect evidenced in the comments to Coreman's post. I caught myself responding to his last two paragraphs, though his entire previous commentary had a rather different tone. Perhaps this was because the last two paragraphs are the only two which created dissonance in me. Or perhaps it was because, as we learn in studying psychology, the first and last things we hear are what stick with us.
Anyway, i'm curious that this entire discussion has not touched heavily upon the notion of formulizing the Christian faith. Sure, we've talked about issues of structure vs. laxness, and about creativity and rules and methodology... But these can be discussed and debated without the assumption that we do them out of a desire to formulize our lives and churches, and i believe we have accomplished that.
Just a friendly observation. :)
beloved, I hope you listen more carefully than you read ;)
I never said children should not be disciplined. Discipline is instruction, teaching, guidance...children should begin receiving that from birth. Any parent who does not do this is not being responsible.
What I said is that I likely do not agree with your ideas about "punishment". Punitive parenting, esp. in the very early years is not something we practice. We teach, guide, direct, provide firm boundaries and allow natural consequences when appropriate but we avoid punishment. And I have a preschooler so I am able to see the fruits of our methodology...just to be clear that I'm not speaking from some pie in the sky emotional theoretical place.
And I especially abhor any form of physical discipline (spanking, swatting, whatever you want to call it) or anything that does not respect the personhood of the child (berating, yelling, forcing, manipulating). So that was essentially what I was saying...that I don't subscribe to traditional christian ideas about "discipline". Usually when I hear an Evangelical say "I had to discipline him" - it means "I hit him" - so I think even the core of our language about children from a Christian standpoint is skewed.
Gotcha. :)
I guess this is one of those instances where POV plays such a pivotal role in our beliefs and values. IME, i have never seen the "hands off" approach to punishment actually work (from childhood to adulthood). Time outs and taking away privileges work some of the time, for some things, but (again, IME) there are some cases that require more "incentive" than this.
But i'll offer one self-critical observation about this conclusion, which is related to the temperament/ personality of the caregiver (parent, whoever). I may be observing parents who utilize the hands off method, who are just passive or unconfident in general. In other words, it's possible that "hands off" done with consistency and assertiveness (notice, i didn't say aggressiveness) could prove fruitful. I've just never seen it happen that way.
So in this instance, the problem would not be with the method, but with the way the caregiver utilizes the method. On the flip side, i wonder if you might observe the same thing in your judgments on physical punishment. Maybe you've never seen it done with love, but only seen it done out of vengeance or frustration. Maybe you've seen it used as a crutch, not as a last resort for extreme circumstances. Maybe the only people you have seen utilize this approach have "done it wrong", similar to the way those who do hands off punishment "wrong".
From a positive perspective, i love my parents to death, and have a tremendous amount of respect for the means they used to shape me into a responsible, loving, godly man. One of those means was spanking, and occasionally with a belt. But they never beat me, "hit" me, or did it out of anger. I could literally see when they did it that "it hurt them more than it hurt me". That's because they actually talked to me about why what i did was wrong, and loved on me as often as possible.
I think the important practicalities of this issue lie in recognizing our own weaknesses as caregivers, so that we can be sure to keep ourselves from reacting impulsively to situations. In other words, maybe parents with a fiery temperament need more training on how to discipline their children and punish them in ways other than physically; and parents who are naturally passive or afraid of their children (or afraid of being PC or whatever) need training on how to use physical punishment appropriately. I don't know, just an idea.
Experience speaks volumes.
I've seen it done "the right way" and I know many loving parents who do spank but philisophically I cannot agree with violence against children no matter how it's done. You probably wouldn't allow a man to strike his wife if she did something "wrong" and yet we condone physical violence against children as if it were mandated by God.
Yes, passive permissive parenting is harmful but spankers can also be permissive. I don't like your wording "hands off". I know what you mean but it implies lazy parenting and we are certainly not lazy parents.
I totally disagree with the premise that some kids just need to be spanked. Trust me, I'm in a community of parents who are not spankers and have all different temperments of children *including my own spirited preschooler* and non punitive parenting works for all children and all parents as long as the parent is not being permissive.
I guess I know that people will still spank but what I'd like to see is for the church to stop preaching it as if it were God's way.
And for the record, whether or not you "benefited" from your parents' methodology does not validated it in my book. And hitting a child with a belt? I find that repulsive. I was spanked and I still have issues about it to this day - and my parents "did it right".
"In other words, maybe parents with a fiery temperament need more training on how to discipline their children and punish them in ways other than physically; and parents who are naturally passive or afraid of their children (or afraid of being PC or whatever) need training on how to use physical punishment appropriately. I don't know, just an idea."
I don't agree with this. Permissive parents actually tend to be the ones who "lash out" because they're not taught how to rightly and firmly guide their children and then they get to a breaking point.
I sincerely pray beloved that you do not strike with a belt that precious little one that God has given you. It breaks my heart to see how we treat children as Christians and justify it by profftexting a few verses in proverbs. Apparently the fruits of the Spirit and the greatest commandment do not apply to the way we treat our most precious ones.
Before this conversation goes any farther, I wanted to stick a few thoughts in. And I offer these not as a parent (because I'm not one) but as a communicator. And for the record... I haven't formed a conclusion on this issue. In fact, right now I'm feeling pretty neutral about it--a luxury of being as-of-yet childless.
1) I think there's a disconnect between Fisher and Beloved regarding the word "punitive." Fisher, are you sure that you don't practice punitive parenting at all? In other words, Do you not punish your children in any fashion? I don't believe we can associate "punitive" parenting with corporal punishment only. To me, you cannot have discipline without punishment of some kind.
2) I would like to know who placed physical punishment up on the "pedestal of evil." Is it really worse than verbal or psycological punishment? Our society is so keyed-up against physical abuse that doing anything to a child that hurts is classified as VIOLENCE. But is there any real reason to call it that?
When a physical therapist brings pain to your muscles in an attempt to restore them to usefulness, is that violence? When a nurse gives you a flu shot, is that violence? When a dentist drills deep into your gums... ok, bad example.
What I'm saying is, we should not be so quick to haul out the buzzwords in this debate. And we should be careful not to let the world talk us into believing that physical pain is necessarily the most scarring (and least effective) way to influence a child's behavior.
Are you suggesting that a physical therapist exerting pain on a muscle is the same thing as taking a hand or an instrument to a child's body to exert pain are the same thing? because honestly, if you are, we can't have this discussion in any productive fashion. I'm actually a bit disturbed by that comparison.
As for the "pedastal of evil" comment - I actually mentioned berating, yelling and other punitive measures in my first comment - I think those things are just as bad if not worse than an occasional spanking. We don't do any of it.
Logical consequences for a child who has logic (starts around age 7) are tools we use to teach but as of right now, no, we don't punish.
Violence: one definition is Abusive or unjust exercise of power. I believe when an adult exerts physical power over a child to inflict pain as a form of exerting an external force to change behavior (behaviorism, for the record, is better reserved for training dogs) it is violence. Spanking falls in line with that. It is an unjust exercise of power. I will agree that I'm using a bit of rhetoric to drive home a point but IMO, calling hitting a child a spanking and calling hitting your wife abuse is also rhetoric.
I also am a bit concerned about your comment about "the world". The world is not teaching me anything or telling me anything. We discipline according to the Word and the Spirit. This is not some new agy pop psychology babble that we are following. I would challenge anyone who thinks corporal punishment is the most effective tool to teach and guide a child's behavior. Even Dobson, who I do not agree with on early child rearing, thinks that spanking should be on the bottom of the list of ways to guide/teach your children and cautions that it be used sparingly if at all.
Let me remind you that I am not actually taking sides on spanking, here.
When I compare spanking to physical therapy, I am considering them both "pain with a purpose." That doesn't necessarily make it the right choice, but it's very different from what I would call violence, which can only come from selfish or sinful motives. You have to admit that there are plenty of parents out there who spank their children with the right motive, even if they are ultimately making the wrong choice. It would be very unfair to accuse them of "violence."
And even if the verse "spare the rod, spoil the child" (to paraphrase) does not refer specifically to corporal punishment, I think it at least refers to punishment in general. I am not convinced that discipline can be accomplished non-punitively.
But thank you for reminding me your views on yelling, berating, etc.
If there's anything Jesus did not touch on, as recorded in Scripture, it's issues of the family. He doesn't address marital or parental/child relationships a lick. I wouldn't go so far as to say He had no authority to, since He was never a "parent" in the human sense, but He certainly did not leave us an example to follow in either. Ironically, neither did Paul, who speaks the most on marital issues. However, the authority of both are the Holy Spirit (one because He is God, the other because God spoke through Him). So all we're left with from Jesus is "love one another".
Ok, i believe that, heart, mind and soul. Love is the answer. But this is where Coreman is bringing up the "worldly" definition of love vs. the Biblical definition. The world (aka, the humanist) says that love avoids negativity, telling the truth when it offends, using authority over others, inciting punishment, etc. These are all humanistic ideals. But God is not, and never has been, a humanist. He's not concerned with equality, to tell you the truth. He's concerned with whatever will bring Him glory. That includes death, violence, destruction, unfairness, the wielding of authority of some people over others, just to name a few "undesirables". God ordered the extermination of entire peoples, for the sake of His holiness. God killed individuals and masses of people Himself, for the sake of His glory. God punishes some human beings for the sake of humanity at large, and ultimately, for the sake of His holy name.
You should remind me that Jesus (the "new God" as the Gnostics labeled Him) instituted a new covenant, one based on love. But that does not mean that God's character has changed, as the Gnostics heretically preached in the days of the early Church. While we use the word "discipline" to refer to means other than punishment, the Bible uses it synonomously with punishment several times. The verse that says "God disiplines those He loves" is specifically referring to creating negative consequences (i.e. punishment) for those who rebel against Him.
So we can't buy the argument that punishment of all kinds is of the Devil. We also can't buy the argument that inflicting physical pain is always violence. Sometimes it is. In your example of hitting your spouse, that's a peculiar situation, for at least a couple of reasons. First, God has called the "two to become one". Second, a husband has no authority to punish his wife, or vice versa. Not that he has no authority whatsoever, but the Bible commands husbands not to be harsh with their wives, which would obviously include "punishment". This is not the role of the spouse. But it is the role of various others throughout society (e.g. employers, law enforcement, the judicial system, principals, teachers, coaches, pastors, parents, etc.).
And this brings up another point of concern for raising children w/o punishment of any kind. How cruel it would be to raise a child to be naive to punishment, when as soon as he/she leaves your custody (at school, in the community, at work) he/she will be faced with the harsh reality that inappropriate actions bring punitive consequences. Some people take this so far as to say that the best way to prepare a child for "the world" is to expose him/her to it all, so that it doesn't shock them. That's BS, and is not a parallel example at all.
All i can say is "good luck with your style". Check back with me in about 10 years or so and let me know how it's working. Parents who do not assume responsibility for the way their children "turn out" are pridefully fooling themselves. God calls parents to "sharpen their children as arrows so that they will hit the target when fired". I wish you the best, and will continue to seek God's guidance on how to raise my daughter to be a godly, respectful, ambitious, productive, loving woman. Hopefully the example i set through word and deed will be enough to keep her on the straight and narrow until she is out of our nest.
Peace.
I'd prefer we not try to drive a wedge on this subject. Makeesha has offspring and so does Beloved. They both care deeply for their children and I believe they are listening to His will for them. It may be interesting to try and compare the results after 10 years, but I don't believe it will be informative in any scientific way.
Let's remind ourselves that God gives authority to each parent to raise their children, knowing that many different methods will be chosen.
In other words... perhaps we should move on.
I just wish people would stop insinuating to me that we are somehow opposing God by choosing not to spank and by taking a stand against physical punishment, verbal lashings, etc. To make a blanket statement that spanking is ok and it's God's way is unwise - there are so many cases when that would be untrue...foster children, adopted children, a parent with anger issues, a parent with a history of abuse, children with developmental disabilities, mental retardation, etc.
My guess is, based on what little I know of Beloved, that he will make choices to the best of his knowledge for the long term benefit of his children and that 10 years from now, our children will likely all look like godly, loving children. This however, does not change my pov regarding this issue. Just because it doesn't damage some children, does not mean it's right for all.
I also did not say that all punishment is wrong. "punishment" as defined by most, is appropriate in many situations for the purpose of correction. What I do not subscribe to is the idea that it's effective for prelogic children (remember, I do have child development background and experience professionally) or that it's the best way to teach and guide in all cases and in all instances.
You guys might find it interesting to research some of the information provided by Christian professionals like Dr. William Sears and his wife, a pediatrician and RN respectively who also have 8 kids (or something like that) as well as other Christians who have gone against common evangelical thought regarding child rearing...if only so you can say that you have fully examined both sides and come to your own conclusion.
It might also interest you to know that common Christian "teachers" who promote spanking have been excommunicated from many denominations and their ideas rejected by the medical community because of their potential harm. Gary Ezzo and the Pearls to name a couple.
My general feeling is that you can effectively discipline without the use of physical pain - so why would you want to use physical pain if you don't have to?
coreman: I assume your comment above was meant for this discussion.
when you look at child development, logic does not develop until around age 7 and actually it's considered pre-logic. True mastery of logical thinking is more around age 13 (interesting that it coincides with bar mitzvah age in Jewish culture).
Infancy until age 7 lays the groundwork for simple means to end problem solving and cause and effect understanding. As long as a consequence is as natural as possible, it can be effective...but the more logical processing it requires, the more difficult it is for the child to understand.
but during the ages when most people spank, logic only extends so far as it relates to the immediate. For example, a toddler may touch the fireplace at home and get burned and not touch THAT fireplace for awhile but may later and when put near a different fireplace in a different environment, he will touch that fireplace because his logical processing only extends to the immediate. This is why logical type punishments on a very young child are rarely effective beyond instilling in the child fear. No internalization of discipline is possible. Long term teaching and gentle but firm guiding as well as instilling the values that drive behavior are much more productive long term approaches to discipline because once the external motivator is removed, the internal discipline isn't there to prevent the child from repeating the undesired behavior.
Spanking, verbal lashings, etc. actually stem out of behaviorist theory which is used to train animals and is only effective in the long term on some personality types. My youngest brother is a perfect example of what happens in the worst case scenerio of spanking that is totally ineffective in the long run.
The child hasn't learned anything but to fear the parent and reacts out of his/her temperment in response to that fear. sometimes it makes a child more complient, sometimes it makes a child more aggressive, it depends on the child's natural bent. when it makes a child more complient, the parent assumes the punishment "worked", when it makes a child more aggressive, the parent assumes he needs more punishment. both are equally errant.
I don't doubt that loving parents spank and do so as "correctly" as they know how. However, I challenge people like beloved to check where their emotions are and what they feel when they feel the need to spank - in everyone I've talked to, never do they feel compassion, kindness, gentleness, love, peace and patience. I would posit that not reacting out of anger when administering a spanking is impossible.
Wow. I guess i owe Makeesha an apology for concluding that she was anti-punishment of all types, when she was specifically referring to physical punishment. Having an age range where punishment is ultimately unproductive makes complete sense, and i couldn't agree more.
I also owe a couple of clarifications on my part. First of all, i have never spanked a child, and i would never dream of spanking a baby. Second, i definitely do not believe that spanking is the supreme form of punishment, that it's "God's way", or that it should be used regularly. I think i emphasized that at least once before.
I'd like to drop the "bad news" first, and end with the "good news", if i may. The only wrong i see in what Makeesha said in her last couple of comments was the assumption that it is impossible to spank out of love, and is only done out of anger. I can promise you, betting everything i own, that this is not true. It's just not.
On the positive side, what you've described regarding pre-logic children makes perfect sense. Now you're talking in a language i can understand. I apologize that i think very academically. I'm not very good at abstraction and "feeling-based" discussions. Your explanation in your last comment was very beneficial to me. It at least makes me curious to read up on pre-logic developmental theory, particularly from a Christian perspective.
The only thing i'm sure of is that misbehavior requires some sort of correction, and that good parents have to be open to trying something different if what they're doing isn't working. I completely agree (as my wife and i have had extensive discussion on this topic) that each child is very different, and that consequently our parenting style must be taylored to each child.
So, am i open to exploring new ways of disciplining my children for their maximum benefit? You bet i am. I want what's best for THEM, not just for me. I guess the reason i have been jaded over the "nice", PC techniques is that i've seen them turn kids into self-centered brats. According to my knowledge, children are the most self-centered beings on the planet from the moment they are born. So on a scale of self-centeredness from 1-10 (10 being the most), i would give new babies a "10". It stands to reason (to me at least) that the process of raising children is to bring them increasingly toward the other end of the continuum. The only way i know of doing that is by curbing a child's self-centeredness a little at a time, moreso as they get older. To me, that's one of the primary responsibilities of parents.
If physical punishment does not instill the best set of values in a child, at least at certain points in their development, then i would opt for the best method (if i knew how). If punishment is not effective at all until age 7 (which i am still entirely skeptical of), then that's something to be considered as well (but i'll have to see overwhelming research to support it).
HOWEVER, we have this in common: I am MUCH more an advocate of taking the time and effort to explain values and reasons to children rather than the "because i said so approach". But if children haven't yet acquired reasoning, then how do you appeal to anything other than emotional/ instinctive drives? I'm just confused on the internal consistency of this. But again, i am open to explanation. No, i really am interested in exploring these issues further.
Also, for the record, i have not found this conversation offensive, even though my parenting preferences were questioned (and basically condemned). I know most people would take offense at this, because they would take it as a personal slam, but i know the difference between someone slamming me and slamming what i think or do. It would do society a great deal of good if more people would open their parenting practices to scrutiny and advice of others. It's obvious that our society is presenting new and paramount challenges to parenthood, and to strong families in general, and i believe Christians need to unite and help each other work out the nuts and bolts of maintaining a healthy, God-honoring family. Thanks for endeavoring in this with us. :)
Thank you both for steering this conversation back into "productive-land."
:-)
I certainly am not slamming you and I'm glad you see that.
For the record, I don't really respond to an emotional approach either :) which is actually how I came to change my mind in this area.
I think it would benefit you to read some things by people who are against spanking but VERY MUCH in support of FIRM discipline. It would probably clear up some of the confusion about how to teach and guide without trying to reason with a prelogic child (which I agree is not something you should be engaging in...it's tiring)
Here ar some good resources.
Jane Nelson (over at positivediscipline.com)
William Sears (his discipline book is an excelent resource and he addresses spanking from a very balance perspective, he also is at askdrsears.com)
Crystal Lutton (who has a book called Biblical Parenting and her site is aolff.org)
Barbara Coloroso (my fav. of hers is Kids are Worth it)
This is a great site as well
http://joanneaz_2.tripod.com/positivedisciplineresourcecenter/
I want to make sure I am clear that teaching and then correction are KEY in raising children. What I posit is that it can and indeed should be done without inflicting physical or emotional pain and that the Church is in error in teaching that the "biblical" way to discipline is through the "rod".
Beloved - thank you for the lively and healthy discussion :)
oh I forgot to address one of your responses.
I am not suggesting that love isn't there as a motivator behind spanking. I've said several times that I believe most Christian parents are sincere in their beliefs and wanting to discipline their children in love.
What I'm suggesting is that correction needs to be immediate in order for the child to make the connection with the behavior and in that immediate moment, you as the parent are often frustrated and angry (trust me)...if you wait until you are no longer in that emotional place, as some people suggest, the spanking is not going to make any sense to the child even if it is explained to him...children's brains just don't work that way, it's commonly accepted child development (as explained above in my logic explanation)that if a child does x wrong but the "punishment" takes place later and is not related to x in any way (how does a stinging bottom relate in any way to mistreating a pet - or more confusing, how does a parent spanking correct the child hitting?) then it's not going to connect with the child. At best it won't do anything, at worst it will instill fear and confusion.
You suppose that you turned out the way you did because of the spankings you received. I would suggest that you turned out the way you did in spite of them. You have no way of knowing if it's the spankings that actually instilled in you the character and values you currently have and I would suggest that indeed that is not the case and that you as a parent, can instill those same character and values without using spanking.
The fear I have about spanking is that we as parents really don't know how negatively it could impact our relationship with our children or our children when they become adults. We don't know the ramifications until they get older, and then it's too late. Since I know for a fact I can raise children who are disciplined and not selfish brats without spanking, I would much rather do that than risk the possible ramifications of spanking.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cool. Thanks for the feedback. If i was competitive in nature, i would say "Darn it, you beat me." But my objective in dialogue is generally to come to the most honest, accurate conclusion as possible. I have a ways to go toward using dialogue as a means to merely build relationships, but i aspire to that.
See ya on "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
:)
:)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home