Ugh, it's <i>Christianity Today,</i> again--this time weighing in against spanking...

So they can publish an article by a woman detailing how she and her husband used In vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, then used the information to order the destruction of three "defective" embryos. They can sponsor a sex-obsessed women's blog. They can wring their hands about "overpopulation".

But if you dare spank a disobedient child all the wrath of Carol Stream and Wheaton will rain down upon you?

Oh my.

"Evangelicals are liberals."

Many of you will know that Wayne Grudem wrote a book entitled _Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?_ (Crossway, 2006). I commend the book to you, as Grudem does an excellent job of what my Marine Corps drill instructor used to call "kicking derrières and taking names." (Actually, my drill instructor didn't speak French; he used a more colorful Anglo-Saxon term).

The book has one glaring flaw, one so ludicrous and large that a charitable reader immediately begins to share Grudem's myopia, as if a man's face were fixated an inch from an endless vista of bark and he were to write a book entitled _Coarse Celluloid Fibers: Are We Near a Tree?_ The poor man might just as well be smack dab in the middle of the Great North American Forest and seem not to have a clue about his location.

Grudem's book is decisive evidence -- pages and pages and pages of it, with names and addresses pinned to the mooning derrières stretching unbroken to the horizon -- that evangelicalism in America at the beginning of the 21st Century IS Liberalism, the very same sort of Liberalism that began to overtake American Christendom at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Yet, two things are different this time: (1) the wolves in the pulpits are far better disguised in their wooly vestments than they were 100 years ago, and (2) the sheep are far, far more docile and tractable to their blandishments.

So, Grudem's book is a clarion call to rise up against the heretics in charge of the seminaries, publishing houses, mission boards, and evangelistic organizations, right? The title of his book is fairly dripping with sarcasm, right? _Evangelical Feminism_ is Grudem's version of Machen's _Christianity and Liberalism_, right?

Well, no.

Like complementarianism at its inception, Grudem's book stares deeply into that lupine face with its lolling tongue and bloody fang and breath reeking of sheep-carrion, and then says "Baaaaaaa."

Yes, Evangelicalism is going down the same path that the mainline churches went but I think you'll see far fewer people fleeing Evangelical churches than you have mainstream.

Confessional Protestants are the primary source of resistance. Rome likes to think of itself as unchanging but a perusal of much of what has issued forth fromt the Vatican shows they've embraced much of liberalism when we see talk of how people are saved while still embracing Mohammed and his God Who Is Not There. Their ecclesiology makes them more resistant to certain elements but when you have what is in practical terms Christless salvation that is just keeping the room neat while the walls collapse.

>>> and then says "Baaaaaaa."

I was with you until the last four words. With that "baaaa" is Grudem calling the wolf a sheep, or is it just a generic "baaaa" while face-to-face with a wolf?

The spanking issue is rather like husband's exerting headship over their wives. Some men's temperaments are such that they don't like doing either, so they welcome excuses not to. Other men's temperaments are such that they grossly overdo both, but they know it's wrong so they overdo it in secret and they aren't affected by the liberal social pressure. So the liberal social pressure ends up being worse than useless.

Having Shepherding a Child's Heart, the thing that I lacked a few years back was the instructive/proactive element, the element of thinking ahead: What ditches are the kids likely to fall into and what can we do to help them to succeed this time? Going ahead of them, preparing the way. This is not a substitute for discipline but I guess it is part of the "instruction" aspect.

One of Turansky and Miller's organization's core values though regards spanking:
"Spanking
Since this one issue can be easily misunderstood and taken to extremes, a Presenter must avoid the mentality that says that all parents must spank their kids. Furthermore, the Presenter cannot hold a position that spanking is evil. Rather, the Presenter must believe and be willing to teach that spanking may be one tool in the toolbox but it is not the only one. This balanced approach when it comes to the use of spanking is true to God's Word and will prevent a Presenter from engaging in extremes."
http://www.biblicalparenting.org/presenter.asp

"a Presenter must avoid the mentality that says that all parents must spank their kids."

Having four of my own, I can't imagine a faithful application of the rod that excluded spanking. I do think that Tedd Tripp must go too far when he calls all other methods "worldly" though -- leastways, God gave Miriam something remarkably like a 7-day timeout, and wasn't that the rod too? And God did a bunch of other things that were more corporal to Israel, besides instructing them with His Word. In light of that I don't see how we can rightly say that spanking is the *only* faithful use of the rod.

Good point, Mr. Meyer. If you start with the idea that a good father just talks and doesn't spank his kids, you end with the idea that a good God just talks and any pain his worshippers feel must come from some other source.

I have come to the conclusion that evangelicalism is a major departure from the Bible. They lag behind the liberals a little, and within a short time embrace the liberal agenda lock, stock and two smokin' barrels. Think of six day creation, feminism, the pro-pervert agenda, the pro-immorality of the youth, deleting politically incorrect terms from the Bible, acceptance of no-fault divorce, spanking, and so on. They are liberals, plain and simple.

"I have come to the conclusion that evangelicalism is a major departure from the Bible."

Wow.

"They lag behind the liberals a little, and within a short time embrace the liberal agenda lock, stock and two smokin' barrels."

At which point they give up being Evangelicals and, in many cases, Christians.

My point is that "Evangelical", regardless of the actions of those claiming that name for themselves, is a good word that needs to be preserved. The fact that most people don't even know what the word means is sad, but not an excuse to give it up.

The fact is that many good words have been given away to the enemy and we, as Christians. need to fight to preserve the few we have left.

Something I forgot in one of my last commment:

Sometimes we just need to take a page from the Inigo Montoya book of debating and say "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Letting people continue to use words to mean whatever they want is simply giving in to the post-modern thought that we decide the meaning of things rather than conforming our speech to the actual definitions of said words.

Dad, I'm thankful for the spankings you gave me.

Love,
Michal

BTW, Prof. Rasmusen and I have been searching for the Shaw quote, and although I've found one statement by Shaw that goes in the opposite direction, we can't find anything like what I quoted above. And I've looked for this quote before without finding it. So if one of our good readers finds something similar by Shaw, would you please let us know?

Meanwhile, this by Samuel Johnson isn't far off:

"The rod produces an effect which terminates in itself. A child is afraid of being whipped, and gets his task, and there's an end on't; whereas, by exciting emulation and comparisons of superiority, you lay the foundation of lasting mischief; you make brothers and sisters hate each other."

-Boswell, "Life of Johnson" (L. F. Powell's revision), vol. i, p. 46, as quoted in the "Oxford Dictionary of Quotations."

One of the last things I got to say to my mother while she was on earth was "thanks for the whuppings." Even through the morphine drip, she understood and smiled.

And yes, I meant it. I probably needed more.

It's gotten so bad that I prefer to identify myself as "Reformed Evangelical" or "Evangelical Reformed". The Word Evangelical has become such a big tent as to be mostly meaningless. I agree with those who are saying we should preserve (or reclaim) the word, but we need to not just keep the word but define it properly.

But never fear, things may be getting better.... I was listening to our local Christian radio station this morning (my first mistake of the day) and heard them promoting a nearby church that will be showing the movie "Courageous" this coming Saturday evening, as well as during all their Sunday morning services. I wonder what they will do about the Lord's Supper - maybe popcorn and pepsi?? Ugh!

This church is, of course, part of the big tent of evangelicalism.

Blessings,
Nancy

Mrs. Wilson,

I'm going to bring myself to actually do it...

LOL.

Wow. I feel hip too now!

Speaking of spanking and Christian radio, I've got a prescription to fix the problems in Evangelicalism at the end of this piece: http://clearnotechurch.com/blog/2012/jan/19/should-christians-get-vaccinated

My husband and I have received much opposition to the use of a "rod" when disciplining our children. One person sent me this link to defend her case against spanking: http://parentingfreedom.com/discipline/

There is a lot here to read, and probably a lot that can be commented upon, but what do you have to say about the use of the Hebrew word "na'ar" in the Proverbs verses? Is what they write accurate? If so, how can we be assured that when the Bible refers to "child" or "son" (in passages about using a rod) that it refers to our small children? 

Oops, they do mention Moses farther down in the article.

So, to sum up my earlier meager contribution, na'ar most certainly includes children as young as you please. In fact, that's probably a good explanation of why other words for the young are not used in Proverbs--those other words aren't needed because na'ar will do. And by the way there are references to using the rod on sons where the Hebrew says, "sons." Which would include 'em all.

But, moving on, I'd like, based on this discussion, to issue four words to the wise. More could be said better by others but I am me and this is what I got:

1. Do not set aside 3000-year old received wisdom for the sake of alternative definitions of words. Old Hebrews understood Hebrew better than the best Hebrew scholars of our day. And they trained their children, grandchildren, etc. My point is not to enshrine tradition but think about it: if archaeologists 1,000 years from now dug up a copy of my letters and a dictionary, they would not understand me better than my grandchildren. In the same way, the generations after Solomon and those immediately following the apostles understood what they said better than someone who found an article explaining various lexical possibilities. Coming up with alternative translations to contradict all generations of Christians is absurd.

I followed one link from the article to what was supposed to be evidence that Calvin and Edwards did not believe in spanking. What did I find? I found quotes that said those men...get ready...loved children. What!??! Well, obviously if they loved their children they could never have applied the rod! Not so fast--we've all heard a father or mother say, "I'm doing this because I love you." And, as a father, I can say I honestly meant it when I said it. My daughter (9) brought this up last night before bed (our family is reading through Proverbs at night). I can't remember the last time I had to use the rod on her, but she remembers that I did and that I loved and love her. And she loves me. And she understands the book of Proverbs now because I didn't tell her that she couldn't understand it until she got a good Hebrew lexicon. Or read an article by a Ph.D. 

2. We walk by faith and not by sight. If you are a parent who wants to wack your child with a club, you're doing it wrong. You love your child(ren). Most parents do. The Bible does not assume you are a wife-beating, child hating alcoholic madman (though the seeds of all kinds of these sins may be in you). Proverbs is written to people who are in God's covenant community who want to pass real wisdom on to their sons. That kind of parent needs the encouragement to love tough and do the unpleasant thing for the sake of encouraging the faith of his child. Many times when I took my children across my knee my heart cried out, "REALLY? Do you HAVE to do this, Andy?" And I had to believe the plain-as-the-nose-on-my-face reading of Proverbs and Hebrews to do what needed to be done. My children invariably received comfort afterwards from the same arm that brought the vicious hand to their backsides. Seriously. The Bible plainly says it. Generations of parents have done it. And it works.

3. The improper use of a thing does not negate its proper use. Yes, there is a problem with the improper use of the rod. The solution is to learn to use it properly. I cannot recommend highly enough the book Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp. Go buy it and go by it. He spells out the reasons why we discipline, the goals (not what spanking opponents think it is) and even offers a how-to section with the kind of nuts-n-bolts information that was just plain helpful to my wife and me. The goal is to teach the gospel to our kids--get them to make the connection that they are sinners, and to provide an opportunity to talk with them about their sins and the Savior, and to pray with and for them. The book helps alleviate some of the distress. But still, we walk by faith and not by sight.  

4. What does "rod" mean? Most certainly you should not use a club on an infant. Most certainly you are not to flay your teenager with a whip. I have seen things called "the rod" that are flexible rubber-ish tools that sting, don't break skin or bruise but hurt and make a loud noise. I respect those who've used 'em. But a hand is all you need (especially you fathers) at first. 

Don't be duped by the "sheep are delicate and no shepherd would use a rod on a sheep" argument. Obviously no shepherd would clobber his sheep as hard as he could--nobody wants a crippled sheep. But a good firm connection may be in order on occasion. 

Being raised on a dairy farm, I have seen animals clobbered with a kind of rod. But I have yet to see it do any permanent damage. Why? Cows are not people; the people administering the clobbering were not trying to hurt the cow but simply trying to correct the cow's course of direction in a way that got the cow's attention. And, in fact, if the cow had not been clobbered, she would invariable have suffered more later. The use of physical correction in no way implies physical (or psychological) damage to the recipient. If you use the rod he will not die--not because a rod isn't a good tough stick but because you aren't trying to kill him!