Voddie Baucham: Prescription for Spanking and the Shy Child

*     *     *

One of the traps that we got ourselves caught in was looking to religious leaders for guidance on how to raise our children.  It’s ok to seek guidance, but we didn’t always check what we learned with scripture.  We read a lot of books and went to parenting seminars/classes over the years:  Train Up A Child, Shepherding a Child’s Heart, Titus2.com, Ezzo’s Growing Kids God’s Way, etc.  We weren’t the only ones.  Some of these books/classes were trendy and many churches across the states would jump on the bandwagon.  During the mid 1990s, I spent time visiting homeschool forums online and I’d hear of new parenting books/programs popping up all over the country.    Next thing I knew, our own church was now promoting the program I had just read about online.

In general, we tried to adopt ideas that worked for our family and leave the other stuff behind. That seems like a balanced approach, but we still got ourselves in trouble and I have had to apologize to my kids for the way I treated them.

It’s interesting, but the Bible really doesn’t have a large amount of verses on child training, yet some of these Christian leaders were able to write meaty books on the subject or speak for hours on the subject,  showing us how to parent our children the “biblical” way.  Yet how much of what they write or speak about really is in the Bible?  It’s really more of their interpretation of the Bible and the application of it.   I don’t know about you, but none of my kids were born with an instruction manual and coming from a dysfunctional family, I wanted all the help I could get.

I now get red flags when I see big names being promoted as being the expert on a particular issue.  Voddie Baucham is one such pastor whose name is in the celebrity pastor limelight.  I don’t quite understand why people elevate certain pastors to the level of celebrity status.  It’s high time we start removing people from pedestals and acknowledge that God has given us parents the same ability to discern that He has given them.  They were not given a direct line to God any more than we have been given.

From Mr. Baucham’s “about” page at his church website:

Voddie Baucham wears many hats.  He is a husband, father, pastor, author, professor, conference speaker and church planter.  He currently serves as Pastor of Preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, TX.  He has served as an adjunct professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, TX, and Union University in Jackson, TN.  He has also lectured at Southern Seminary.

Baucham is a big proponent of homeschooling and his 8 children are educated at home.  He and his church also promote family-integrated church model, meaning families worship together and there is no age segregation for Sunday school classes, youth groups, etc.

In this article, we read about his involvement in the Homeschool Movement.  The Homeschool Movement is a subculture within the homeschooling community which subscribes to specific teachings and ideologies:  Courtship, Patriarchy, Purity/Modesty teachings, Quiverfull, etc.  He believes the Homeschool Movement has the ability to turn the tide in recapturing this current generation for Christ.  Here’s one quote:  “The one hopeful sign I see is that the home-schooling movement is thriving. If there is an answer, I believe that is it.” Along with his support of the Homeschool Movement, Google searches will show that he is a strong supporter of Courtship and Patriarchy.  He also does not think adult daughters should leave the home to go to college.

I’m not going to discuss those specific issues, but only bring them up to give a little background information.

What I do want to focus on is his parenting ideas, namely, spanking.    Listen to his words. Line up his words with what the Bible says on parenting and see for yourself if this man is speaking biblically or his own agenda.  Does the Bible say anything about shy children?  Does the Bible say anything about how many spanks a child needs each day?  Where does that come from?

*  *  *TRIGGER ALERT:  SPANKING *  *  *

The following was transcribed from the above video:

Voddie Baucham

November 4, 2007

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

SPANK OFTEN

Ephesians Chapter 6 Verses 1-4 I want to take you through three things, I want you to see three things, three phases in the training of our children. Phase number one is the discipline and correction phase. These are the first few years of life incredibly important. This is where we lay the foundation for everything else. The discipline and training phase. In this phase is where we are saying to our children “give me your attention, give me your attention.” “You need to pay more attention to ME than I do to YOU, give me your attention.” “The world doesn’t revolve around YOU, YOUR world revolves around ME.” That’s what we need to teach our children in those first few years of their life. Because they come here and just by nature of things they believe that the world revolves around them. And for the first few weeks that’s okay, but eventually we need to teach them that that’s over, that, “The world no longer revolves around YOU. YOUR world TODDLER, revolves around ME, around me.”

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child and the ROD of correction will drive it far from them. In other words God says your children desperately, desperately need to be spanked.

Amen, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord and spank your kids, okay? (laughter from audience)

And, they desperately need to be spanked and they need to be spanked often, they do. I meet people all the time ya’ know and they say, oh yeah, “There have only been maybe 4 or 5 times I’ve ever had to spank Junior.” “Really?” ‘That’s unfortunate, because unless you raised Jesus II, there were days when Junior needed to be spanked 5 times before breakfast.” If you only spanked your child 5 times, then that means almost every time they disobeyed you, you let it go.

Why do your toddlers throw fits? Because you’ve taught them that’s the way that they can control you. When instead you just need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out and they finally decide “you know what, things get worse when I do that.”

THE SELFISH SIN OF SHYNESS

Let me give you an example, a prime example. The so-called shy kid, who doesn’t shake hands at church, okay? Usually what happens is you come up, ya’ know and here I am, I’m the guest and I walk up and I’m saying hi to somebody and they say to their kid “Hey, ya’ know, say Good-morning to Dr. Baucham,” and the kid hides and runs behind the leg and here’s what’s supposed to happen. This is what we have agreed upon, silently in our culture. What’s supposed to happen is that, I’m supposed to look at their child and say, “Hey, that’s okay.” But I can’t do that. Because if I do that, then what has happened is that number one, the child has sinned by not doing what they were told to do, it’s in direct disobedience. Secondly, the parent is in sin for not correcting it, and thirdly, I am in sin because I have just told a child it’s okay to disobey and dishonor their parent in direct violation of scripture. I can’t do that, I won’t do that. I’m gonna stand there until you make ’em do what you said.

*     *     *

295 comments on “Voddie Baucham: Prescription for Spanking and the Shy Child

  1. Gail I wasn’t defending either Vodie or MLK. It is possible he was busy sinning (which I don’t know to be true) or most likely busy about the movement he was heading along w his ministry. I admit I don’t know if his wife had to the child raising mostly on her own or not.

    Please clarify what u meant about judging.

    Like

  2. Gary W

    Just love your – “new definition to our glossary of debating tactics” 😉 😉

    Wanted you to know…
    I’ve been enjoying, and appreciating, your thoughts and reasonings.

    Especially your writting about, and giving definitions, applicable translations, to…
    Questionable “debating tactics” – “ploys” – “code words”
    “debating tactic whereby an attempt is made to shut down discussion”

    I’ve experienced these debating tactics in the past – And NOW have some definitions worthy of a review. Thanks…

    So, I’m copying them for future reference – and use…
    If they are not copywrited or trademarked. 😉

    ————

    “The old taking-it-out-of-context ploy.”

    I see from your Twitter exchange that Bauchman is using the old taking-it-out-of-context ploy. In my experience, pastors do this to avoid answering legitimate points of concern. Its a way of putting you down (by implying your knowledge is deficient), while at the same time shutting you down (by refusing to actually respond to your point). What pastors don’t realize is that, when they use this ploy, it is just evidence that they don’t want to deal with the fact that they are either ignorant or in error.

    “Biblical”

    Biblical: An adjective applied to elevate any given opinion to the status of infallibility, as though it were Scripture itself. Is useful for inoculating the said opinion from criticism, for cutting off discussion, and for discounting any attempt to subject the opinion to an objective testing against actual Scripture. Generally used in an attempt to force one’s personal opinions on others.

    “Positive self-esteem”

    Positive self-esteem: A condition which invariably masks a child’s understanding of the utter contempt with which God views the child in the child’s unregenerate, fallen condition; a condition of such grave concern as to necessitate the withholding of all love, the experience of which must inevitably lead to a child’s infection with the said unalterably damning condition of positive self-esteem.

    “Condescension”

    Condescension: An attitude and tone of moral and intellectual superiority adopted when announcing that one does not deign particular persons, questions, points or positions as being worthy of serious consideration, or even of receiving the courtesy of a response or answer. May be coupled with an actual insulting of the other person’s intelligence. Useful in avoiding discussions in which one’s own position is unlikely to prevail.

    “Verbal Subterfuge”

    Verbal Subterfuge: The art of manipulatively communicating a morally reprehensible idea or impression to a target audience, but in a manner that allows the speaker or writer to claim that something else of a morally neutral, or even laudable, nature was intended. Sometimes referred to as plausible deniability. Note the etymological similarity between “subterfuge” and “subtle,” as in “the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made.” Gen. 3:1, ASV 1901.

    ———–

    Yes – I see a new book…

    “The Glossary of Debating Tactics”
    “Used by The Spiritually Abusive Religious System”

    Like

  3. Still, if Baucham’s intention was to communicate the idea that Dr. King was too busy to discipline his children, the point could have been made in a manner that did not refer to supposed marital infidelity, doctrinal heresy and academic fraud. I’m sure there was much else of a positive nature keeping Dr. King busy.

    So Voddie Baucham would have co-signed on J Edgar Hoover’s attempt to blackmail MLK into committing suicide?

    Like

  4. Amos, I was thinking the same thing last night – – that we were getting a free debate class by reading Gary W.’s comments. Thanks for compiling that list. It might be beneficial to post this permanently somewhere and we can add to it and maybe also include examples (real or fictitious).

    Gary W. – these definitions have been most helpful.

    Like

  5. Hester – I would appreciate the links to the Puritan materials you referenced.

    As for imperfections we all have, I think the following from Dear Abby is quite relevant

    “Recently I read about a mainline Christian church in the United States who advertised for a new minister to fill the vacancy left by their former pastor who was retiring. They stated that only those with impeccable qualifications and credentials need apply. The board for selecting the minister was swamped by individuals applying for the job.

    They had so many to choose from that the committee assigned to select the new minister began to be very “picky” and “demanding” with each candidate. They came to expect such “perfection” that a stalemate among the committee was reached over selecting anyone.

    At this juncture, one of the board members said he had a further application which had just come to his attention and that the board should consider it. The application letter went something like this:

    “Gentlemen: Understanding that your pulpit is vacant, I should like to apply for the position. I have many qualifications. I’ve been a preacher with much success and also have had some success as a writer. Some say I am a good organizer. I’ve been a leader most places I have been.

    “I’m over 50 years of age. I have never preached in one place for more than three years. In some places I have left town after my work caused riots and disturbances. I must admit I have been in jail seven times, but not because of any real wrongdoing.

    “My health is not too good, though I still get a great deal done.
    The churches I have preached in have been small, though located in several large cities.

    “I’ve not gotten along well with religious leaders in towns where I have preached. In fact, some have threatened me and even attacked me physically. I am not too good at keeping records. I have been known to forget whom I have baptized. And I have to admit that most people feel that I am not a good speaker.

    “However, if you can use me, I shall do my best for you.”

    The board member who read the letter looked at the committee. “Well, what does the board think? Shall we call him?”

    The board members were aghast. Call an unhealthy, trouble-making, absent-minded exjailbird who even admits he can’t speak well? Was the board member crazy? Who was it that sent in that application? Who had the colossal nerve?

    The board member eyed them all keenly before he answered: “It’s signed, ‘The Apostle Paul.”‘ (taken from Dear Abby)

    Like

  6. @ Samuel:

    It isn’t online, but here’s the relevant excerpt from Edmund Morgan’s The Puritan Family, ch. 4 “The Education of a Saint.” Morgan is one of the most respected Puritan scholars of the 20th century, along w/Perry Miller, so this isn’t just some random goofball. The whole book is well worth reading. Emphasis below is mine.

    “Every parent had to decide for himself the proper method of disciplining his children. It has sometimes been assumed that the birch rod constituted the Puritans’ only method of correction. It can hardly be doubted that many resorted to it, and it is safe to assume that some parents were excessively severe. Cotton Mather’s epigram, ‘Better whipt, than Damn’d,’ expressed a large part of Puritan educational philosophy; and John Eliot’s praise of chastisement even approached eloquence: ‘The gentle rod of the mother, is a very gentle thing, it will break neither bone nor skin: yet by the blessing of God with it, and upon the wise application of it: it would break the bond that bindeth up corruption in the heart.’ Nevertheless, there is no proof that seventeenth-century parents employed the rod more freely than twentieth-century parents. When Sewall recorded the occasions of punishing his children, the offenses were much the same as those which still overtax parental patience. On Sept. 15, 1688, he ‘corrected’ his son Sam for playing hookey and lying about it, ‘saying he had been at the Writing School, when he had not.’ On Nov. 6, 1692, he corrected Joseph, the future minister of the Old South Church, for equally grave misbehavior. Joseph had thrown ‘a knop of Brass and hit his Sister Betty on the forhead so as to make it bleed and swell; upon which, and for his playing at Prayer-time, and eating when Return Thanks, I whipd him pretty smartly.’ A modern parent would probably not be considered unduly severe for correcting his child ‘pretty smartly’ under the same circumstances. A modern parent, however, would not be likely to make the reflection that Sewall made upon this occasion: ‘When I first went in (call’d by his Grandmother) he sought to shadow and hide himself from me, behind the head of the Cradle: which gave me the sorrowful remembrance of Adam’s carriage.’

    Sewall, like other Puritans, saw all children as creatures of sin, but he did not therefore conclude that a free application of the rod was the way to bring them to righteousness. In fact, if he listened to his religious adivsers, he employed bodily punishment only as a last resort; for the ministers who wrote and spoke on the subject almost always counseled their readers and listeners to win children to holiness by kindness rather than try to force them to it by severity. The aim of Puritan education was vastly different from that of modern ‘progressive’ education, but granted the difference in end, the Puritan methods of discipline, as expounded by the ministers, sound strikingly modern. The Reverend Richard Mather, who had been subjected to a particularly harsh teacher during his boyhood in England, is said to have exclaimed: ‘O that all school-masters would learn wisdom, moderation, and equity towards their scholars! and seek rather to win the hearts of children by righteous loving and courteous usage, than to alienate their minds by partiality and undue severity.’ According to his grandson, Cotton Mather, Richard put his own educational principles into practice. Becoming a schoolmaster himself at the age of fifteen, he ‘carried it with such wisdom, kindness, and grave reservation, as to be loved and feared by his young folks, much above the most that ever used the ferula.’ If Cotton Mather is to be trusted, Grandfather Richard was no exception among Puritan schoolmasters. In a funeral service for Ezekiel Cheever, who kept the Boston grammar school for seventy years, Cotton expressed his assurance that the schoolmasters of New England ‘do watch against the Anger which is fierce, and the Wrath which is cruel; and that they use not Instruments of Cruelty in their Habitations.’ As a reminder of their duty, he pictured Cheever as speaking to them from on high:

    ‘Tutors, Be strict; But yet be Gentle too:
    Don’t by fierce Cruelties fair Hopes undo.
    Dream not, that they who are to Learning slow,
    Will mend by Arguments in Ferio.
    Who keeps the Golden Fleece, Oh, let him not
    A Dragon be, tho’ he Three Tongues have got.
    Why can you not to Learning find the way,
    But thro’ the Province of Severia?
    Twas Moderatus, who taught Origen;
    A Youth which prov’d one of the Best of men.
    The Lads with Honour first, and Reason Rule;
    Blowes are but for the Refractory Fool.’

    In his own family Cotton Mather endeavored to follow the principles which he so evidently approved. Concerning his disciplinary methods he wrote in his diary:

    ‘The first Chastisement, which I inflict for an ordinary Fault, is, to lett the Child see and hear in me an Astonishment, and hardly able to beleeve that the Child could do so base a Thing, but beleeving that they will never do it again. I would never come, to give a child a Blow; except in Case of Obstinacy: or some gross Enormity. To be chased for a while out of my Presence, I would make to be look’d upon, as the sorest Punishment in the Family. … The slavish way of Education, carried on with raving and kicking and scourging (in Schools as well as Families,) tis abominable; and a dreadful judgment of God upon the World.’

    Thomas Cobbett had the same opinion of the ‘slavish way of education.’ He advised parents to make commands to their children in ‘pathetical’ terms, ‘namely as in the most moving expressions, which may help on affectionate attendance and observance thereof.’ These statements provide the gloss for Mather’s epigram on the value of whipping. Though it was better to be whipped than damned, it was still better to be persuaded than whipped. In reading the Puritan praises of the rod, it is necessary to remember that they regarded it as a last resort. They saved their highest approval for a much more intelligent method of discipline, a method which depended for its efficacy upon the development of a special attitude in the child and upon a thorough understanding by the parent of each child’s peculiar personality.”

    Like

  7. I’m so glad to see Samuel Martin in on this discussion. I got his book about a year ago and have been rethinking the whole spanking issue ever since. Now that I have a grandbaby I have an added incentive to learn all I can. While homeschooling back a few years, I was saturated with the type of discipline discussed here (Ezzo (first time obedience), Pearl, etc.). Spanking was always touted as “the Biblical Way” to discipline. His book put an end for me to that “truth”.

    Like

  8. Monique: Thanks for your comment. In the homeschooling arena, the only way to “biblically” discipline included spanking and if you didn’t spank, the message that I got was that we would be giving our kids a direct ticket to hell. They may not have used those exact words, but that was an underlying message that you simply could not raise children biblically without spanking them.

    Like

  9. I hear a Sonny & Cher song in the background……”And the Bash Goes On”…or was that BEAT goes on. Is there a difference? I have to admit though, ya’ll are equal opportunity ‘bashers’. You hit just about everyone, with or without actual facts to back yourselves up!

    Like

  10. B4B

    Was wondering…

    Are you “bashing” folks? – For “bashing” others?

    Or – For NOT “bashing” The correct way – Your Way?

    Like

  11. I don’t know, B4B – – 5 spanks before breakfast? How do you change that around to be anything other than 5 spanks before breakfast. He either said it or he didn’t. We have the audio. What more do you need?

    Like

  12. I guess you missed the thing about ‘cultural context’. Oh wait…..you didn’t…..you chose to ignore it. My African American wife did not, and neither did a whole lot of folks in his congregation. Gonna bash them too, or do you think they are just too naive or stupid in their allegiance to their Pastor?

    Like

  13. Thanks to all for positive feed back on what I am now tentatively referring to as A Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits.

    Amos, and all: Feel free to copy, re-publish, add to, improve upon, etc. Even if I were inclined to retain intellectual property rights, I’m not sure how I would do that where I am choosing to comment anonymously.

    Like

  14. Dear Monique – I was deeply moved and sincerely humbled being associated in any way with your comments. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I give to the LORD all glory for anything good that comes from my very inadequate hands. I would definitely like to link to your comments in the hope that in reading them someone might find in them the courage to reach out for a new direction. Let me know if that would be ok with you. Thanks so much once again and best wishes from Jerusalem.

    Like

  15. B4B

    You say…
    “Just an observation, folks, based on having done a lot of reading here.”

    So, your “observation” entitles you to “bash” others?

    Like

  16. This issue of cultural context is important. Pastor Baucham without question believes 100% that his approach to interpreting Scripture and his application of the Biblical texts is correct. He believes that he has captured the cultural context of Scripture and that clearly animates his teaching.

    Here is where I would differ with the good Pastor. His understanding of the cultural context of Scripture is so influenced by his surroundings and upbringing. Why don’t you do the good Pastor a favor and write a nice review of my ebook from his point of view because he will never read my book. Feel free to write: info@biblechild.com. By the way, if you don’t want to write me, feel free to write Julie Anne and I think she can send it to you as well. I am still working somewhat unsuccessfully to get my book posted on kindle or somewhere online so people can get it without writing to me.

    Like

  17. In view of Born4Battle’s allegations of bashing and beating, I propose an addition to the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits:

    Personification by Conflation: A ploy whereby a doctrinaire apologist indulges in a conflation of ideas with persons such that criticisms of objectionable ideas are responded to as though they were criticisms of the person advocating the objectionable ideas. Can be useful in achieving two objectives: 1) the apologist is able to paint the critic as having engaged in a morally reprehensible ad hominem attack on the person of the proponent or advocate of otherwise unsupportable ideas, and 2) the apologist is able to subtly suggest, however hypocritically, that the critic, as opposed to their criticism, is unworthy or bad. Is useful in deflecting attention from unsupportable ideas, while at the same time discounting and discrediting critics by (falsely) calling their moral character into question.

    Like

  18. B4B

    You write…
    “I have to admit though, ya’ll are equal opportunity ‘bashers’. You hit just about everyone, with or without actual facts to back yourselves up!”

    “Ya’ll” and “everyone” sounds like an exaggeration.
    Doesn’t sound very accurate, very truthful, – does it?

    Gary W – I think “exaggeration” belongs in your…
    “A Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits.”

    And, B4B – calling folks “bashers” – Well, in debating there are different “fallacies.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    “A fallacy is **incorrect argument** in logic and rhetoric
    resulting in a *lack of validity,* or more generally, a *lack of soundness.*

    Moral high ground fallacy…
    in which a person assumes a “holier-than-thou” attitude
    in an attempt to make himself look good to win an argument.

    Ad hominem…
    attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    You seem to do this well when you say – “ya’ll are equal opportunity ‘bashers’.”

    Personal Attacks Fallacie…
    the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

    Poisoning the well…
    a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target
    is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

    Abusive fallacy…
    a subtype of “ad hominem” when it turns into name-calling
    rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

    In simple terms – because you use “exaggeration” and “personal attacks”

    You have a – “*lack of validity,* or more generally, a *lack of soundness.*”

    Maybe you can be a little more specific… Without name calling or bashing…

    And show us “The Christian way” – The “Biblical” way.

    How would you “criticize,” the beliefs of someone like Voddie Baucham?

    Someone who thinks a child should be spanked five times before breakfast.

    Like

  19. Thanks Julie Anne and Samuel for your input. Since reading and learning more about the key spanking Proverbs scriptures, I’ve changed my perspective in so many ways. I really never had the stomach for spanking but did it because it was “biblical”. I had to laugh at someone’s comment that they “failed” at Ezzo. I did too. I could never be as consistent as “Ezzonomics” required.

    One major way I’ve changed is that I no longer see my children as my “enemy” to conquer and control when seeing the need for discipline. Of course most are grown now, but I wish I had more of this perspective when they were young. They’re my brothers and sisters in Christ. I wish I had trusted my instincts more during those years. I’ve gone back and apologized and talked with the older ones and we’re all good now. I want them to know how much I love the people they are and are becoming. I give Jesus full credit for all the good outcomes in my kids in spite of me!

    I know there are gentle parenting resources out there. Could we post some of these as resources for parents and grandparents?

    Samuel, yes by all means you can link to my comments.
    Thanks again!

    Like

  20. If Jesus came to clarify everything with His doctrine, the Gospel, He has the final say, and He says how horrific it will be for anyone who causes a child to sin. Physically striking another person to make them obey you will cause them to be angry, and anger leads to many sins. Look up all the ways “rod” is used in the Bible. Only in Proverbs do we see it being used in an abusive way, and again, Jesus clarifies everything, and He never, ever would strike a person, and He even rebuked Peter for hurting a soldier by cutting off His ear. There is no debate when we go to Him. I am a product of beatings, and I used the wooden spoon until I saw how unChristlike it was.

    Like

  21. Julie Anne, I read your post on Baucham when it came out a few days ago. But I was so fuming and angry at the time that I didn’t post.

    A few things that come to my mind is the slagging of people who are shy and have a hard time looking people in the eye. What is so despicable is that Baucham attacks the most vulnerable of those, namely little children. I’ve been noticing this more and more in modern evangelicalism, where people who have quiet contemplative personalities are being attacked, either because they are not social (and hence not useful to them for gaining new converts), or they study too much (and thereby undermine the pastor and elders’ cherished authority). This trend largely started in the charismatic movement, but it has been moving move and more into mainstream evangelicalism.

    The attitude that Baucham expresses is based largely on fear, cowardice, and ignorance. Obviously, Baucham hasn’t heard of Asperger’s Syndrome, Autism, and Social Anxiety Disorder, conditions that are present in children either from birth or very early childhood. Then there are children who just merely shy and intelligent. Baucham doesn’t have a clue about these conditions, and they are not sinful and just normal variations of personality that appear in us as humans. These conditions will likely make a child not want to shake a stranger’s hand or look him in the eye. It seems as though Baucham wants all people to fit his “jock” stereotype for what the perfect child needs to be.

    Also, what is disturbing is that Baucham finds it irritable and insulting that a young child won’t want to shake his hand or look him in the eye. Does Baucham have such a strong ego and such a strong narcissistic sense of himself that he as a grown man cannot take a perceived insult from a young child and want the parents to exact retribution for him? This is truly scary and I would advise any parents to avoid this man. Also, notice how he calls himself “Doctor” at 2:45 in the video, yet he calls into question Martin Luther King’s doctorate. This man has SERIOUS pride issues and he needs to repent. King had more humility than Baucham, even though theologically I would agree more often with Baucham.

    Furthermore, I’ve been noticing the reduction in the quality of preachers that evangelicalism has been producing over the last generation. More and more, we less of the old classic servant country preacher, men such as Peter Lumpkins. We used to have more men in our pulpits who were intellectuals with humility, and smart intelligent men used to want to go to seminary and be trained for ministry. Now, we still have some of those types of men, but they are becoming rarer in the pulpit. Instead, we have charismatic personalities, jocks, men who like to be liked, motivational speakers, authoritarians, narcissists, and in some cases psychopaths. We have the likes of Mark Driscoll, Steven Furtick and Voddie Baucham. Where have all of the young humble intelligent men gone? Largely into studying Math, the Sciences, Medicine, Engineering, and Business. The seminaries are now left trying to train men who have personalities that are not qualified for the position of pastor.

    I have more to say on this in a subsequent post.

    Like

  22. One major way I’ve changed is that I no longer see my children as my “enemy” to conquer and control when seeing the need for discipline.

    Monique, everybody, THAT is what happens when you reduce child rearing — or anything — to Power Struggle.

    Because in Power Struggle there are only two end states: My boot stamping on the Other’s face or the Other’s boot stamping on my face. Forever. And the only way to avoid the second is to make sure of the first. Because the Other will do the same.

    “A crown based on lies,
    You Win or you Die,
    Game of Thrones…”

    Like

  23. Also, what is disturbing is that Baucham finds it irritable and insulting that a young child won’t want to shake his hand or look him in the eye. Does Baucham have such a strong ego and such a strong narcissistic sense of himself that he as a grown man cannot take a perceived insult from a young child and want the parents to exact retribution for him?

    Remember Mark Driscoll’s de facto definition of Manhood?
    “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!”

    Also, notice how he calls himself “Doctor” at 2:45 in the video, yet he calls into question Martin Luther King’s doctorate.

    “Doctor” as in yet another Fundagelical Honorary Doctorate?

    Like

  24. Hi! I am a homeschool alumni, college graduate, and Christ-follower. I have been a blog-lurker for awhile, but wanted to post a comment, not necessarily to this article, but to the blog in general.

    I am reminded of the Scripture verses in James 3, that state:

    “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

    But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.”

    Being someone who has been hurt by follow believers/churches in the past and have attended 4 churches over my lifetime, I understand the root of bitterness and also the entanglement of the reaches these roots can have over everything in one’s life.

    I want to better understand the purpose of this blog, the purpose of focusing on the negative things that human beings are all capable of. I wonder if all of us would be happier, less critical, and capable of forgiveness if we were reminded of the beauty of Christ’s bride, despite her many faults.

    Some people who read this blog might need to be reminded that there is good in the church and that there are positive movements in the church. The Holy Spirit is moving and working and our Savior will not abandon His work.

    I’d love to hear your thoughts.

    Like

  25. I am appalled. It seems this guy has one favorite tool in his parenting toolbox, a hammer. Not every child-raising issue is a nail.

    Like

  26. Hi Rebecca: Thanks for your comment. You asked what is the purpose of this blog. This particular blog evolved out of a blog in which I was describing my experience of being at a spiritually abusive church. When the media got hold of my story, I discovered very quickly that many people had gone through similar situations and many were so hurt that they no longer go to church or have any desire to go to church for many reasons.

    I love the verse you chose because a lot of us did not have that in our churches: “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.”

    Some of us wrongly assumed that being a peacemaker meant to suck it up and keep quiet in our abusive churches. We missed signs, we may have followed blindly, we were led astray, we were hurt. Some of us are trying to make sense of that and put the pieces back together so that we won’t allow someone to use their position of authority in destructive ways.

    Like

  27. Rebecca,

    Thank you very much for your comments and questions. I can speak only for myself, but I find that I have great difficulty remaining silent when I observe the strong oppressing the weak. I actually believe this character trait it is a part of who I was created to be. Jesus was not gentle with everybody. Neither was Paul. I very much Identify with Bonhoeffer when he said “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” It will not always be pretty.

    There is little I personally can do to stop the oppression of the weak by the strong. Occasionally this blog gives me the opportunity to join others in calling out evil for what it is.

    Your point about roots of bitterness is well taken. If I am bitter that tends to get projected in ways that are defiling. Even if I am saying and doing things that need to be said and done, bitterness can cause me to be saying and doing them in ways that are counterproductive. The bitterness just comes through. There is a constant challenge to forgive, which is the only remedy I know for bitterness.

    I probably differ with you on one point. When you speak of church, you appear to be referring, at least in part, to organizations we call church. My own conviction is that the church is simply those of us who follow Jesus. I believe that when we begin to do organized church as though it were an end in itself, great mischief is done. For example, when I think of all the money I have given to organizations calling themselves church, and when I think of how that money got used, I feel swindled. I must practice forgiveness lest a root of bitterness spring up defiling many.

    So, there are my personal answers to at least some of the matters you raise in your post. I hope my answers at least help you to understand. I do not claim to have gotten it all right.

    Like

  28. I am appalled. It seems this guy has one favorite tool in his parenting toolbox, a hammer. Not every child-raising issue is a nail.

    Remember the Army corollary to that:
    “If at first you don’t succeed, USE A BIGGER HAMMER.”

    Like

  29. Born4Battle

    I guess you missed the thing about ‘cultural context’. Oh wait…..you didn’t…..you chose to ignore it. My African American wife did not, and neither did a whole lot of folks in his congregation. Gonna bash them too, or do you think they are just too naive or stupid in their allegiance to their Pastor?

    Born4Battle: For your info, Voddie is well aware of this thread. He’s seen it. I’ve asked him to clarify specifically the 5 spanks before breakfast and the “wear out” issue a number of times on Twitter and privately. I have now had 3 lengthy e-mails from him and he has not yet given me permission to publish his explanations, so my hands are tied. The ball is in his court. So in absence of clarification, I can only make the reasonable conclusion that he was speaking to a mixed audience in which not all would completely understand that his use of “wear out” and “5 spanks before breakfast” means something other than those words say.

    Like

  30. Amos,

    Your suggestion that “exaggeration” be added to the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits is noted. I’ve also been giving some thought to the apparent motive behind the particular exaggeration you are referencing. The allegation that we “hit just about everyone” seems to be no more than a simple attempt to enlarge the magnitude of the alleged transgressions. Beyond that, the reference to “ya’ll,” as in all of us, seems to be some kind of an attempt to communicate guilt by (exaggerated) association. I’m not saying it’s going on in this particular instance, but any time guilt by association is used, there may also be an element of soft (or sometimes even hard) bigotry in play, as in “I’m not bad like all THOSE people.”

    In the present instance the use of exaggeration appears to be a tactical exercise deployed in pursuit of the overarching strategic goal of distracting attention from the real issue, which is whether it is appropriate to regularly spank a child 5 times a day before breakfast and, apparently, whether it is appropriate to spank a child all day long for the purpose of wearing them down. What do you think? Are you seeing anything else? Can you think of other examples where exaggeration has been used as a rhetorical gambit or debating ploy? While I think I see how the exaggeration gambit was deployed in this particular instance, I don’t seem to have a very good sense how it tends to be used overall. Maybe it is all somehow related to Adolph Hitler’s use of the Big Lie.

    Like

  31. Samuel,

    Thank you for the invitation to appear on your blog. Even before receiving your invitation I had bookmarked your blog for future reference. If my appearances are somewhere between limited and none, it will not be due to lack of interest. It will have to do with lack of time and, though I’m loathe to admit it, lack of anything to add to your topics.

    As to ways of making your book publicly available, I’m thinking you might be able to do it with an Evernote account (evernote.com). You could also do it through http://www.cubby.com. Each service has a free level of service. Each service permits single files to be linked for read (and, I presume, download) only public access. What I don’t know is if these services are available internationally. If not, perhaps you could get somebody in the States to help.

    It looks like Dropbox also allows for publication of links to single documents. I’m supposing, but do not know, that the same may be true for Google Drive, Microsoft Skydrive, Amazon Cloud Drive, and who knows what all else. I don’t know about Amazon, but I believe that Dropbox, Google and Microsoft all provide a free level of service.

    Like

  32. JA,

    I understand your position and have no idea what was contained in any correspondence he has had with you. I listen to his sermons on occasion, especially concerning the family-integrated church model. He makes some really good points concerning who has the PRIMARY responsibility for raising our children in the faith.

    In the above clip, which is taken out of it’s original context, apparently to decry ‘spanking’ is not a fair representation, BECAUSE it is not presented in its original larger context. which is about a particular period of child development in which boundaries need to be specifically established. The goal is for the child to stop whatever behavior is inappropriate. Our kids got their little hands thumped for touching what they were not to touch. Their Mom didn’t move all of the things they might inappropriately touch and break, she taught them not to touch them. Children are born naturally rebellious as part of our fallen natures. Their worlds ARE to revolve around their parent’s instead of themselves. That’s where the whole ‘self-esteem’ psychobabble gets it wrong. Kids aren’t born sweet and innocent. the Bible tells us otherwise.

    It is not right, in my view, to take this or any other short clip our of the original context, or fail to present it in its context, just to make a point in a personal crusade. I see it all the time.

    That is all I am saying. We as believers ought to be better than that, shouldn’t we?

    Like

  33. B4B, your example provides the difference in approach that makes us different because I see human nature as having a sort of duality to it. We have all sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God but we are also created in God’s image and likeness and the conflict within each one of our hearts is the fires that fuel human history.

    But why not, to the best of our ability, move things that we’re not to touch away from tempting or endangering our children? I would move the stuff out of the way for several reasons.

    -Because I will not tempt my children
    -If there is a real danger, I do not want to endanger the child.
    -If I honestly don’t want my child to touch something, I reinforce my words with my actions.
    -I am far too lazy to hover consistantly.
    -Children learn by exploring their environment and I don’t want to cause the process to be inhibited.
    -If I am teaching my child that their worlds are to revolve around me (the parent) I am modeling the opposite of the stated goal, I am trying to teach my child not to be selfish by modeling selfishness. Remember, we learn by example not by lectures.

    Again, because of the duality of our nature, children are born sweet and innocent, their very physical features exist to make the parents want to love and take care of them. As far as sin nature goes, that was taken care of at the cross and one of the most wonderous and liberating aspects of the cross is that we don’t need to do anything to improve it.

    Yes, thanks to Jesus, I get to sit back, relax, and enjoy my kids instead of setting them up for hand-thumping learning opportunities because they are such sin-riddled wretches that are destined to fuel hell’s fires unless I listen to all these teachings.

    Like

  34. Born4Battle:

    The intent of my correspondence with Dr. Baucham was to clear up these 2 phrases: 5 spanks before breakfast and “wear out” a toddler.

    The first e-mail he gave a response. I asked him if I could post it publicly. He said no. This last e-mail he doesn’t discuss it whatsoever, in fact his tone completely changed. In his previous 2 e-mails he was light-hearted, encouraging, sincere, the last e-mail he is condescending, uses all caps, not very gracious or friendly at all.

    You need to understand: he has made the choice to not clarify himself. I have given him the opportunity to clear it up – told him I will post whatever he sends, and he hasn’t cleared it up. So, no, I don’t have a problem with the audio as representative of what he believes.

    My personal crusade is against abuse. I see no need to even joke about 5 spanks before breakfast or wear out a toddler whether it be with spankings or willpower. These words are alarming and so I am ringing the alarm.

    Having attended quite a few parenting classes over the years at homeschool venues, there is an underlying message that I have heard: our children are evil and we need to control our evil monsters.

    That is not the kind of tone I read in the Bible.

    Like

  35. JA,

    Maybe your crusade is clouding your judgment a bit, I don’t know. You seem to think that he was advocating abusing children. If there was an overarching theme of exercising Biblical child-rearing principles (and they aren’t as scarce as you seem to think, in my opinion), AND his comment fit into the ‘cultural’ context of his own background (he wasn’t telling folks to beat their kids 5 times before breakfast) there is no real cause for concern. The deeper issue here seems to be the natural state of our children and their ‘evilness’. I don’t know what you mean by that, but I do know that none of us are born innocent and that every part of our being was affected by the sin of Adam, including our ‘natural’ will. We might not willfully commit a sin until sometime after we are born, but we are born selfish, wanting our own way, hating God by our unbelief and rebellious by nature. that’s Bible. We are not the sweet innocent creatures the shrinks say we are, needing only positive reinforcement and self-esteem massaging to turn out well (the aforementioned psychobabble).

    Like

  36. It’s interesting to note that the list of reasons that Bornforbattle gives for listening to VB and agreeing with some if VB’s assertions are the very same teachings I heard from the Ezzos teachings 15-20 hears ago. The Ezzo’s own children will not interact with them nor let them see their grandchildren, unless that has changed. The Ezzos were asked to leave at least one church.

    I believed some of the Ezzo’s teachings for a time, but eventually found a significant disconnect between what they (and VB) advocate and who and what God says he is in Scripture. God didn’t woo me and draw me to himself by chastising and constant correction because of my rebellious and depraved self. His kindness led me to repentance. His love for me and mankind drew me to him. I want God to change me and mold me, but he doesn’t do that by whacking me every time I disobey. You can be sure that I’d be dead by now if God treated me that way, and I’m an adult. I can’t imagine God treating a toddler like that. I want to treat my children the way God does.

    I was nousious every time I felt “I had” to spank and there was terrible internal conflict, even though I wasn’t a five times before breakfast type, nor did I carry a spanking implement with me (ugh!) I simply stopped spanking one day. I was overwhelmed with what God was saying to me about Himself. BTW I do believe in discipline and I believe God disciplines, but discipline does not equal repeated spankings until a child does what I want without question. I can’t picture Jesus dealing with a child in that manner.

    Like

  37. JA said:

    “Having attended quite a few parenting classes over the years at homeschool venues, there is an underlying message that I have heard: our children are evil and we need to control our evil monsters.”

    Unfortunately, this is the overall message that comes through loud and clear from these teachings for me as well. Of course there’s a need for discipline, but if it’s driven by this belief I believe it’s unhealthy. As more children become adults raised with these methods that reinforce this authoritarian attitude over little ones, I’m concerned about the long term fruit for these families.

    Like

  38. “Having attended quite a few parenting classes over the years at homeschool venues, there is an underlying message that I have heard: our children are evil and we need to control our evil monsters.”

    When I was listening to Christianese AM radio in the Seventies, you heard the same in pretty much every Focus on the Family broadcast.

    Add to that this other radio preacher’s “When you see a cute little baby, GOD SEES AN UTTERLY DEPRAVED SINNER!!!!!” and things get very South Park very fast. Only nobody’s laughing.

    Like

  39. .
    Eph 6:4
    And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath:
    but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

    Col 3:21
    Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

    Like

  40. What do I want for my step daughter? To love the Lord her God with all her heart, soul, mind and strength. So I ask myself, are my actions, words, encouragement, discipline, etc…. training her up to be that kind of person or pushing her the other way. It is a constant reevaluation. Knowing I can’t force her to love God, I can make sure I do everything to help her love God, and make sure i do nothing to cause her not to love God.

    Like

  41. I know those passages well, A. Amos. Given that children will become angry for being spanked/put on restriction/whatever, what does that mean, exactly, especially in light of passages that talk about saving them from Hell via applying corporal punishment. That’s what we ought to be discussion, rather than bashing V.B. – the important principle to get into our hearts and minds.

    Like

  42. At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:1-4, ESV)

    Hmm. Guess Jesus hadn’t read: Do not withhold discipline from a child. . . If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from [Hell]. (Proverbs 23:13-14, ESV)

    Or maybe Jesus was speaking about children who’s loving daddies had already beaten the hell out of them. Yeah. That’s gotta be it.

    Like

  43. Don’t really need your dissertation concerning the term ‘Hell’. The principle of corporal punishment is what is at stake here in this Proverb. Call it a ‘maxim’, as many have defined such expressions in Proverbs. As one commentator explains (John Gill):

    Proverbs 23:14

    Thou shall beat him with the rod:

    Or, correct him with the stripes of the children of men, in a moderate and suitable manner, proportionable to the fault committed; and as he is able to bear it, both as to body and mind; and shalt deliver his soul from hell; be a means of preventing those sins which would bring to hell and destruction; and of bringing to repentance for those committed; and so of saving his soul, which should be the chief thing parents should have in view in chastising their children; the salvation of whose souls should be dear unto them, as it is to all truly gracious and thoughtful ones.

    Thanks for the preview of your book. By the look of this small piece, it seems you have decided to build a case against corporal punishment (could be spanking that while not causing bodily injury). The idea of corporal punishment that, while not causing bodily harm, can be of eventual spiritual good.

    We’re back to the ‘natural’ state of human will at birth, actually. If left to ourselves, we would all rush headlong into Hell,

    Like

  44. Honest question: are there other verses in the Bible used to “prove” that spanking is biblical? So far I’ve only seen the aforementioned Proverbs verse, and I don’t recall seeing anything about a rod being mentioned in the New Testament.

    Like

  45. Methodist Reader,

    Nothing about using rods on children. Here’s everything I find in English Standard Version:

    What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness? (1 Corinthians 4:21)

    The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. (Revelation 2:26-27)

    Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, (Revelation 11:1)

    She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, (Revelation 12:5)

    From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:15)

    And the one who spoke with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls. The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia. Its length and width and height are equal. (Revelation 21:15-16)

    Like

  46. Forgive me if this is a little off topic. From the belief that we’re all born with a sinful nature it doesn’t follow that babies sin, and it clearly doesn’t follow that all baby or child like behavior is sinful. Babies cry when something needs attention. How else are they supposed to let us know that all is not right in their world? I always wince when we sing Away in a Manger which seems to imply that Jesus didn’t cry. How do we think he let Mary know that he was hungry? Do we think he came out of the womb speaking Hebrew or Aramaic so that he could say, “Mom, at your leisure, would you be able to give me some nourishment? Thanks so much.” If he did that, he was never really a baby. Babies wail when they’re hungry.

    Like

  47. the issue is not ‘spanking’ per se, but the concept of corporal punishment. I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught. You can also take a look at Prov 22:15 and Prov 29:15,17 for the concept of corporal punishment/discipline. Our Eph passage goes to the improper use of corporal punishment.

    Like

  48. B4B posts, “Don’t really need your dissertation concerning the term ‘Hell.’ I’m thinking this may suggest another entry in what I am now calling the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words, to wit:

    Don’t Really Need (to hear, read, study, etc.): Code words meaning, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” (Picture both ears covered with hands.)

    Then again, maybe B4B thinks I’m being totally hypocritical. Well, for the record, I compliment Born4Battle for having begun to take the time to begin to enunciate the bases for his positions. I really am interested in what he has to say of a substantive nature.

    Like

  49. “Don’t really need your dissertation concerning the term ‘Hell’. The principle of corporal punishment is what is at stake here in this Proverb. Call it a ‘maxim’, as many have defined such expressions in Proverbs. As one commentator explains (John Gill).”
    Born4Battle

    Do you take every other maxim in Proverbs at face value (as literally read in our current translarions) as well? From your response to Samuel about his book, I get the impression that you fully understand what the original writers of scripture meant when they penned the text. And you trust that the translations we have today, 3,000-4,000 years later, clearly state what the original writers meant?

    What’s really at stake here is not the principle of corporal punishment, but our children being treated and loved the same way God treats and loves you and I who call him Father.

    We don’t war against flesh and blood . . .

    Like

  50. “I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.”

    Are you saying that a single Bible verse is all it takes to declare something to be biblical?

    Like

  51. And, while I am proposing entries for the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words, here is one updated entry, along with two new entries:

    Taking Out of Context: Accusatory terminology typically deployed as a tactic to avoid responding substantively to legitimate questions and observations. Specifically, what a doctrinaire apologist, often a pastor, groundlessly accuses a fellow believer of committing when asking a question or making an observation, whether relating to Scripture or to some other source. Often involves the commission of an emotionally aggressive interpersonal putdown/shutdown, i.e. a demeaning, shaming, putting down (by implying the deficiency of a fellow believer’s intellectual and/or moral capacity), coupled with a disrespectful, alienating, shutting down (as in refusing to extend the courtesy of actually responding to the substance of a fellow believer’s concern). Is useful in camouflaging the apologist’s lack of knowledge and/or the error of their views.

    Tactical Exaggeration: A form of deceit wherein some one or more factual circumstances are inflated, either quantitatively or qualitatively, in an attempt to discredit, demean, distract or otherwise gain an advantage by means other than an honest and forthright discussion of issues. Is a species of outright misrepresentation. May be deployed as one of several tactical gambits in an overarching strategy of avoiding a reasoned discussion of matters wherein one’s point of view is unlikely to prevail on the basis of dispassionate discourse.

    Truth: A code word used in place of opinion. Specifically, a word used to refer to any opinion for which a doctrinaire apologist can find the flimsiest of Scriptural proof texts. May be used manipulatively in a manner similar to the manipulative use of the code word “Biblical.”

    Like

  52. Born4Battle,

    You state that “I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.” I’m almost afraid to ask, but does that apply to the following passages?:

    Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15, ESV)

    Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:17, ESV)

    If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10, ESV)

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13-16, ESV)

    Like

  53. B4B quoted :

    “Or, correct him with the stripes of the children of men, in a moderate and suitable manner, proportionable to the fault committed; and as he is able to bear it, both as to body and mind”

    Problem is, the verse does not say that. Gill’s “moderate and suitable” is reading his own suppositions into the meaning of the passage.

    “The idea of corporal punishment that, while not causing bodily harm…”

    Again, the idea of no bodily harm is reading something into the passage that is not there. Do you honestly think the application of the rod caused no bodily harm?

    If you want to take it as written then you will be taking a ROD – not a switch, belt, hand or some substitute – and applying it to young MAN or servant. And the striking of the staff/rod/branch is going to cause bruises, welts, or worse.

    Note my emphasis on who this applies to. The word translated “child”(na’ar) is more often translated servant/s, young man/men, or boy. Definitely not girls and probably not toddlers or younger children.

    I just don’t see how you can get the modern practice of “spanking” out of these passages at all. Those who are pro-spanking are taking the liberty to apply them figuratively. Including what instrument is used, how it is applied, and who it is applied to.

    Like

  54. “I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.”

    Are you saying that a single Bible verse is all it takes to declare something to be biblical?

    Not even a verse. Just the chapter-and-verse zip code.

    Come to think of it, here’s three verses (I don’t know the zip codes):
    1) “Judas went and hanged himself.”
    2) “Go thou and do likewise.”
    3) “What thou doest, doest quickly.”

    Like

  55. A related home and family issue: We watched Jackson Katz, on a terrific TED Talk, who declared that domestic violence is not a women’s issue but is very much a man’s issue.

    This is a ‘must listen’ and share with others talk that challenges society’s (and the church’s) entrenched beliefs about this and a number of key issues.

    Jackson Katz asks a very important question that gets at the root of why sexual abuse, rape, and domestic abuse remain a problem: What’s going on with men?!

    Like

  56. Pingback: shy child | Why Not Train A Child?

  57. I got a comment a while back on my blog from a reader who, in talking about my ebook mentioned that he felt ignorant to the real depth of Scripture.

    I note in my own studies that deep examination of passages and researching what many scholars and academics have said on these ancient texts is very helpfui. It is just not enough to simply discuss these texts alone. We need academic depth to help us understand things more

    Like

  58. Samuel, I would agree with your assessment that we need academic help to gain the greater depth of so many passages of Scripture.

    Someone I was chatting with recently had an opinion that scholarship was a problem. This is how I responded:

    Though spiritual truths are spiritually revealed, this does not negate the need for rigorous study of the biblical text.

    What I see as a huge problem is that people have taken a Biblicist view of the Scriptures and have run with it without taking any time to investigate the context, the when, where, and who of a passage. What I call ‘springboard preaching’—taking a few Scriptures and then diving into the pool without giving any of the historical background, etc. This does not instill biblical literacy in God’s people but instead encourages biblical ignorance!

    Like

  59. So corporal punishment was valid in the OT and not in the NT? Like dietary laws or something? That might be true, unless the need for corporal punishment is based on the ‘nature’ of human beings when they are born. If babies born now are the same as babies born then, corporal punishment is still a valid concept. Find out what the Bible says about the nature of ALL human beings born and you have your answer.

    Like

  60. Being capable of sin does not logically lead to corporal punishment being necessary for all people for all time to stamp out all sin. It depends on the child whether or not corporal punishment would be effective.

    Like

  61. B4B – You should definitely read my post “So you think you ‘know’ the Bible?” – It deals with the simple and plain teaching of Scripture that there were over 600,000 armed men for the war mentioned in the book of Numbers. I also connect this story to other issues like corporal punishment which are just so clear and plainly taught. When you take in the whole counsel of God, which we should, other ideas can present themselves. http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/so-you-think-you-know-bible-by-samuel.htmlYou said: ““I would also add that a single clear passage is all that is needed to accept/receive the concept/truth taught.” – This is an admirable point of view. But you have to be very careful with this idea.

    The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Like

  62. Samuel Martin

    Much agreement when you write…
    “It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.”

    Seems their is “Truth” in the Bible called – “Present Truth.”
    And “The Truth,” Jesus, takes away the first *to establish the second.*

    2 Pet 1:12 KJV
    Wherefore I will not be negligent
    to put you always in remembrance of these things,
    though ye know them,
    and **be established in the present truth.**

    Heb 10:9 KJV
    Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
    He taketh away the first,
    that **he may establish the second.**

    Mat 5:43-44 KJV
    Ye have heard that it hath been said,
    Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. (Ps 139:21-22)
    **But I say unto you, Love your enemies,** … (Present truth – Establish the second.)
    bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
    and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Like

  63. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Samuel, be careful.

    Like

  64. The teachings of Scripture can be very much liken to a common experience we all generally speaking go through: the education system.

    I have two girls who are 10 and 6.

    Children who are in kindergarden learn the truth. It is the truth for them. It is their truth. It is not my truith because I graduated from kindergarden aover 40 years ago..

    A child in junior high school learns truth. It is their truth, not my truth because I finished junior high school a long time ago.
    A child in high school learns the truth. It is their truth, not my truth because I finished high school oiong ago. A child in college learns the truth. It is their truth, not my truth because i have already graduated from college.

    St. Paul tells us that the Law was like a school master to lead us to Christ. He reproved the Galatians who wished to return to school masters, or to old truth/. The truth is the truth, but just make sure it is your truth and our truth is found in the mature teachings of St. Paul’s epistles generally speaking.

    My t

    Like

  65. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
    John 10:16

    One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Like

  66. .
    Seems “The Truth,” Jesus, had much to say about “Present Truth.”
    And “taking away the first – *to establish the second.*”

    Many times, The Bible records Jesus saying – One way or another…
    *Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,* — *BUT I say unto you,*

    Matthew 5 KJV
    21 *Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,* Thou shalt not kill…
    22 *BUT I say unto you,* That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause…

    27 *Ye have heard that it was said of old time,* Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    28 *BUT I say unto you,* That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust…

    31 *It hath been said,* Whosoever shall put away his wife…
    32 *BUT I say unto you,* That whosoever shall put away his wife…

    33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
    Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
    34 BUT I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne…

    38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
    39 BUT I say unto you, That ye resist not evil…

    43 *Ye have heard that it hath been said,*
    Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
    44 BUT I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you…

    Like

  67. Julie Anne – Gary W

    Really like your new addition to…

    “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”

    And Julie Anne posting it on the SSB blog under “Helpful Resources.”

    ————-

    Was wondering…

    Folks who were NOT involved/enveloped with the original conversation
    might NOT understand – Why this Title? – Why written? – Why saved?

    Maybe we can get a sub-heading, something to explain in simple English,

    what a “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”

    actually means – and what it is good for – and why it is needed.

    ————

    Here is one example…
    My example with prejudice. bias, and an agenda… 😉

    ————-

    “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”

    “Warning” – “Warning”
    These are “Debating Tactics” used by “The Abusive Religious System.” And…
    “Authoritarian Church Leaders” who proclaim they are “God’s Anointed.”

    They use these tactics to “Silence” and “Marginalize” their critics…
    Anyone who would challenge their…
    Power – Profit – Prestige…

    Like

  68. I love this one. I have many things to tell you (truths), but you cannot bear them (these truths) yet, but when He, the spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all the truth (new truth, right?) – JOhn 16:12-13

    Like

  69. Amos, Julie Anne,

    I was also thinking it would be good to have an introductory paragraph to the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words. Anybody could do it, but I’ll try to propose something before the weekend is over. In the meantime I would like to propose another Glossary entry. JA, if you decide to add this entry, please please be sure to include the ending comment. Here goes:

    Premeditated Attempted Soul Destruction: An extreme form of poisoning the well (http://tinyurl.com/qaymyr9) wherein premeditated ad hominem attacks seek to destroy, not just a target’s credibility, but the totality of the target’s life. In addition to other forms of provocation, may involve inundation of a target’s friends, associates, contacts, and even the public at large, with false and malicious allegations which, if true, would indicate the target’s utmost moral turpitude, utter depravity, absolute worthlessness, &c. In extreme cases, may involve demonic activity. With or without demonic activity, a spiritual battle is joined, the issue of which is whether the target will be drawn into an obsessive, all consuming, bitter, angry, unforgiving and self-destructive longing for and/or pursuit of vengeance; the ultimate risk being that the target, however unwittingly, will secure for themselves consignment to the Lake of Fire. “[B]ut if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:15, ESV). An extreme instance calling for deployment of the defensive weapon of Spirit-enabled forgiveness, in the sense of leaving of all vengeance to God. “Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath `of God’: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19, ASV 1901).

    Comment: This writer does not recall having seen a single instance of Premeditated Attempted Soul Destruction practiced on this blog. For fear of retaliation, he will not here identify any example of its practice. Readers are likewise urged not to publicly identify particular instances of the practice. We may effectively pray for those we know to be targets.

    Like

  70. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Truth that was once truth that is no longer truth, never was truth therefor it was a lie and causes the Bible to be a lie. My child learned 2+2=4 in the first grade. That is still true for me. Truth can’t be truth for one and not for someone else.

    Like

  71. Truth can be partitioned. The Bible has many such partitions. Just one example. The introduction of the Holy Spirit into the heart of the believer. Everything that happneed before that event was truth, but everything that happened after that event was new truth. Grow in grace and knowledge.

    Like

  72. OK, here is my contribution to this glossary . I call this advice from the Great Physician: “It has been determined by the Great Physician that religion can be dangerous to your health (and wealth).” – from Prof. Ernest L. Martin (1932-2002)

    Like

  73. Julie Anne,

    I propose to add a final sentence to the “I Don’t Need . . .” Glossary entry so that the whole thing reads:

    I Don’t Need to (hear, read, study, etc.)

    Code words meaning, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” (Picture both ears covered with hands.) May be employed by doctrinaire apologists, often with an arrogant, high-minded, I’m-the-authority-here tone, for the purpose of deflecting and ignoring any and every suggestion that the apologist give serious consideration to the arguments for a point of view other than their own.

    Like

  74. Julie Anne, with apologies for the length, I propose the following for an introduction to the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words. If you think it too long, It should still work if you simply deleted the entire first paragraph. Here it is:

    Introductory Comment by Gary W:

    We humans have a tendency to want to win others to our own opinions and points of view. Ideally, discussion and debate would always proceed in a dispassionate, reasoned manner, with every party being willing to follow wherever truth leads—even if it means abandoning one’s own cherished opinions and convictions. The reality, however, is that we tend to allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the conviction of our own rightness, and by our desire to win the day with our own views. The result is that we may be tempted to take rhetorical shortcuts—shortcuts designed, whether consciously or unconsciously, to enable us to win the debate without having to apply ourselves to the hard work of an honest, humble, willing-to-be-taught process of dispassionate, reasoned discourse. Probably we all take rhetorical shortcuts; probably none of us are exempt.

    To the extent I have contributed to this so-called glossary, and there may be other contributors, it is my goal to identify ways we can attempt to win the debate in manipulative ways, without regard to the substance of the issues themselves. Methods (gambits, ploys, tactics, strategies, etc.) can be manipulative. The use of words can also be manipulative.

    In what follows, where I am the author I am using the term “doctrinaire apologists” to refer to the worst offenders. Generally speaking, I intend this term to refer to those who are simply unwilling to try to see another person’s point of view. In extreme cases, they are not even able to see another person’s point of view. In all of my edginess, these doctrinaire apologists are the people I have in mind. Still, maybe we can all take warning lest we overmuch indulge the manipulative methods of the doctrinaire apologists. Oh, and just to be fair, doctrinaire apologists will tend to be found on every side of every hotly contested issue. I do not wish to discuss whether or to what extent I have ever been a doctrinaire apologist.

    Thank you, and enjoy.

    Like

  75. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians.

    Samuel, are you saying that truth that was before the Holy Spirit was truth only for its time and no longer truth for today or is still truth? I don’t want to misunderstand you. Do you believe in absolute truth?

    Like

  76. The Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it is the truth written at the time it was written to the people it was designed for at that time. It has truth in it that is the truth, but that truth is not the truth for Christians today.

    Samuel, one more question, if the truth that is in the bible is not the truth for Christians today as that last sentence states, then where should we turn for truth outside of the bible?

    Like

  77. Revelation is alwasy truthful, but it is progressive. The truth that God revealed to Abraham, was the truth, but it is not my truth.

    My truth is really found in St. Paul’s epistles as he was the Apostle to the Gentile world. To attempt to systematize the teachings of Abraham with those of St. Paul, while both were given as God’s truth at the time, will not work.

    God’s truth is progressive. I quoted John 16:12-13 earlier and I will refer to it again.

    Like

  78. Thanks for your question. First of all, I believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God. Having said that, there is information therein which, while it is indeed true, it is not directed to me. I am a part of something that began on Pentecost day in the year 30 AD here in Jerusalem. Everything that happened in Scripture before that time, is true, it just applies to other people.

    Like

  79. We have a child who is ‘shy.’ She has her reasons. She is dyslexic, and her words come out wrong at times. This makes her nervous, and so, yes, she is shy. She is getting better, and is pretty much fine with her friends. There is no way I would spank her for something like that. Our oldest was extremely shy. She was fine within her small circle of friend but couldn’t walk into a crowd of unknowns very comfortably. We saw this would be a hindrance to her in her adult years….so we signed her up for youth group, and soccer, and then track and field at the local public school. She is very athletic. In these situations , she was forced to speak up, forced to ask questions. Within two years she was competing all over the place, and then was eventually co-captain of her track team. My parents visited her at her small christian college in Florida, and they said…”wow, she knows everyone.” Today she is ridiculously outgoing. For several summers she has been the camp photographer for a christian camp in the south. Talk about a change. All done without one spank for being shy! I don’t think the people that write these different child rearing books have much grounding in being humble, and merciful. “Come now, let us REASON together says the Lord”. Thats how we have raised ours, and yes we have had trouble at times, sometimes a lot of trouble, but our kids know the truth, and we know that itis GOD that changes the heart..not us.

    Like

  80. B4B wrote – “That might be true, unless the need for corporal punishment is based on the ‘nature’ of human beings when they are born. If babies born now are the same as babies born then, corporal punishment is still a valid concept.”

    One of the purposes of the Law – and I am thinking specifically the OT civil law – was to restrain the “natural” man. You can see the Formula of Concord for more details but as far as I know all Reform folk accept this. And yet this civil law no longer binds us as it was fulfilled in Christ. Based on this, I don’t see how your argument for corporate punishment holds water at all.

    For argument I will assume what what you say is true. So you have 2 things – the OT civil law and corporate punishment – both in place because of our natures. One is no longer binding on us so why would the other be?

    And, btw, babies were not “in scope” in the Proverbs passages.

    Like

  81. Darrell – Is the truth delivered from Moses to the Israelites still truth today or not? If so, then why aren’t you following all the laws given to them?

    Like

  82. Brian, truth and law are 2 different things. So are you asking why I don’t follow the law given to the Israelites by God through Moses? I am not Jewish.

    Like

  83. Brian, thanks for asking that question, maybe that is what Samuel meant in his statement. Cause if he had said law instead of truth his statement would have made more since instead it looks a lot like herasy.

    Samuel in your statement we were discussing, were you talking law instead of truth?

    Like

  84. The statement: “The Bible says what it says” can be a very dangerous assertion. http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/so-you-think-you-know-bible-by-samuel.html – Let’s not be confused about this. What many ministers solidly assert concerning corporal punishment/spanking/smacking is nothing more than their own opinions of what they think the Bible means. A good example of this concerns the number of Israelites who left Egypt they had 603,550 armed men for war if all of those men were living at the time (Numbers 1:46). This is what the BIBLE SAYS! This is http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/so-you-think-you-know-bible-by-samuel.htmllogistically impossible. To find out what the BIBLE may MEAN, check the following link.

    Like

  85. Born4Battle,

    You state:
    ” If babies born now are the same as babies born then, corporal punishment is still a valid concept. Find out what the Bible says about the nature of ALL human beings born and you have your answer.”

    Tell me how you would punish a two day old baby with corporal punishment, and please tell me the sin to which you would accuse a two day old baby to justify the corporal punishment, and by what instrument that you would use.

    I would like to hear your take on babies being punished and what experience that you have in regards to what sin that you have accused the baby of doing that would justify corporal punishment.

    Please inform us readers the sin that justifies corporal punishment towards any babies.

    I will bet that you don’t practice what you preach. If you have punished a baby, please tell us the sin that you accused the baby of doing. If you have, then you are an abuser of authority as a parent.

    And we all know that the Bible shows that all kids are innocent, not guilty.

    Deuteronomy 1:39 so states.

    Those who do not have knowledge of good and evil are not punished at all.

    Yes, babies have no knowledge of good and evil. Deuteronomy 1:39 so states.

    Like

  86. Samuel,
    Your link “so you think you know the bible” states the following when clicked on your blog:
    “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist. ”

    Please update this as I want to read it. Thanks.

    Ed

    Like

  87. Samuel,
    I read your Numbers 1:46 reference, however when we read verse 1, we see when the census was taken, which was the first day of the second month of the second year.

    Not only that, it does not imply that the number taken over 2 years after they left, was the same number that left, due to the time lag between leaving, and counting.

    So, I do not understand what you are trying to get at when you said:

    “A good example of this concerns the number of Israelites who left Egypt they had 603,550 armed men for war if all of those men were living at the time (Numbers 1:46).”

    Please explain, and/or update your website to show “So you think you know the Bible”.

    Ed

    Like

  88. @ JA~

    This part of Baucham’s sermon in the first paragraph under the video is confusing-

    ” And for the first few weeks that’s okay, but eventually we need to teach them that that’s over, that, “The world no longer revolves around YOU. YOUR world TODDLER, revolves around ME, around me.” ”

    The entire paragraph is poorly stated and betrays his ignorance. In it he is speaking of the discipline and correction phase, which he identifies as the “first few years of life” (if I am understanding correctly) and this phase is about children giving the parents more attention than the parents give to children. He says that kids needs to be taught this during their first FEW years of life because when kids “come here” (does “come here” mean their birth, I am guessing?), they believe the world revolves around them. Then comes the sentence I quoted above where he says. “for the first few weeks that’s ok…”.

    For the first few weeks (few? like… 5-10 weeks?….what constitutes a few? I guess I need to buy his book to understand what a “few” means?) it’s ok to let an infant be the center of attention, but after that…no? Is that what he is saying? What does Baucham do to infants to get them to make their parents the center of attention?

    He says that in the first few years of life this correction phase should be enacted and established. He then says it’s ok to let those sin-filled attention seeking by nature infants (good grief- is that how he views infants?) have their way for “the first few weeks.” However, after that you need to get going on to the correction phase so those infants who are older than “the first few weeks” can make their parents the center of their world. ? In the very next sentence he uses the word toddler and jumps from first few weeks to toddler. This is very poor communication on his part.

    Like

  89. B4B wrote – “That’s OK Brian. Proverbs 22:15 provides for disciplining children and states why. The Bible says what it says.”

    Ok then…. I’ll check back later and see if you there is an actual refutation.

    Like

  90. Samuel –

    I’ve spent my reading time this past week reading through the articles on your blog. I had preciously read one of your articles, that was linked to at another blog, but hadn’t ventured over to read your other content. I wanted you to know how much it has blessed me to read your articles and be exposed to other thoughts concerning Scripture and its meaning. There is so much that “seems” incongruent when taken “clearly.” I’ve always thought that we (Western Christianity) were missing “something.”

    I hadn’t read your blog yet when I linked to it above. I was surprised (pleasantly) to read some of your articles that clarified what I briefly alluded to in my comment. I have your book but haven’t read it as yet. I will be getting to that soon.

    I did want to ask if your “Newsletter” is different than your blog content. If so, how do I subscribe to it?

    Thanks for taking the time to write and share your insights into the culture and meaning of Scripture. It will be a blessing to many.

    Like

  91. Bridget,

    Thank you very much for your message. I was deeply moved by your comments. I give all honor to God “in whom we live, move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) Your message inspires me to reach higher and write more. Thank you for that. Write me at info@biblechild.com to get my newsletter as I do send things out sometimes that are not on my blog.

    Like

  92. Samuel, I’ve already asked B4B about the following passages, among others:

    Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15, ESV)

    Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:17, ESV)

    If I’ve received a response, I missed it. Seems it’s only important for the Bible to say what it says when the English translation can be read (without reference to questions of historical application and understanding) as saying what B4B wants it to say.

    By way of further illustration, here’s a passage to which I expect B4B won’t be willing to apply his “says what it says” standard:

    For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:19-20, ESV)

    According to the “says what it says” standard “all things” means ALL things, which means every man, woman and child conceived or to be conceived, and it means the devil himself. Or, if that’s too hard for B4B, maybe he’ll be willing to apply his “says what it says” standard to:

    For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV, emphasis added)

    Hmm. Wonder if B4B is going to be willing to take a consistent position when applying his “says what it says” standard to this passage. I’m not holding my breath, although I do get surprised from time to time.

    Like

  93. Diane said:

    This part of Baucham’s sermon in the first paragraph under the video is confusing-

    ” And for the first few weeks that’s okay, but eventually we need to teach them that that’s over, that, “The world no longer revolves around YOU. YOUR world TODDLER, revolves around ME, around me.”

    The entire paragraph is poorly stated and betrays his ignorance. In it he is speaking of the discipline and correction phase, which he identifies as the “first few years of life” (if I am understanding correctly) and this phase is about children giving the parents more attention than the parents give to children. He says that kids needs to be taught this during their first FEW years of life because when kids “come here” (does “come here” mean their birth, I am guessing?), they believe the world revolves around them. Then comes the sentence I quoted above where he says. “for the first few weeks that’s ok…”

    Diane – I could be wrong, but my impression of this quoted material is that he was talking specifically about the toddler age, not newborn to toddler age. When he references “first few weeks” – I was interpreting that to mean the first few weeks of the bad behavior as a toddler not first few weeks of life.

    I could be wrong. It sure would have been nice if VB would have offered clarification. I do owe him an e-mail. Maybe I’ll ask again. If he sends me his book as he said, I might be able to get better understanding, too.

    Like

  94. Gary, Here is a link – http://samuelmartin.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/sky-west-from-crooked-do-we-really.html

    Thanks for this. I have several blog posts in which I try to address this “what it says” versus “what it means” issue. This is a tough one to deal with because often ministers tell people “Let’s just believe what the Bible says.” In one post, I talk about my grandmother, who was from rural Oklahoma. She said things that you cannot find anywhere on the internet and the only reason I know (or anyone knows) what they mean is that my aunt knew what they meant and she told me. Now, rewind 3,000 years. De we really understand what the Bible means?

    Like

  95. Samuel Martin,

    You had stated:
    “If you’re of the opinion that the Bible just means what it says, you’ll want to read the chapter in my free ebook dealing with the Stubborn and Rebellious Son – How many of you have heard that were you in ancient times, you would have been taken out and stoned to death? – ”

    My Response
    Last I recall, The Bible does mean what it says, when it says that the OLD TEST is for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Read my free book, at biblegateway.com, any version that you want.

    In other words, the OLD TEST, was given by Moses to the children of Israel. And, the Bible means what it says, that the children of Israel are the children of Jacob.

    So, the LAW does not pertain to the Gentiles. Never has, never will. The Bible says what it means.

    Ed

    Like

  96. Ed said:

    Last I recall, The Bible does mean what it says, when it says that the OLD TEST is for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Read my free book, at biblegateway.com, any version that you want.

    LOL, Ed – That’ll teach me to skim. I was thinking, Ed has a free book? And he didn’t tell me? haha! biblegateway.com. You’re too funny.

    Like

  97. JA,
    Haha!!

    You know me!! No offense to Samuel, I hope he has a sense of humor. I saw several of Samuel’s posts, and it seems way too advertising, even tho it’s free, my favorite four letter word.

    I know I put adblock on my browser!!

    I think that Samuel “believes” what he says, just not so sure that he “means” what he says.

    To Samuel:
    Just kidding Samuel…just a little play on words. After reading some of your stuff, I like where you is going with this.

    Ed

    Like

  98. Samuel,

    Thank you for the link you provided yesterday at 9:06 PM Pacific. You do a very good job of demonstrating how a literal understanding of words spoken or written often misses the point a speaker or author is making. Those of us who accept the Bible as the word of God will recognize that God Himself discloses that, unlike with Moses, He speaks to some through visions and dreams, in “dark speeches” (KJV, ASV 1901) or “Riddles” (YLT, ESV). Numbers 12:7-8.

    Clearly, we must go beyond His literal words when Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Likewise when Jesus speaks of cutting off the hand or plucking out the eye that makes one sin (though I’m sure some will contest this particular point). Same thing when Jesus speaks of removing logs from eyes and camels going through eyes of needles, though some have tried to explain away the camel illustration.

    But now comes the fun part. Born4Battle himself argues that words cannot always be taken literally. He argues that Baucham is not to be understood literally when Baucham advocates regularly spanking a child 5 times before breakfast. Neither, according to Born4Battle, is Baucham to be taken literally when Baucham advocates, in the context of comments about spanking children, that sometimes you “just need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out.”

    In addition to applying the old taking-it-out-of-context ploy, without any real effort to supply the context (which Baucham himself really ought to do), Born4Battle and and at least one other commenter go to some lengths to argue that the phrase “just wear them out” must be understood within the context of black southern culture. Well, I can see that. Maybe the phrase “just wear them out” really is idiomatic, or colloquial, or slang, or whatever; although I wish somebody would provide a better explanation.

    So, here’s the point: If it is legitimate for Born4Battle to come along and insist that we go behind what Baucham said to discover what he meant, so also it is legitimate to insist that Born4Battle be willing to seriously examine Proverbs to discover what was actually being communicated when Solomon spoke of applying rods to children’s (or servant’s or boy’s) hides.

    At this point a few digs at Born4Battle’s expense come to mind, but I will resist. Well, O.K., here’s a hint: my digs would relate to Born4Battle’s lack of consistency.

    Like

  99. Samuel,

    I do believe that your saying that anything in scripture that happened before Pentecost renders discussing thing further with you rather pointless. I do hope you have a nice day, tho!

    Like

  100. Samuel,

    I applaud Born4Battle for avoiding actual condescension in his 8:15 message to you. However, When he announces that further discussion with you is rather pointless, I suggest that that we are observing at least the technical equivalent of what is described in the following Glossary entry:

    I Don’t Need to (hear, read, study, etc.): Code words meaning, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! I’m not listening!” (Picture both ears covered with hands.) May be employed by doctrinaire apologists, often with an arrogant, high-minded, I’m-the-authority-here tone, for the purpose of deflecting and ignoring any and every suggestion that the apologist give serious consideration to the arguments for a point of view other than their own.

    I am updating my copy of the Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words to add the word “discuss.” The Glossary term will now read “I Don’t Need to (hear, read, study, discuss, etc.):” The definition will remain the same.

    Like

  101. Why is that? I would be very interested in seeing you defend a systematic theology which systematized texts from all over the Bible in which the Holy Spirit was not indwelling the individual believers as it does today starting in the year 30.

    Like

  102. Got it, Gary W. There is discussion going on in another thread and this kind of close-mindedness is really what prevents people from using the brains that God gave them. It is also this kind of close-mindedness that keeps people in cults because they don’t want to consider that they may be wrong or their pastor may be wrong.

    Like

  103. Gary W

    😉 😉 😉

    Looks like this “Glossary of Manipulative Rhetorical Gambits and Code Words”
    is becoming a full time job.

    Like

  104. JA and Gary –

    I get what you are both saying in your last comments, but there are also other considerations. For example, 15-18 years ago I would have responded much like Born4Battle seems to be responding today. In fact, I often responded in like fashion. Looking back I can say that I was often arrogant about what I was convinced I knew. But just as often, I was overwhelmed with different information, and even afraid; afraid that I could be wrong. It is only in hindsight that I can see these different emotions and reaponses. None of this is to say that push back isn’t sometimes necessary, but to suggest that a timely word is of greater value to the hearer.

    B4B’s moniker conveys alot to me.

    Gary –
    Your meanings of phrases are spot on. Often people aren’t even aware of what they are conveying with those words. At other times, though, they may know exactly what they are conveying. I don’t know which is the case with B4B.

    Like

  105. Gary W wrote~

    “…Born4Battle and and at least one other commenter go to some lengths to argue that the phrase “just wear them out” must be understood within the context of black southern culture. Well, I can see that. Maybe the phrase “just wear them out” really is idiomatic, or colloquial, or slang, or whatever; although I wish somebody would provide a better explanation.”

    Baucham used that phrase “wear him out” at the 2012 Men of God conference at Calvary Baptist Church in Bellefontaine, Ohio, in a sermon entitled, “What It Means To Be A Family Shepherd” (March 3, 2012). The context was an unruly child in church and the mother taking the child out and rocking him, and Baucham advising the mother to use his “leather strap thingy” that they sell in his church’s bookstore (and which the members keep on their persons there according to Baucham) instead and take the little boy into the bathroom and “wear him out.” When he said the phrase “wear him out”, laughing, amen-ing and applause resulted. The phrase apparently has a humorous meaning, one I am not getting, but one that non-southern Ohioans appear to understand.

    Since the bible SAYS rod…I also wonder how a “leather strap thingy” is anything close to resembling a rod/stick. Why is he using a leather strap thingy and not a rod? I guess he doesn’t believe the verse literally and inserts any instrument he wants?

    Like

  106. JA~

    Do you remember that Men of God conference? It was the one where the attendees (aka the men of God) made quite the mess in the women’s restroom. Women were not there, so they were using it as well as the men’s. The Examiner did a story on it.

    Like

  107. Diane – Ok, now I know why I hadn’t heard of that article. That’s right around the beginning of my lawsuit and things were crazy for me. I had no idea that Paul Dohse went to that conference. I’m disgusted by what I read, but not completely surprised.

    Like

  108. Just wanted to acknowledge what Bridget says about a timely word being of greater value than push back. I need to keep this in mind, though it may be that others here may be able to fill in when I miss the opportunity. It has to do, I think, with different ones of us being different parts of the body.

    Like

  109. Thanks for the preview of your book. By the look of this small piece, it seems you have decided to build a case against corporal punishment (could be spanking that while not causing bodily injury). The idea of corporal punishment that, while not causing bodily harm, can be of eventual spiritual good. — B4B

    “So if I rack him ’til he die, what of it? For I shall have Saved His Soul.”
    — The Inquisitor, Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Sam Clemens

    We’re back to the ‘natural’ state of human will at birth, actually. If left to ourselves, we would all rush headlong into Hell. — B4B

    “Man sees a cute little baby, GOD SEES AN UTTERLY DEPRAVED SINNER!!!!!”
    — radio preacher in the Seventies

    Utter Depravity, Total Depravity, Worm Theology, the arrogance of the Predestined Elect — let me guess, B4B is Truly Reformed(TM)? More Calvinist than Calvin?

    Like

  110. HUG – Someone just sent me that same article yesterday. I had no idea that Paul Dohse went to that conference, but looking at the date, that was the height of my lawsuit nightmare when I was scrambling for an attorney. No wonder I missed it.

    Like

  111. Baucham is a typical narcissist who enjoys everybody´s world revolving around HIM. That poor man seems to need a lot of attention and gets it as well and yes he is quite clever- all in the name of the Lord of course and people are following him like abulic sheep.

    Like

  112. Pingback: John Piper and Voddie Baucham: Bad Parenting Advice That’s Worse Than Bad Parenting | Spiritual Sounding Board

  113. Pingback: Piper and Baucham Mistake Coercion for Obedience (and it’s hurting families) | Tim's Blog – Just One Train Wreck After Another

  114. Since women are supposed to stay at home until they get married, is it okay that I got married, then started college? 😉

    Anyways, I’m pretty sure when I was a kid, if some pompous fool stood in front of my mom until she made me come out and say hello, she would have said something incredibly snarky and walked away. Come to think of it, that would have been pretty funny. I kind of wish that had happened.

    It’s sad that Baucham thinks this extreme behavior is the way to teach children to be loving Christians.

    Like

  115. These religious types can be so dangerous for young, ignorant parents. We lived next door to a family that had several young children and they abused them something awful. They believed in nothing but spanking (or whipping, really because they used a belt and strap) and the kids were always whipped naked. I saw the kids with welts and bruises all over their bodies including places where a child should never be touched. It’s just sick. The people who teach child abuse and the people who do it should be jailed.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s