Santa Claus Revisited

I will be the first to admit that I love (and watch . . . most every year) the old claymation/animation works such as Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, etc.

[Oh yes, and before I forget . . . "You'll shoot your eye out, kid" (I think that either TNT or TBS runs a 24-hr. marathon of that one on Christmas Eve or so)! ]


At the same time, I do not teach Santa Claus as fact to my impressionable child; that is, I do not teach that there truly exists this jolly, white-bearded, magical, chubby, red/white-clad, black-booted man who makes his residence at the North Pole, employs short, pointy-eared elven-helpers, is married to Mrs. Claus, loves milk and cookies, visits the homes of well-behaved children (I think most Americans dropped this requirement long ago) after they fall fast asleep on Christmas Eve, travels in a sleigh driven by a host of reindeer led by none other than Rudolph, etc., etc., etc.


I do not teach my child this way as a Bible-believer, nor do I think that you should either, and here is why:


#1 - Teaching Santa as fact involves outright dishonesty on the parts of parents toward their children. If you know, full-well, that you are telling a non-truth to another party with the intentions of them truly believing what you are saying, you have a lie on your hands and nothing less. When you add to this the moldable and impressionable nature of trusting, concrete-thinking children, who take you at your word, you have a recipe for potential problems. Seeing parents, even within the Church, seeking to justify this dishonesty can be interesting and even entertaining. Can this sort of dishonesty be validated, and if so, how so?



#2 - Teaching Santa Claus as fact unintentionally positions St. Nick to be the focus of Christmas, as opposed to the incarnation of Jesus Christ to fulfill the will of God the Father. Throwing around a few of these - "Don't forget that Jesus is the reason for the season!" - doesn't make Jesus the reason for the saeson in reality, and neither does reading the story of the nativity prior to opening gifts (though I believe this to be a good idea, in and of itself). This scenario can be likened unto the young man who always writes to his sweetheart long love-letters, only to end those letters with - "Remember to keep God first!" God gets the P.S., and we need to avoid this sort of thinking. Our God is jealous for our attention, focus, gaze, and worship, and shares the stage with no one, for who is like the Most High? There are no other gods. For those who would consciously seek to strike a balance between Santa and Christ (a rarity, really), do you folks not see that you are presenting Santa and Christ as just as real and believable . . . fiction & non-fiction?? Dangerous stuff! This leads to my next point . . .



#3 - I do not present a fictitious character as fact, for when you have presented both Santa Claus and Jesus Christ as co-realities for many years of your child's formative experience, and since your children will soon realize that one of them (Santa) is fictional, the kid who actually thinks things through (and they do exist!) may begin to question the veracity and truthfulness of other things that you have taught as fact. It can introduce a skepticism into the parent-child relationship which can work against you as a parent . . . their trust of you could be at stake. It is difficult to respect and submit to one whom you are skeptical and unsure of. Now, while this was not the case with me, I actually know a person who struggled with God's existence as a young man due, in part, to this very thing.



#4 - Finally, I do not teach Santa as factual because my using of Santa Claus and his bringing of toys to good boys and girls as a motivator for year-'round good behavior motivates the child's behavior towards the wrong objective, one that is certainly not Biblical and God-centered. As a Christian parent, for what reason should your children behave? Should they do so simply to avoid chastisement (spanking)? Should they do so in order to get something? Both of these are self-focused motivations (the former having to do with self-preservation).

--

As a subpoint to #4 above, we would also do well to revisit the fine distinction between a bribe (not to be used in the parenting process) and a reward (which certainly has its place) - while the former has to do with using a desirable thing to motivate and bring about a certain behavior, the latter has to do with a positive consequence/reward born out of a situation where one meets preexisting expectations (i.e., obedience to parents, submission to parental authority, etc.). To avoid a reward subtly morphing into an unintentional bribe, be careful how much you talk about the reward beforehand, and let the reward be something that doesn't happen everyday (at least, the type of reward that would be especially BIG in the eyes of your child - you wouldn't want to do that all of the time; you couldn't afford it either). Every expected instance of obedience shouldn't be followed by a trip to the mall for the latest craze. Whatever happened to "That's a boy," "Good job sweetie," "I'm very proud of you, honey," or simple pats on the back that say a lot? These are very rewarding options to consider and implement more actively in the parenting process. Trips to the mall are nice, too; just be careful not to over-do it to such an extent that you unintentionally create a self-focused child with a nasty sense of entitlement. Regardless, however, Santa shouldn't be used either way (bribe or reward) due to the dishonesty involved.

--

Other things to consider:

* Well intentions are simply that - well intentions. We could say the same for doing fun things that bring about a state or disposition of happiness in the one doing those fun things. However, is it possible that that one could mean well but not do well; that is to say, that you could unknowingly transgress or fall short of a Biblical command/precept while meaning well all the while, ultimately bringing about a harm that was unforeseen in the beginning?

** Is it also possible that one could engage in certain things that, while being fun and bringing about happiness, are illegitimate and sinful (i.e., getting plastered, engaging in premarital sexual relations, etc.)? In other words, there are things that we shouldn't engage in that might be considered a lot of fun. Although I've given the answer in so many words, I'd like you to think on this one as well.

*** I will allow my children to "pretend" relative to Santa Claus if they'd like or sit in the lap of the one dressed as him at the malls in December, etc. There is no inconsistency here, as I would have already communicated the truth of the issue to them and discerned whether or not they could distinguish that which is real from something that is imaginary. If, however, you ask my child what Santa brought to him for Christmas, do not be shocked when he looks at you with a puzzled stare; he already knows that Daddy & Mommy are the gift bearers. The same could be said about questions related to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.


**** As to the "magical wonderment factor" that many would claim I am removing from my child's early childhood years, to that I say nonsense. First of all, our current protocol for that time of year is uniquely wonderful and filled with lots of fun in his eyes. From his perspective, he's never been taught the typical Santa tradition, and for all he knows, he's not missing anything at all. Second, I would say that the Incarnation (God the Son stepping out of the halls of Heaven and taking on human flesh in order to save all sorts of people for Himself unto the glory of God) is much more miraculous than a fat man squeezing himself down chimneys. Third, even if the wonderment/wow factor was to a lesser degree in the eyes of a child (and it shouldn't be), this doesn't justify breaking Biblical precepts in order to remedy that in your mind. Be careful of the pragmatic mindset that would tell you that the end justifies the means; while this type of thinking about things (i.e., ethics, morals, etc.) is prominent in American thinking, it can get you in a LOT of trouble. If you have to transgress, or fall short of, Biblical commands/precepts in order to achieve a certain goal (i.e., possibly more fun for your child, among others things) then you have sinned . . . period. You are not loving your child when you do this, as much as your intuition and feelings say otherwise.


***** For more information on the historical Saint Nicholas, see the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_nicholas. You might want to teach your children about the historical St. Nicholas at some point. If so, the link provided should point you in the right direction.


--



With these things said, I would like to ask you some questions in closing:



(1) Since when did good intentions become the standard by which we act and make our decisions? While we certainly don't want to act out of bad intentions, is there more to the decision-making process (or, rather, should there be more) than merely meaning well?



(2) If an action is to be considered morally and ethically right based on whether fun is had in the process, what sorts of things could be considered fair game (could you name anything that the Scriptures deem as sinful and off-limits?)?


(3) Is obedience to God's commands/precepts (w/ are found in the Bible) and the very soul of your child more important to you than your reputation and likeability/coolness in their eyes?

Two Translation Methods & the KJV

In recent weeks, my wife brought to my attention an issue that was raised by an acquaintance of hers*, one that has to do with the King James Version of the Bible, and one that deserves addressing. After a subsequent discussion with my wife (and having previously read a grossly misguided article in our local digest, one that likely deserved a rebuttal), I decided it fruitful to e-mail her acquaintance with what I have posted below. I pray that you find this helpful and enlightening. With that said, I will jump to the chase, providing some notes on the 2 methodologies that are used when translating Scripture.

* [the acquaintance is not of the KJV-only mindset, but is having to deal with it by way of other connections]


-//-

I. Formal Equivalence (literal or word-for-word)-

A. This philosophy of translating is basically a literal word-for-word translation (that is the primary objective); the translating committee starts with the original Hebrew, Aramaic (not to be confused w/ Arabic), & Greek (parent languages) and then proceeds to relay what they find there into the receptor language (English, in our case), using our vocabulary and way of speaking.

B. Due to the word-for-word faithfulness and accuracy, translations falling under this umbrella would serve us best as we seek to do in-depth study (say, for a sermon, lesson, or simply for personal enrichment).

C. The KJV, NKJV, NASB (New American Standard Bible), RSV (Revised Standard Version), NRSV, etc., would be examples (though there are more). My personal favorite would be the NASB (1995 updated edition), as it is probably the most scholarly word-for-word translation on the market today (often deemed the “official” or preferred translation on many Bible College & Seminary campuses).

D. If I could cite a minor drawback here, I would have to say that the reading can be a bit more choppy due to the emphasis on word-for-word accuracy; but then again, if I were reading through the Bible in a year or reading for a daily devotion, I might use something under the “dynamic equivalence” umbrella, to be covered below.

-//-

II. Dynamic Equivalence (thought-for-thought) –

A. This philosophy of translating is basically a thought-for-thought translation (that being the primary focus); the translating committee starts with the original Biblical languages and then proceeds to transmit the main thought(s) of what they find there into the receptor language. In so doing, they must initially deal with the literal wording of the original languages, carefully noting the context, after which they seek to communicate the thought to us in our language.

B. These sorts of translations would likely serve you best in the area of general reading and daily devotions.

C. The NIV, CEV (Contemporary English Version), NLT (New Living Translation), etc., would be examples (though there are more). I like the NIV here. In fact, some would even say that the NIV is a good mix between the two types of translating methods! If you picture a ruler lying horizontally in your mind, with the left end representing formal equivalence and the right end representing dynamic equivalence, none of these (I speak of translations under both umbrellas here) lie directly on top of one another; rather, they fall at different points (the KJV might be on a 11th grade reading level while the NASB might fall at the 12th grade level, with the NIV at 7th grade or something comparable).

D. If I could cite a minor drawback, it would almost be the reverse of the drawback referenced above . . . while the reading would be fluid and smooth, you could potentially miss out on an important detail here and there.

-//-

As for paraphrases such as the Living Bible (LB) or Message (MSG), they use an existing translation as the starting point rather than the original languages, after which they seek to make things even more readable. In a sense, no hardcore translating is taking place. Though these are not to be discarded merely because they are paraphrases and not translations (they can be quite helpful at times), I would not give them quite the same credit as the actual translations.

-//-

It must be remembered that the above summary is meant to explain the two primary methods of translating. It’s not so much that one is good and one is bad so much as both are useful for different pursuits. If I were pressed to tell which I would carry with me to a deserted island (if I could bring only one; I would hate that!!), I would probably choose the NASB . . . or the ESV . . . or the NIV??!!?? [most likely the NASB, 1995 edition].

-//-

This discussion relates to the whole KJV-only argument when those types of folks (as well-intentioned as they may think themselves to be) start discussing the absence of certain words, etc., in non-KJV translations, prematurely concluding that this automatically implies some sort of satanic perversion conspiracy of sorts. They might not know (or, worse, might know that the layperson doesn’t know) these translation dynamics. I would caution that before you bite on this line (". . . 'hell' is missing there - the devil's in the house . . ."), you will want to check out those other translations on those points . . . I have found that on many occasions, they must have forgotten to check out those other translations as their arguments are simply not true; that is, I find “hell” and “blood” in many translations other than the King James Version. In very limited instances, let’s say that the literal word is missing. Is the concept present? Is there a corresponding letter or number in the text that refers you to a marginal note offering further explanation? My point is that in most cases, the word is actually there when you check the context (I did this on “hell” just a minute ago with some software that I have), but even if it is not, that in and of itself might not be problematic as there are other things to consider.

Not only does this type of thing discredit them within the Christian community, it also carries the added potential of bringing reproach on the Body of Christ in the eyes of scoffers and unbelievers who are waiting for a chance to misrepresent all Believers because of the ignorance of a few. It is hard to blame them.

Consider a very relevant passage of Scripture:

Mark 7:1-9 (English Standard Version – word-for-word):

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

-//-

Mark 7:1-9 (The Message):

The Pharisees, along with some religion scholars who had come from Jerusalem, gathered around him. They noticed that some of his disciples weren't being careful with ritual washings before meals. The Pharisees--Jews in general, in fact--would never eat a meal without going through the motions of a ritual hand-washing, with an especially vigorous scrubbing if they had just come from the market (to say nothing of the scourings they'd give jugs and pots and pans). The Pharisees and religion scholars asked, "Why do your disciples flout the rules, showing up at meals without washing their hands?" Jesus answered, "Isaiah was right about frauds like you, hit the bull's-eye in fact: These people make a big show of saying the right thing, but their heart isn't in it. They act like they are worshiping me, but they don't mean it. They just use me as a cover for teaching whatever suits their fancy, ditching God's command and taking up the latest fads." He went on, "Well, good for you. You get rid of God's command so you won't be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!”

I give this one in light of the what sin is, that being any lack of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God (or, what God has commanded/what He expects from us). Beyond the precepts of God’s word, I begin questioning one who would make a matter of sin something that is foreign to God’s Word.

With that said, not all translations are necessarily equal in value; however, the message should remain the same in a copy of Scripture you purchase at your local Christian bookstore. Interestingly enough, The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) have come out with the NWT (New World Translation), claiming that this represents the best in translation scholarship and . . . rubbish! If you were to turn to John 1:1 and following in that “version,” you’d find something like this: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” In the versions you find at LifeWay, it would read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” You can see how the very deity of Christ is at stake . . . a legit problem!

The Sufficiency of Scripture & Child Discipline III

From last time . . .


The next response I received from Peace2You follows (you’ll notice that he addresses some items published in Part 1/S.T.S. 2.5 of this series).

I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I interpret scripture a bit less literally than you and don't take an actual rod to be necessary. In at least two of those passages, I think this is entirely justified. "Rod of discipline" and "rod of correction" seem to invite metaphorical interpretation like "breastplate of righteousness" does. I think discipline and correction will save your child's life. But I don't think it is necessary that the rod be a part of that. As I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method succeeded. I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead, and they
never felt prompting from the Spirit that they were not following God's ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on the matter. –Peace2You

-//-

Now we will pick up where we left off last time . . .

I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I
interpret scripture a bit less literally than you and don't take an actual rod to be necessary. –Peace2You

Some scriptures are to be interpreted less literally than others - no doubt about that at all Peace. A good hermeneutic readily recognizes the possibility of the use of language in a figurative or non-literal sense (i.e., similes, metaphors, etc.) to teach a literal truth. The question remains, however, as to whether one is hermeneutically justified in viewing the rod passages of Proverbs in the manner that you have suggested; that is, metaphorically (based on these 2 qualifiers: "of discipline," & "of correction"). -Scott

In at least two of those passages, I think this is entirely justified. "Rod of discipline" and "rod of correction" seem to invite metaphorical interpretation like "breastplate of righteousness" does. –Peace2You

This is not warranted at all, especially upon closer examination of the cited passages. Let me state here that I do understand that you don't have a problem with a parent who spanks or with one who interprets the rod passages in the manner that I have suggested. I understand that. However, let me offer a working definition of "metaphor" that I think we can agree upon:

Metaphor: a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

Let's now revisit the rod passages of Proverbs, along with viewing the passage on the armor that you referred to (I'll also throw in one for free from 1 Thessalonians 5 as well).

Proverbs 10:13 - On the lips of him who has understanding, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks sense.

Proverbs 13:24 - Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Proverbs 14:3 - By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise will preserve them.

Proverbs 22:8 - Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.

Proverbs 22:15 - Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 - Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. [take a close look here]

Proverbs 23:14 - If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol. [take a close look here]

Proverbs 26:3 - A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. [take a close look here]

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and* reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [some translations do use "rod of correction" here, leaving out "and reproof"; again, take a close look here]


-//-

Ephesians 6:10-18a - Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, *which is the word of God *[here is an in-text explanation], praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. *[sword of the Spirit is, in the text itself, defined as the word of God]

-//-

1 Thessalonians 5:8 - But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

-//-

Now - while the context of the Ephesians 6 and the 1 Thessalonians 5 passages naturally lend themselves to metaphorical interpretation (i.e. denoting similarities between belt/truth, breastplate/righteousness, shoes/gospel, shield/faith, helmet/salvation, & sword/Spirit), the qualifiers “of _________” in 3 out of 9 Proverbs' "rod" passages don't look to parallel in the same way at all. In other words, sword of the Spirit is to the Word of God as belt is to truth (these are clear metaphors), but sword of the Spirit is not to the Word of God as rod is to discipline; that is to say, the sword of the Spirit IS the word of God . . . it does not BRING ABOUT the Word of God . . . at the same time, the rod IS NOT discipline . . . rather, it serves the purpose of bring about discipline. Context (at least of the usage of rod throughout Proverbs) should suffice to make the point.While the Ephesians 6 and 1 Thessalonians 5 passages are clearly metaphorical in that they are denoting similarities or comparisons between 2 unlike things, the passages in Proverbs take on more of a cause/effect relationship. I don't see how it is justified here to draw a similarity between rod and correction and/or discipline.

Added to this, as a matter of cultural manners and customs, the audience would have understood the shebet (or, rod) to mean a scion or stick utilized in writing, fighting, punishing, ruling, walking, etc. Usage of shebet could hypothetically be used in a figurative manner at times, but relative to child-discipline, it is not warranted. This paragraph and the one preceding it are very important, so I encourage you to read through them a few more times before moving on.

Proverbs 22:15 - Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him. [The tool (rod) utilized to bring about a certain objective (discipline) . . . ]

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and* reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. [some translations do use "rod of correction" here, leaving out "and reproof"] [The instrument (rod) used for the purpose of bringing about correction] . . . -Scott

I think discipline and correction will save your child's life. –Peace2You

Agreed. –Scott

But I don't think it is necessary that the rod be a part of that. –Peace2You

The Bible says that corporal punishment is to be a major component of a parent's disciplinary toolbox; created man is who says otherwise. Note that I did not say that nothing else should be utilized in discipline save the rod; not at all, for we have additional instruction such as the following:

Proverbs 29:15 - The rod *and reproof* give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. -Scott

As I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. –Peace2You

True. –Scott

It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. –Peace2You

The 1st sentence above is odd to me, especially when taken together with the 2nd one that follows it. If the "rod" is to be understood in a metaphorical sense (as a non-literal way to refer to discipline and correction in general), then I don't see how it is entirely justified by Scripture. Is one justified in using the breastplate of righteousness in a wooden literal manner? –Scott

Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method succeeded. –Peace2You

Not at all! Have you observed ALL the children of people that failed to exercise corporal punishment, yet were otherwise strong in their disciplinary approach (even the ones that are dead and those who are yet to be born)? Even if you did (which you didn’t), how can you be so sure that you correctly interpreted that which you observed? What you have observed doesn't prove anything at the end of the day.

This is where induction, or seeking to reason from a part to the whole, fails us (though it, admittedly, has much appeal for pragmatically-minded Americans). In any event, it isn't quite as easy as you say it is. What you just did perfectly takes the form of a fallacious argument, known as asserting the consequent. Allow me to explain:

Asserting/Affirming the Consequent:

Premise 1: If A, then B;
Premise 2: B;
Conclusion: Therefore, A . . .

-//-

Can you spot the problem above before moving on? Try to see for yourself before reading on!!

-//-

Okay! The problem is that *A* was never established as a true premise in its own right whatsoever (look again); it was merely asserted or posited (“IF” A) in an attempt to make sense out of the situation. It was presupposed or assumed before-hand. In fact, *B* could be the case for many reasons other than *A*.

If we fill the construct with the meat of your argument for the success of variant methodologies of discipline other than corporal punishment, it would look like this:

Premise 1: *If* [A] non-physical forms of discipline can be successful, then [B] I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment.

Premise 2: It is the case that [B] I observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were not literally spanked, yet who were disciplined consistently and actively.

Conclusion: Therefore, [A] non-physical forms of discipline can be successful.

-//-

Therefore what? Therefore nothing! Do you see the problem??
This suffers from the same problems as expounded upon above. *B* (. . . then I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment . . .) can be the case for any number of reasons other than A.

Watch . . .

Premise 1: *If* [A] God can graciously produce a faithful servant in spite of the failure of his parents to spank, then [B] I will observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were disciplined consistently and actively, yet without the use of corporal punishment.

Premise 2: It is the case that [B] I observe God-following/God-fearing grown-ups who were not literally spanked, yet who were disciplined consistently and actively.

Conclusion: Therefore, [A] God can graciously produce a faithful servant in spite of the failure of his parents to spank.

-//-

NOTE – Notice, however, that the disobedience of the parents remains just that . . . disobedience. It is not validated based on the Godly life of their offspring. You can find children who were raised correctly and who turned out bad; also, you can find children who were raised in horrendous conditions but who are present testimonies to the grace and mercy of the Lord. Regardless, we as Christian parents still have a standard to abide by; failing to adhere to Biblical precepts (in this case relative to the upbringing of offspring) is sin and nothing less.

-//-

I'll note some things here in closing:

1. We serve a gracious God who can certainly bring about what He desires in spite of our many failings as parents. Like you, I know many grown-ups that were not spanked and that turned out fine - granted. Thank God for that! However, this doesn't presuppose a successful method of discipline. The parents of those now grown-ups were still disobedient to revealed Biblical precepts. God is so gracious and we are so undeserving of it. Soli Deo Gloria!!

2. Let's alter things a bit for the sake of better understanding this issue. I know a child-hood acquaintance of mine that was spanked and is currently awaiting execution in Florida. I know many who were spanked that aren't beacons of integrity. If your argument about the success of non-corporal methods of discipline is valid, then is spanking non-successful in light of the failures? This would be irrational.

3. There are upstanding citizens that were spanked as children, and then there are problem-citizens that were spanked. Additionally, there are upstanding citizens who were not spanked, and then there are problem-citizens who were. If what we "observe" in a limited capacity (a particular) can be expanded to a universal truth (a general), then we now have a bona fide tangled web of unintelligible non-sense.

4. Spanking can be abused . . . sorely abused. Non-physical disciplinary measures can be abused also. This pretty much goes without saying; I know you would agree.

5. As I understand it, Proverbs is a book of principles . . . not necessarily promises. Sometimes we do all we know how to do in seeking to raise Godly offspring . . . and then it all hits the fan (although I would say that this is more the exception than the rule). Ultimately, the destiny of every child is in the hands of our Sovereign God, to do with them what He sees fit to do for His Glory. We must get into the Word though, finding out what God has said about raising kids - then we must implement those things in practical ways, praying that God would bring about awesome things through the means of good parental instruction. God can surely bring about what He has decreed to the exclusion of means; however, it doesn’t seem that He chooses to do so for the most part.

6. No matter what "seems" to work in our day of pragmatism, what has God said/revealed to us in the Bible? If sin is any lack of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God, we would do well to familiarize ourselves with His revelation (that law). -Scott

I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead . . . –Peace2You

Okay. –Scott

. . . and they never felt prompting from the spirit that they were not following God's ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on the matter. –Peace2You

This is an entirely different issue here, although our subject led us here quite nicely. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I think I will start a new thread on this, so as to not get too far off course here in this one. I'll call it "The Prompting of the Spirit & Guidance," and I'll post it under the umbrella of "Exegesis." –Scott

To read that thread (very short, but very helpful), simply click on the following link:

http://www.c2r.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=69&sid=c1ecebb6ccc2703aabcafce72bf8a70e

-//-

I didn’t receive anymore responses from Peace2You.

-End of Series-

[Scratching the Surface 2.6]

The Sufficiency of Scripture & Child Discipline II

In S.T.S. 2.3, I briefly referenced a recent discussion I’d had with someone over Biblical methods of child-discipline (in particular, whether or not to spank your child), noting a popular but dangerous line of reasoning that was communicated to me. Since that time, I have decided that there is good merit to printing the majority of that dialogue, the first part of which was published in S.T.S. 2.4. My reason was simply this: there are too many lessons covered in that correspondence to merely deal with one portion of it. So, with that said, I’ll here paste the part two of that discussion. Since this dialogue happened in thread format (on a forum), you may see some repetition here and there. Because of this, I will seek to be extra-careful in how I lay out the dialogue.

-//-

My initial post that kicked off the discussion:

“I know someone that, as a matter of child-discipline, will bite her child if that child were to bite one of her playmates. Moreover, she will go so far as to desire to leave teeth marks. I am pro-corporal punishment and consistently use a wooden/plastic spoon in a first-time obedience manner with my son, but I'm not really sure how I feel about the biting (I lean away from it actually). One of my other friends (who is not a big fan of corporal punishment at all) asked: ‘How do you expect to teach against that which is wrong by doing what is wrong in itself?’ This sort of over-simplified thinking could work her into a pretzel in my opinion - if pressed a bit further. For example, I could see her arguing the same way against spanking. One popular line is: "I just can't see how violence is ever justified." Well, some would seek to show that corporal punishment is not a form of violence, per se. I don't know about that (i.e., self defense, cases of just war, capital punishment when appropriate, etc.). I would like to generate some discussion on these various concerns.” -Scott

-//-

For starters, let’s take 2 pieces from the above paragraph and address them.

1 - “How do you expect to teach against that which is wrong by doing what is
wrong in itself?” This sort of over-simplified thinking could work her into a
pretzel in my opinion - if pressed a bit further. For example, I could see her
arguing the same way against spanking.

2 - One popular line is: “I just can't see how violence is ever justified.”
Well, some would seek to show that corporal punishment is not violence, per se.
I don't know about that (i.e., self defense, cases of just war, capital
punishment when appropriate, etc.). I would like to generate some discussion on
these various concerns.

You see, someone could see a parent spanking a child and say . . . "You shouldn't teach your child about right/wrong by doing a wrong action" . . . well, I'm going to turn around and tell you that you are presupposing that spanking is a wrong action (for whatever reason one might think that it is). In other words, I would seek to reverse the burden of proof, making you lay out a solid case for spanking being wrong.

Furthermore, I would ask you to put your argument in the form of a syllogism so I could see whether or not you have a real argument or not to respond to. It would look like this with most opponents of corporal punishment (though not Peace2You, to be fair, as he is not necessarily against corporal punishment):

P1: Spanking is a form of violence;
P2: Violence is wrong;
C: Therefore, spanking is wrong.

This is a bit (a lot) sloppy when broken down and unpacked. First, we would have to go further back to see whether spanking constituted a legit form of violence (P1). For the sake of argumentation, I'll go ahead and concede that point, as I believe that premise 1 is a true premise. Second, we would then have to examine whether all forms of violence were inherently immoral and wrong (P2). If the answer given to that is "yes," then what do we do when someone breaks into our homes? When we may be in a position to help someone who is being beaten up? Capital punishment?

You could work yourself into a pretzel if not careful . . . really careful. Inconsistency and arbitrariness has a way of bubbling to the surface for exposure when we carefully analyze a thing according to strict logical construction. Failure to establish the given premises as true results not in an argument, but rather in an unjustified assertion which carries no weight at all.

Added to this, lets say that you didn't spank. Let's say that you gave a talking to, withheld privileges, or used timeout, etc. (not that these things should never be used). Does the non-physical nature of the chosen course of action give your child permission to put their teacher in time-out? Lecture grandmother? Withhold the sharing of toys from a playmate? By no means. In a similar way, good spanking doesn't teach your child that it's alright to hit someone else. I can do things as a parent that are off-limits to my children, much the same way that officers could over civilians -- teachers over students -- supervisors over employees, etc. There are differing roles, some of them carrying more weight, privileges, and responsibilities than others . . . yet none of them stating that the teacher is inherently more worthy or valuable than the student.

-//-

Many "biter-parents" may appeal to the "eye for eye/tooth for tooth" principle (lex talionis; also spelled lex taliones) as somewhat of a justification for doing such a thing. Unfortunately, they do a hatchet-job on that great governmental principle of the Bible in order to do so. This law of retaliation or retribution is a civil law to be carried out by appropriate governing authorities . . . not us. With that said, though, some things need to be noted:

(1) civilians like us don't equate to an ordained governing body; the state
is licensed to do many things that would be off-limits to your average civilian;

(2) lex talionis is about pure punishment or justice for a wrong committed;
in that sense, it is not about rehabilitation or education or moral instruction
whatsoever -- it's penal and punitive -- it's about justice, plain and simple;

(3) there is a major difference between justice and discipline in the
context of rearing a child; in the justice system, punishment may range from a
parking ticket to death, depending on what has taken place . . . justice is
penal or punitive in nature . . . disciplining your child has much more to do
with education or moral instruction . . . big difference;

(4) lex talionis doesn't mean what many think it does . . . the ultimate
point is that the punishment must fit the crime in some real sense, not that I
get to take your eye out if you take mine (especially when speaking of minors);
if somebody steals a loaf of bread, we don't whack their arm off;

(5) justice systems/penal institutions are sorely misunderstood in our day
. . . for example, many view them as places of rehabilitation -- this is totally
wrong; when rehab doesn't take place, many get their underwear worked into a
bowline knot and go to belly-aching about the failures of our justice system
(and there are problems to be sure); the problem here is that penal institutions
were never meant to instruct criminals first and foremost -- they have
historically existed to punish criminals; it's like folks who say that capital
punishment never works because it's not looking to be a strong deterrent (as if
they could actually know this in any sort of meaningful way) . . . my response
is that capital punishment works every single time -- every time it's used, the
prisoner dies; a deterrent factor may be a secondary positive factor, but it is
not an issue of priority;

-//-

All of the above is to basically say that justice is NOT what disciplining your children should be about. Biter-moms do greatly err here!

-//-

A sloppy or a good anthropology will make a big difference here. It all depends on your worldview. Is man's (more specifically, a criminal's) primary problem one of a pathological nature, needing therapy? Or is is moral, requiring justice/punishment? I am getting way off here, so let me bring it back and close it out.

Ultimately, I would ask you (anybody really) what authoritative standard you are appealing to in order to make your case:

*Is that standard transcendent, universal, abstract, invariant, and
absolute (given/revealed to us by One who transcends our physical existence, One
Who is all-knowing, and One Who has created us and has the very hairs of our
heads numbered)?

**Or is that standard local and private (an invention or popular convention
of man that is agreed upon by consensus)?

***If the former, then what is it and how do you know? Why is it
authoritative?

****If the latter, then I have no reason or obligation to comply and can
simply invent my own philosophies . . . and so could Hitler, etc.

-//-

Examples of appealing to local and private "standards" would be:

[a] Feelings - but if your feeling one way makes it right, then what
happens when I appeal to a conflicting feeling?

[b] Intuition - "

[c] Experiences - "

[d] Testimony of "Experts" - But who are the experts? Where did they get
their stuff? What worldview are they proceeding from and can it stand? Who
designated them as such and why did they do so? What about other "experts" that
would take issue with the previous experts? Who wins and why?? Your book says
this, but mine says the opposite, etc.

The next response I received from Peace2You follows (you’ll notice that he addresses some items published in Part 1 of this series). In Part 3 (S.T.S. 2.6), I will include my response to this and close out this series. Hang in there!

I'm familiar with all the scriptures on the rod. Sorry if I interpet scripture a
bit less literally than you and don't take an actual rod to be necessary. In at
least two of those passages, I think this is entirely justified "rod of
discipline" and "rod of correction" seem to invite metaphorical interpretation
like "breastplate of righteousness" does. I think discipline and correction will
save your child's life. But I don't think it is necessary that the rod be a part
of that. As I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though.
It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required.
Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise
their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if
their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method
succeeded. I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead,
and they never felt prompting from the spirit that they were not following God's
ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on
the matter. –Peace2You

-//-

To be continued . . .

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.5]

A Not So Great Quote

"Nothing is more dangerous than religion in politics and government when it becomes divisive . . . . . . I'll give you examples: Iraq. Northern Ireland. Palestine." -John C. ("Jack") Danforth [Republican Episcopal Priest]

-//-

Let's turn that around in order to expose some things:

"Nothing is more dangerous than no religion in politics and government. Here are some examples: The evolutionary philosophy of Nazism that led to the direct deaths of millions and started a world war; atheistic Communism where 25 million were killed in Russia during the Bolshevik and Stalinist eras; 75 million in China under Mao Tse-Tung; 2 million in Cambodia; millions more in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America; and the deaths of tens of millions of pre-born babies by those who don't want religion and politics to mix."

-//-

If we could withstand the sophistry and empty rhetoric tossed in our direction long enough to think rationally about things, we would do much better! At the end of the day, you cannot separate and divorce politics from the more foundational worldview that gives birth to those political leanings. After all, why isn’t everybody liberal? Why isn’t everybody conservative? You see, there are *reasons* for these things. Secularism is ultimately a variant ideology or philosophy and not some neutral position disconnected from “religion”. Remember that one who is skeptical of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs. Neutrality is mythical!!

The Sufficiency of Scripture & Child Discipline I

In the last issue of S.T.S., I briefly referenced a recent discussion I’d had with someone over Biblical methods of child-discipline (in particular, whether or not to spank your child), noting a popular but dangerous line of reasoning that was communicated to me. Since that time, I have decided that there is good merit to printing the majority of that dialogue. My reason is simply this: there are too many lessons covered in that correspondence to merely deal with one portion of it (that is, in the last issue). So, with that said, I’ll here paste the “post” that started it all. Since this dialogue happened in thread format (on a forum), you may see some repetition here and there. Because of this, I will seek to be extra-careful in how I lay out the dialogue.

-//-

My initial post that kicked off the discussion:

“I know someone that, as a matter of child-discipline, will bite her child if that child were to bite one of her playmates. Moreover, she will go so far as to desire to leave teeth marks. I am pro-corporal punishment and consistently use a wooden/plastic spoon in a first-time obedience manner with my son, but I'm not really sure how I feel about the biting (I lean away from it actually). One of my other friends (who is not a big fan of corporal punishment at all) asked: ‘How do you expect to teach against that which is wrong by doing what is wrong in itself?’ This sort of over-simplified thinking could work her into a pretzel in my opinion - if pressed a bit further. For example, I could see her arguing the same way against spanking. One popular line is: "I just can't see how violence is ever justified." Well, some would seek to show that corporal punishment is not a form of violence, per se. I don't know about that (i.e., self defense, cases of just war, capital punishment when appropriate, etc.). I would like to generate some discussion on these various concerns.” -Scott


Response:

“The biting thing seems ludicrous. There doesn't need to be a connection between the bad behavior and the punishment chosen to correct it. If my child lies to me, should I teach him a lesson by lying to him? That's just dumb and misses the whole point of discipline, which is to assert parental authority and help children understand that some behaviors are not acceptable.” “Personally I don't think spanking is a necessary form of punishment, though I don't have any real moral objections to it. But I do think that spanking radically underestimates how much children are capable of understanding about their actions and consequences. It adopts the assumption that the only consequence to bad behavior that children can understand is physical pain. Children are capable of understanding much more than that, even at a very young age, and other forms of punishment such as the famous 'time out' seem to work fine. The main thing is that consequences are explicitly made known and enacted on a consistent basis and that parents explain to children why they are being punished in a calm, clear way. Anger has no place in child discipline; spanking seems to me to invite anger, though I know people who spank and are very careful not to let it in.” –Peace2You

-//-

My Reply to That [please note that I respond with “in-line” comments depending on what all I feel needs addressing; thus, I will re-post a sentence or two of his, with my comments directly below, and so on and so forth]:

The biting thing seems ludicrous. There doesn't need to be a connection between
the bad behavior and the punishment chosen to correct it. If my child lies to
me, should I teach him a lesson by lying to him? That's just dumb and misses the
whole point of discipline, which is to assert parental authority and help
children understand that some behaviors are not acceptable. –Peace2You

I would echo you here. –Scott

Personally I don't think spanking is a necessary form of punishment. –Peace2You

Okay. You may not think this, but the same God who created us and
perfectly knows our capabilities also exhaled the following truths through the
vehicle of a man: Proverbs 13:24 -He who spares the rod hates his son, but he
who loves him is careful to discipline him. Proverbs 22:15 -Folly is bound up in
the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 -Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him
with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from
death. Proverbs 29:15 -The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to
himself disgraces his mother. As far as a "shebet" (or, rod/stick) is concerned,
the use of one in that culture would be analogous to a sharp, quick sting
generated from something like a wooden spoon or switch today. There is no
wiggle-room allowing for a symbolic-only usage of the rod here, one that would
render this passage in such a way as to say something like: He who fails to
administer a discipline of his choosing hates his son, but he who loves him is
careful to discipline him.
We would also do well to keep the following verse
in mind:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 -All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good
work. -Scott

though I don't have any real moral objections to it. –Peace2You

From what standard or authority would moral objections to corporal punishment come? It's a good that you don't have any moral objections to spanking Peace2You. The Scripture is clear on corporal punishment. Moral objections stemming from anything other than the revealed commands/precepts of God (located in His Word) are found to be without a foundation and are baseless. You would construct a house on a foundation of sand by doing such a thing. Again, from what foundation would you proceed and how do you justify it as a Christian? –Scott

But I do think that spanking radically underestimates how much children are
capable of understanding about their actions and consequences. –Peace2You

Did God not know this when He moved the persons above to say what they did? In all seriousness, though . . . do you know better than God? I do ask this genuinely, appreciating your participation here. Have we come to a place where we have progressed in such a way as to render the maxims in Proverbs obsolete in some sense? –Scott

It adopts the assumption that the only consequence to bad behavior that children
can understand is physical pain. –Peace2You

How so? This is for you to justify. –Scott

Children are capable of understanding much more than that, even at a very young
age, and other forms of punishment such as the famous 'time out' seem to work
fine. –Peace2You

Okay. –Scott

The main thing is that consequences are explicitly made known and enacted on a
consistent basis and that parents explain to children why they are being
punished in a calm, clear way. –Peace2You

I hesitate to prematurely join myself with you in stating that this is the "main thing" (as if the method of discipline were a relative issue), although you get at a very valid point here. There are 2 opposite, yet equally destructive, extremes that I see many parents falling into (ones that I have to constantly guard against myself). [1] Not clearly communicating a standard but holding your child to it (i.e., an unspoken norm, etc.) . . . or, on a related note, holding the child to a standard that you think you have communicated but one that he or she hasn't really grasped in a functional way; & [2] Communicating boundaries to your child, knowing that he or she has grasped them, yet failing to hold them accountable in a consistent fashion to them. You are correct. We should be able to discipline our children in a calm, cool, and collected manner -- we should be in control throughout the entire disciplinary process. Moreover, if we have fallen into a trap of some sort of an early warning system (i.e., counting to 3, raising my voice above the normal level, or constantly repeating a command), then we are failing. We need to come out of that and to come out quickly for the sake of our children (and the society that has to eventually put up with them). Their very life could one day depend on this . . . what if I were to one day see a coiled rattler 5 ft. behind my unknowing son? I would need to be able to command him, "Son, stand still and don't move," and to then have him immediately comply w/o hesitation. Well, what if I had to say, "Son, if you don't stand still while I count to 3 . . .," etc. You can see the problems there and the point I am getting at. My child will not likely respond to me the first time in a crisis situation if he hasn't been trained to do so in a normal circumstance. –Scott

Anger has no place in child discipline; spanking seems to me to invite anger,
-Peace2You

I could possibly see this as a potentiality were spanking to be abused or improperly administered; however, we are commanded to exercise corporal punishment. It doesn't seem to me that spanking would automatically invite anger. We must be careful of what seems to be the case in anything really. This gets close to arguing from intuition, which lands us in a world of trouble logically. I can attest to many things/thoughts that seemed correct at the time that were clearly not in conformity with the revealed precepts of Scripture. Still, I'm sure I have plenty more blind-spots that need to be taken captive to the obedience of Christ. –Scott

though I know people who spank and are very careful not to let it in. –Peace2You

Right. Thanks, Peace. I will end this one with an excerpt from Dr. James Dobson (emphasis mine) and then with a brief response to my initial post at the top, which will serve to transition us to the next issue of S.T.S.: “. . . children who have experienced corporal punishment from loving parents do not have trouble understanding its meaning. I recall my good friends Art and Ginger Shingler, who had four beautiful children whom I loved. One of them went through a testy period where he was just "asking for it." The conflict came to a head in a restaurant, when the boy continued doing everything he could to be bratty. Finally, Art took him to the parking lot for an overdue spanking. A woman passerby observed the event and became irate. She chided the father for "abusing" his son and said she intended to call the police. With that, the child stopped crying and said to his father, "What's wrong with that woman, Dad?" He understood the discipline even if his rescuer did not. A boy or girl who knows that love abounds at home will not resent a well-deserved spanking. One who is unloved or ignored will hate any form of discipline!” [Dobson]

-//-

As for biting as a punishment, the Bible says to use the "rod" for discipline, and not to necessarily do to the child the same thing that he has done wrong. That is what I'm seeing. I'll deal more with lex talionis, or the law of retaliation/retribution (an eye for an eye), in part 2 (next issue).

It IS exactly right that we cannot teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong. But the question still remains -- WHAT is wrong? What's wrong is a violation of God's laws. What’s right is obedience to His revealed commands and precepts. The child was wrong in biting another not because violence is itself wrong, but because it is a violation of Biblical precepts; however, corporal punishment IS itself a Biblical precept. So, we follow the same principle when we forbid biting AND administer corporal punishment. That is to say, it is wrong to teach against biting (what is wrong) by NOT exercising corporal punishment. At the same time, how can we teach what is right (not biting) by NOT doing what is right (administering corporal punishment)? This is merely a God-centered approach to ethical decision-making, utilizing His revealed laws as a reference point.

If violence ITSELF is wrong no matter what, then corporal punishment (by deduction) would be wrong by sheer necessity. But how would one go about justifying the assumption that violence is wrong no matter what?? Would they exempt themselves for the things that they want to permit themselves to do, such as cutting carrots into hundreds of pieces? What about killing thousands of bacteria with every breath that they take? From this perspective, the “no-violence at all” crowd becomes mass murderers. We come full circle. This is the difference between a God-centered approach to ethical decision-making (with a reference point to the revealed precepts of the Bible) and a man-centered approach to that same undertaking (with a reference-point of subjective intuition, feelings, and/or experiences). If the reference-point is man-centered, then it will ultimately produce implications or conclusions that the adherent of that man-centered approach would not likely live with at the end of the day. This would expose inconsistencies and arbitrariness. For example, in the case of no violence at all because all violence (in any form) is wrong, consider locking someone up against his will (as in kidnapping or some other situation of a related nature). If this is IN ITSELF wrong, then the adherent of the man-centered approach could not logically support the prison system . . . that is, unless the criminal WANTS to go to prison. That's not going to happen though. -Scott

-//-

To be continued . . .

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

The Mistake of Arguing from Silence

Jesus never condemned homosexuality, nor did He even mention it. Does it follow that homosexuality is okay?

-//-

Have you heard this one before (or something similar)? There are a number of issues at play here, one of them being a faulty view of the uniformity and cohesiveness of the Scriptures (i.e., for instance, are the words of Paul in his epistle to the Romans authoritative also, seeing as how they’re in the canon too?). However, instead of firstly dealing with that issue, my initial response/angle would be this: “So what! Where are you seeking to go with that premise? Finish the thought.”

What the person means to communicate is that since Christ did not condemn or explicitly mention homosexuality, it should then follow that He either approved of it, didn’t have a problem with it one way or the other, or didn’t see it as a huge deal. However, this conclusion doesn’t follow from the given premise (the person has engaged in a non-sequitur logical fallacy, a fallacy whereby the conclusion to one’s argument does not necessarily or validly flow from the prior premises given). Did Christ specifically condemn rape? Since He did not, does it logically follow that He was okay with that crime?

Jesus upheld the validity of the Old Testament and its condemnation of rape, incest, and homosexuality. Do we seek to put legislation on the table that would seek to decriminalize rape and incest simply because Jesus did not explicitly condemn these behaviors? I think you can see the terrible argument at play here; however, it has been used before. Jesus and the New Testament writers worked within (and from) a framework/backdrop of the Old Testament law, thus, there was no need to repeat what was already accepted to be authoritative.

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

Judicial Tyranny? . . . You Bet!!

“Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so. Neither Meyer nor Pierce [two earlier Supreme Court rulings] provides support for the view that parents have a right to prevent a school from providing any kind of information—sexual or otherwise—to its students.… Perhaps the Sixth Circuit said it best when it explained, ‘While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.’”

-//-

If you’d like to read the whole article (approx. 2 pages in length), then I encourage you to click on the provided link right now:

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/11-09-05.asp

Don’t even think about not reading the linked article! To whet your appetite a bit more, check out another quote included in the article:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will be finally achieved.”

--

By the way, that last quote was penned 20 years ago! Check the article out!

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

The Biblical Approach to Ethics

I thought it might be helpful to acquaint you to what I believe is the Biblical position on ethics and ethical decision-making concerns.

-//-

Ethics: We Ought to Obey God Rather Than Men

As to the field of ethics, we ought to obey God rather than men. The Bible teaches that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes actions right or wrong, and matters of right and wrong certainly cannot be decided by majority vote. In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.” Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong.

This may be seen very clearly in God’s command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God’s command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey. Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, the right to health, and the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God’s commands make some things right and other things wrong. In the Old Testament, it was a sin for the Jews to eat pork. Today, we can all enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast. What makes killing a human being and eating pork right or wrong is not some quality inherent in men and pigs, but merely the divine command itself.

If we had rights because we are men--if our rights were natural and inalienable--then God himself would have to respect them. But God is sovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do not have natural rights. That is good, for natural and inalienable rights are logically incompatible with punishment of any sort. Fines, for example, violate the inalienable right to property. Imprisonment violates the inalienable right to liberty. Execution violates the inalienable right to life. The natural right theory is logically incoherent at its foundation. Natural rights are logically incompatible with justice. The Biblical idea is not natural rights, but imputed rights. Only imputed rights, not intrinsic rights--natural and inalienable rights--are compatible with liberty and justice. And those rights are imputed by God.

All attempts to base ethics on some foundation other than the Bible fail. Natural law is a failure, because “oughts” cannot be derived from “ises.” In more formal language, the conclusion of an argument can contain no terms that are not found in its premises. Natural lawyers, who begin their arguments with statements about man and the universe, statements in the indicative mood, cannot end their arguments with statements in the imperative mood.

The major ethical theory competing with natural law theory today is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism tells us that the moral action is one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number. It furnishes an elaborate method for calculating the effects of choices. Unfortunately, utilitarianism is also a failure, for it not only commits the naturalistic fallacy of the natural lawyers, it requires a calculation that cannot be executed as well. We cannot know what is the greatest good for the greatest number.

The only logical basis for ethics is the revealed commands of God. They furnish us not only with the basic distinction between right and wrong, but with detailed instructions and practical examples of right and wrong. They actually assist us in living our daily lives. Secular attempts to provide an ethical system fail on both counts.

–written by John W. Robbins, The Trinity Foundation (from the very helpful pamphlet titled, “What Is Christian Philosophy?”)

-//-

That pamphlet can be accessed for free at:

http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=48

I highly recommend you read the pamphlet, as it shows how the Scriptures speak to knowledge, logic, salvation, science, ethics, human rights, politics, etc. It’s not too long of a read, either. Within its 66 books, the Bible contains a complete system of thought. Paul tells us that “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ Jesus.” “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The Bible tells us how we may know truth, what reality is like, how we should think and act, and even what governments should do. Philosophers usually call these studies (1) epistemology: the theory of knowing; (2) metaphysics: the theory of reality; (3) ethics: the theory of conduct; and (4) politics: the theory of government. The first of these, epistemology, is the most important, for it is the most basic.

--

[Scratching the Surface 2.4]

2 Recommended Ministries

1. Reformation Ministries International & Vincent Cheung (Theology - Philosophy - Apologetics):

www.rmiweb.org

www.vincentcheung.com

-//-

From the home page:

"Welcome to Reformation Ministries International. RMI exists to promote and defend Christianity as it is revealed in Scripture, and as it is systematically expressed in various statements of Reformation theology such as The Westminster Confession, The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and The Canons of Dordt. Although some areas of this ministry are still at their early stages, RMI is already recognized by some as a strong and decisive voice in Christian theology and apologetics.

Vincent Cheung is the president of Reformation Ministries International. He is the author of more than twenty books and several hundred lectures on a wide range of topics in theology, philosophy, apologetics, and spirituality. Through his books and lectures, he is training Christians to understand, proclaim, defend, and practice the biblical worldview as a comprehensive and coherent system of thought revealed by God in Scripture. He and his wife, Denise, reside in Boston, Massachusetts.

For our main text on biblical doctrines, please consult our Systematic Theology. Our text on Christian philosophy is Ultimate Questions. Although these two books already include some of our teachings on apologetics, Presuppositional Confrontations is dedicated to further detailing our approach and its biblical basis. Related to apologetics, our answer to the so-called "problem of evil" appears in The Author of Sin, and Apologetics in Conversation introduces several important principles for doing apologetics in informal debates. For our introductory exposition of biblical law and ethics, please see The Sermon on the Mount. Then, Prayer and Revelation is an introduction to biblical spirituality and prayer, and The Ministry of the Word states our position on homiletical and educational theories.

Besides these and other texts, our publications include biblical commentaries, topical studies, and basic lessons in logic and argumentation. Our goal is to construct a library of works covering the whole spectrum of Christian thinking and living."

-//-

All of Vincent Cheung's books and articles can be downloaded for free (in PDF format if you have an Adobe Acrobat Reader) from www.rmiweb.org. Besides this, I strongly encourage you to read the daily posts at www.vincentcheung.com.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. Family Ministries & Reb Bradley (Marriage - Family - Schooling - Etc.):

http://www.familyministries.com/index.htm

-//-

From the website:

"Reb Bradley, father of 6, is a pastor who ministers to the Body of Christ at large. Reb has been a radio counselor and talkshow host, and as a writer and national conference speaker he works diligently to strengthen the modern Christian family. He conducts seminars and teaches extensively on issues related to marriage, fatherhood, child training, and single Christian living. Reb is most noted for his book Child Training Tips: What I wish I knew when my children were young. Reb and his wife, Beverly, have taught all six of their children at home, with three now married and three still at home.

Beverly, Reb's wife and mother of 6, devotes herself to raising her children, and allows time to disciple wives and mothers according to Titus 2:4-5. She is a powerful communicator, and a popular keynote speaker at women's gatherings. Committed to teaching the Word of God without compromise, she speaks with sensitivity, humor, and biblical wisdom in addressing issues related to motherhood, marriage, and home schooling. Her frank, transparent style leaves her listeners challenged, yet hopeful in their walks with Christ. Many, in fact, have described Bev's ministry as absolutely life-changing.

As an outgrowth of his speaking ministry, in 1993 Reb founded FAMILY MINISTRIES, an organization which distributes family-strengthening tapes and books, and coordinates his conference ministry. It is a non-profit ministry supported by donations and proceeds from product sales."

Mishandlings of Scripture

But God Gave Me This Verse . . .

In a recent discussion I had with someone over Biblical methods of child-discipline (in particular, whether or not to spank your child), I was given this line of reasoning:

“. . . as I said, I don't look down on anyone who does think that way, though. It is entirely justified by scripture. I just don't think it is required. Proving this is quite easy. All we need do is observe that many people raise their children with strong discipline but without corporal punishment, and if their children turn out to be God-following, God-fearing adults, then the method succeeded. I know several such people. Their children are not foolish or dead, and they never felt prompting from the spirit that they were not following God's ways by not spanking their children, though they honestly sought God's wisdom on the matter.”

-//-

Now while there are a number of problems in the short paragraph above that warrant addressing, I’d like to zero-in on one issue in particular, that being the mindset espoused in the latter half of the last sentence (emphasis mine). I want to address an extremely dangerous trend in the modern church. I’ll first post a familiar passage of Scripture from the apostle Paul’s very last epistle, one which is extremely relevant to my concern:

All Scripture is breathed-out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. -2 Timothy 3:16-17

-//-

With that stated up front, here is a description of two actual incidents involving popular hermeneutics [the art & science of Biblical interpretation]. Let me try to paint those pictures for you now . . .

SCENARIO #1:
1. we have a church-going lady;
2. she is going through marital difficulties;
3. she is already seeing another man;
4. she prays and asks God what she should do (yes - seriously);
5. she then goes to & thumbs through the Bible, searching for the verse that God has for her to remedy her predicament;
6. guess which one that "God" gave her??? . . . . "and put on the NEW man!!!" (and she did put him on . . .)

No kidding -- what's wrong with that picture???

-//-

SCENARIO #2:
1. we have a church-going fellow;
2. he has somewhat of an infatuation for a lady on the praise team;
3. he prays and asks the Lord who specifically he should marry/pursue;
4. he then goes to & thumbs through the Word (because nowhere does the Bible tell him who he should specifically marry), looking for "his Scripture to claim," as God "speaks" to him regarding this incident;
5. guess which one that God “gave” to him??? . . . . "and GRACE be to you!!!" (you guessed it - the woman's name was Grace)

Now what's wrong with this one???

-//-

Well . . . for one thing - I can look at "Scripture X" and Sue can look at "Scripture X" and Bud can look at "Scripture X" . . . and we all three could come to separate conclusions as to the meaning of “Scripture X,” all-the-while claiming that the "Spirit" legitimately lead us all to those variant conclusions. There's a word for this . . . baptized relativism (and the church is absolutely full of this) . . . true for you/not for me stuff.

Remember this: just because someone baptizes their belief or claim in Holy Spirit language doesn't mean that those things are Divine in nature. Attaching God’s name to a claim does not make it so.

I truly believe that many of us unknowingly (and with seemingly good intentions) violate the third commandment (Ex. 20:7) by using God’s name “in vain” to give authority to an unsubstantiated assertion. This probably happens a lot more than we’d like to admit. This is why we guidelines folks; we need a solid standard/measure that is consistent each & every time.

-//-

Should these 2 scenarios be given to different crowds, you're likely to get an interesting reaction each time (this would be a great experiment):

1. On #1, you'll get plenty of groans, moans, comments, and even chuckles along the lines of "you've got to be kidding me," or "c'mon, give me a break." Why? Obviously, these reactions were due to the outcome of her "process" being in direct violation of an already-inspired Biblical command/principle . . . .

2. Now for #2, the reaction is surprisingly different. That is, in response to that second scenario, many folks will say, "You know, now who's to say that God didn't give the brother that promise?", or "We must be careful not to interfere with God's 'leading' in this guy's life. Maybe God did indeed reveal His plans for that guy in that manner this time."

*******Do you see what just happened??*******

In case #1, the folks were upset with the "APPLICATION" only & not (I repeat -- NOT) the "METHODOLOGY" involved and utilized in both cases!!

This is a huge problem that permeates our churches. They are thick with this stuff . . . privatized messages, so-to-speak, that have nothing to do with the original context. To get to the point, where is the Biblical justification for this practice/methodology of interpretation (is it taught in the Bible?)?

We must remember that "all 'Scripture' is inspired by God” . . .

2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is breathed-out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The word for Scripture there is "graphe" = writings. It's the writings that are inspired, not the privatized messages that we think are coming from the Spirit as we move from a circumstance to hunting and pecking throughout the pages of Scripture. These writings were "breathed-out" by God through the agency (& uniqueness) of the Biblical writers at a particular point in history -- to specific persons -- for definite reasons.

-//-

CONTEXT - CONTEXT - CONTEXT is the key here. In other words . . . NEVER READ A BIBLE VERSE - read at least a paragraph above & below the verse in question.

-//-

Here's the fall-out or consequence from dealing trivially and sloppily with the Bible . . . it actually encourages a profound Biblical illiteracy. We no longer take the time & energy required to study a passage in order to discover its rich meaning (exegesis/interpretation) so that we can put it into daily practice (application). Show me someone who is "application-oriented" to the exclusion of proper hermeneutics, and I'll show you theological trouble. Quite honestly, you can see this work itself out on a weekly basis in our modern-day Sunday School classes (conduits for the post-modernistic mindset). I.e., "Well, I think . . . ", "But I was thinking . . .”, "I feel like . . .", etc., etc. There is no serious textual work happening whatsoever. It’s much more fun to assert what we "feel" to be the case with any particular passage. This is so highly subjective, unfounded, and dangerous, as I know (hope) you would agree.

I can almost hear somebody saying right now, "THEOLOGY, that 7-lettered dirty word . . . it creates too much division." Precisely - it divides truth from error, which is a vital kind of division that we must be making as individuals and as a corporate body of Believers. Walter Martin so clearly stated that "Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin; controversy for the sake of truth is a Divine command!" No - we'd just rather hunt & peck and blame God for it; this is much easier by the way . . . just pick up the Bible when we need a quick answer. Please see this as a sincere reproof and/or corrective warning to all of us Believers, myself included.

Feelings, impressions, & experiences MAY have their peripheral or secondary place, to be sure, but they are not to be primary, not one bit. Furthermore, they must be regulated and guided by the revealed precepts of the Bible. What is popular and common doesn’t necessarily equate to what is Biblical and historical. As one of my former professors put it, it doesn't really matter what we "think." What matters is what IS, & we can come to the knowledge of that through careful contextual study & exegesis. Eisegesis (reading into the text that which really isn't inherent to the text) is not good.

-//-

As somewhat of an appendix to this article, I would say that the reason as to why ambiguous or initially unclear passages are utilized in this manner (i.e., "God gave me this verse") is that with clear statements, like the 10 Commandments, the meaning is totally clear. That is, the usage of certain verses as privatized messages from God is testimony itself that the person is unclear of the contextual meaning to begin with. I mean, why wasn't this seen before? But of course, it wasn't until now that the Spirit gave me the meaning, right? Could you imagine someone saying: "Thou shalt not murder . . . God gave me that verse yesterday."? No, it was their verse to begin with when you think it through.

S.T.S. 2.3 [A Helpful Definition - Part 2]

Docetists:
These were early sects who denied the true humanity of Christ and taught that His corporeal (or, physical) body was only an “appearance” or disguise. They denied the reality of the human flesh of Jesus.

-//-

Ignatius, an Early Church Father, repeatedly called out and condemned the Docetists as heretics in his letters. These letters were written in the first quarter of the 2nd Century. Furthermore, and over against this condemning of the Docetists, Ignatius held to and stressed the true Deity of Jesus the Son. He referred to Jesus as theos approximately 12 times in his epistles. This is in keeping with clear Biblical teaching, as the Bible presents Christ as Theanthropos: the God-man. Christians say that Christ, although one Person, possesses two Natures: 100% God & 100% man.

[The Deity of Christ was far from a political invention or agenda-driven proposal of the 4th Century A.D. Nicene Council, as we have beautiful bridges connecting the 1st Century A.D. to the 4th Century A.D. This is merely one small example of this. The Roman Emperor Constantine did not upgrade the status of a mortal Jesus to Deity, and His followers did not view Him as a mere mortal man or great moral instructor. Jesus Christ the Lord of Glory was viewed as God the Son and was worshipped as such long before the A.D. 325 Council of Nicaea and long before Constantine’s parents ever thought of conceiving him.]

The "Ad Hominem" Logical Fallacy

Name:

the Ad Hominem fallacy

Definition:
Ad Hominem literally means “attack on the man,” and refers to a situation where a person seeks to discredit the validity of an argument or claim by attacking the person offering the argument or claim in question.What's wrong with this?: The problem here is that a personal attack doesn’t speak to the issue of the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Maybe the content of the personal attack is truthful (then again, maybe not). Even so, however, this has no bearing on the status of the claim in question as either true or false. To seek to discredit the argument of your opponent by attacking his or her person is irrational and is a diversion tactic of sorts. Two plus two still equals four, even if that equation comes from the mouth of an idiot.

Examples:
(1) Look who’s talking, folks. I would take what he says with a grain of salt.
(2) You’re so stupid that you couldn’t possibly get it right!