|
Library
sermon: Parenting (Part 5): MethodsTraining Children
|
|
(To download, right-click on the icon for the format of your choice and select "Save target as...") |
I guess this is the sermon that just about everybody who has kids has been looking forward to. The kids have been looking forward to it in another way—hoping it would not come. But, truthfully, I don't think it's the most important sermon on this subject that I'm going to give. I actually think that the first one, on parenting principles, was the most important one in this entire series. (Back then, I said it was going to be two sermons long; and it turned out to be five sermons long after I put in all that other stuff.) I really feel that the first one was the one that laid all the groundwork for all the rest of it and set out the most vital elements in effective child rearing.
Those vital elements—two of them—are (1) understanding how important parenting (or, child rearing) is to God's purpose and (2) that aim, or goal, of parenting (or, child rearing) is to produce godly seed for His kingdom. Thinking this way—that is, that it's this important that we parent our children properly and in a godly way—will make our efforts that much more urgent and meaningful. And the method that we use, then, becomes somewhat secondary to that. If our goal is right, then the method doesn't have as great a position or high a priority. Now it's still important to use proper methods; but, if we are trying to produce godly seed, the methods will fall into line--that is, they will be godly methods.
The second and third sermons, if you'll recall, focused on family as a patriarchy. (That was primarily the second one.) And then, both the second and the third one were on the father's and the mother's role in the family. Father, taking an active leadership role, is just as important as a mother is in her nurturing and supportive role in the family. The Bible clearly says that God has made a man and his wife "one". They are, in a sense, two sides of the same coin. They have the same job. They are working toward the same goal; but they bring a little bit different skills, a little bit different perspective, to the process. But they are both necessary to produce godly seed.
Now the fourth sermon of the series (the last one) dealt with discipline. If you'll remember, I broke it down into three basic areas—at least, the three that we got to last time. (1) Honoring the parents, or—as I called it—establishing parental authority. (2) Disciplining in love. And (3) Setting down and consistently following the rules and limits of the family—or the children.
So today I'd like to pick up where we left off there, the last time. We're actually going to go into the fourth area of discipline. So we'll go over a few ideas and principles about punishment, or, chastening. We will also talk a little bit about the concept of training. Then, I hope (if we have time) to get to one particular situation and how we can deal with it, or how we should handle it.
Okay. Let's go into chastening. What method of discipline does the Bible endorse? You might have a lot of child psychologists out there that would claim that the Bible's method of chastening is cruel. That's it's abusive. That it's hurtful; and that it will permanently scar children till they die. But what biblical method of chastening does God endorse? Do you know that—other than rebuke (meaning, correction with the mouth)—the only one, the only method that is used in the Bible, is spanking.
There is no mention in the Bible of sending a child to his room. There is no mention of periods of "time out." (That's a very popular one in the world today.) There is not mention of sitting them in the corner—on a stool, with their thumb in their mouth, or however people do it. There is no mention of giving them restrictions. There's no mention of fining them a certain amount (the children, I mean). There is no mention of adding chores. There is no mention of taking away privileges. There's no mention of any other type of child chastening practiced [in the Bible] except spanking—because spanking is the one that God says works.
However, now that I've said that, the Bible does not exclude these other methods. They all seem to have their place--at certain times, for certain children, for certain crimes and sins and misdemeanors that they might have done. But spanking is generally the best and the most productive method for punishing young children.
These other methods can be used to "spice up" the punishment, the discipline, that a parent can give; but spanking should be the one we turn to first and most often. It does something that the other ones don't do; and that is, it gets their attention! Kids today love to go to their rooms. That's where their TV is, their Nintendo is, their computer is. All their toys are there. Their telephone is there. That's not a punishment. That's a reward! (Man, I get a whole hour of playing my Nintendo baseball.) They don't think of that as a punishment.
But spanking is a punishment, all of the time. Now notice that I did NOT say beating, or abusing, or even whipping. Some people don't like the idea of whipping their children, because it sounds like we should have a cat-of-nine-tails and flay their backside. Spanking (if you look it up in WEBSTER'S) is a slap. Especially and normally and primarily, it's a slap on the buttocks. Often, it's with a bare hand. That's the technical definition of a spanking—a slap, normally to the buttocks, and often with the bare hand.
The butt of a child is a wonderful place to absorb a spanking. The reason for that is that a slap on the bottom "smarts" (like most of you would believe, because you've had it done to yourself at one time or another) but it doesn't bruise. It may make a red spot. Sometimes there's a hand impression there for a few minutes. But it doesn't bruise them. It's a slap.
Have you ever noticed that, when you clap your hands, you don't bruise your hands? At least, not unless you are doing it for hours upon hours on end. But that's the same effect that it has on the rear end of a child. Have you ever clapped your hands so hard that the slapping sensation hurts? Well, that's what it does to a child's rear end. It smarts; but it doesn't bruise.
The job is not to hurt the child. The job is to cause a little bit of pain to get his attention. No bones, no vital organs, no visible parts are underneath a spanking [on the child's buttocks] so that they would get injured in any way.
A sturdy paddle is sometimes very effective—like a ping pong paddle. (Take off the little nubby thing. That might produce an interesting pattern on the rear end.) Did you ever see a fly-back paddle, with a ball attached to a rubber band and stapled to the back of the paddle? Those make wonderful paddles, because they are heavier than a ping pong paddle. A ping pong paddle across some kid's bony butt is going to shatter; but a fly-back paddle is a little bit thicker. It's normally about a quarter inch thick; and it can withstand years and years of parental discipline. It makes the point; and it's the right size. It fits just about on one "cheek." That's all you need. And this is especially good on older adolescents who have become use to the slap of the hand. Also (this is the truth) often, when they get to be a certain age, it hurts the parent's hand more to spank the child than it does the child's rear end. So you need something to protect yourself.
Now, I do not recommend skinny belts. Some people have used wide leather belts. That might be okay; but I usually wouldn't recommend a belt at all. I also wouldn't recommend switches, sticks, leather thongs, or any narrow implement. I know that people down South love switches. Go out there and pick you some of that willow branch, and bring it back inside; and I'll whip your hide. I don't recommend that, if you are going to do it on the bare bottom, because it will often cause injury. It will bruise, or cut, the skin. That's what I have against narrow implements for spanking. That can easily lead to, almost, an abusive type of thing—where you are starting to actually cut or bruise the child.
That is NOT the idea of a spanking. It's not to produce that sort of injury. It's to get their attention—to produce a little bit of pain, so that they wake up to what they've just done. And they begin to feel sorry for it and the process of repentance can begin. Ideally, like I said, a spanking should cause pain without any injury (either to the skin, or to the muscle).
Also, a spanking should be calmly given. Not in a fit of anger; but given in a manner [somewhat] like an executioner in a movie, or whatever. His face is placid. That's his job. He's going to get through it.
A spanking should be given in a controlled manner. Not one where you are going around and around and around with this kid—chasing him around the room with your paddle (or, your hand). That's not controlled. Remember, "parental authority." The child should stay where you put him. He should lean over the bed or over your knee, or whatever. And you give the kid his swats in a very calm and controlled manner.
Also, it should be given with just a few strokes. Now, Paul was beaten by the civil authorities forty times, minus one. That's excessive. That can nearly kill a person; and, often times, I'm sure it did—depending on their health when they went through it. I recommend not more than about three or four [swats] for most infractions. Of course, they get more if they don't behave while they're getting it. But, normally, two, three, or four is enough to get their attention and make them listen. Some children are a little bit more stubborn and it might take something to wear down their defiance. But, normally, just a few. And it should get less, as time goes on—because they understand what's coming.
Like I said, it's not abusive. You are not trying to cream the kid! You are trying to get his attention so that he can learn something. You are there to punish the child, of course. That's where the pain comes in. But the main goal is to re-establish your authority over that child and to get him to behave.
Let's look at a few proverbs about punishment. This should give us the right perspective on this.
Let's start in Proverbs 29:15. (We are actually going to be going backwards, through the book of PROVERBS, here.)
The rod and rebuke [reproof] give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. (Proverbs 29:15)Notice that God, here, says, "the rod and the reproof." He puts spanking and verbal instruction (correction) in the same process. Both of those together will point the child in the right direction, to correct behavior. This also says, here, that 'good' and 'bad' children are made—not born. Just because your little lad has a stubborn streak a mile wide, doesn't mean that he's doomed to be stubborn. It may be something that he has a hard time overcoming, and that you have a hard time overcoming it in him; but, if you apply the rod and the reproof properly, that child can get over his stubbornness. Notice, it says they give "wisdom." But, if you don't use these things, he's going to end up bringing shame to his parents—because you haven't given him the right instructions: the rod and the reproof together.
So we parents are to give them "wisdom." This is knowledge and understanding to do what is right. We do this through punishment and verbal teaching. If we fail to do this (if we are absentee-parents, as it were), we are going to create a monster. That stubborn streak, or that rebellious streak, or whatever it happens to be in that kid—is going to just get bigger, and bigger, and bigger; and it's going to start effecting more and more people. And who knows where it will lead? God's says that it will lead to bringing shame to his parents—specifically to his mother. Whether that's in doing something like killing someone else and ending up in jail, ending up on the executioner's block, ending up in poverty, ending up however. But if we apply the proper amount of correction—both in punishment and in reproof—we have a good chance of leading him away from bringing shame to his family.
I'd like to read a column that was in the paper recently. It's by Walter Williams. Some of you may have seen this. He's a syndicated columnist. He's actually an economist at George Mason University. Many of you may have heard him on the Rush Limbaugh Show. He subs for Rush every once in a while. This was in THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, just a few days ago. These are his comments on today's children.
Okay, I'll say it. One of the best things we can do for today's youth is for adults in positions of authority to develop a willingness to give the hind parts of misbehaving youth appropriate attention. You say, "Williams, are you suggesting that we return to the old-fashioned, uncivilized practice of whipping children?" Yes, that's precisely what I'm suggesting. First, let's address the issues of "old-fashioned" and "uncivilized." During my youth (the old-fashioned and uncivilized forties and fifties), parents and sometimes teachers whipped misbehaving young people. Whipping has always been one of the tools of discipline, until we allowed experts into our lives. Dr. Spock and other experts told us we shouldn't whip our children. They advised that having to whip a child was a sign of parental failure. Regardless of what the experts preached, the undeniable fact is the uncivilized practice of whipping children produced more civilized young people. Youngsters didn't use foul language to, or in the presence of, teachers and other adults. In that uncivilized era, assaulting a teacher or adult would never have crossed our mind. Today, foul language and teacher assaults are routine at many schools. For some kinds of criminal behavior, I think we'd benefit from having punishment along the lines of Singapore's caning as part of our judicial system. You say, "Williams, how cruel can you be?" Let's think about cruelty. Today it's not uncommon for young criminals to be arrested, counseled, and released to the custody of a parent twenty or thirty times before they spend one night in jail. Such a person is a very good candidate for later serving a long prison sentence or worse, facing a death penalty.I might make an aside here. Proverbs 29:15 [Continuing the newspaper column...]
If you interviewed such a person and asked, "Thinking back to when you started your life of crime, would you have preferred a punishment such as caning that might have set you straight or being where you are today?" I'd bet my retirement money that he'd say he wished somebody had caned some sense into him. That being the case, which is more cruel: caning or allowing such a person to become a criminal? It's difficult for parents to raise children all by themselves. Part of raising children is the environment. That environment includes other adults. During my youth, I might be doing something mischievous—such as throwing stones. An adult would come over to me and ask, "Does your mother know you are out here throwing stones?" I'd reply, "No, Sir." or, "No, ma'am." And hope that the matter ended there. Today it's quite different. An adult correcting a youngster risks cursing and possibly assault. That's a sad commentary. Adults are justifiably afraid of children. Do we Americans--as parents, teachers, principals and others in positions of authority--have the guts and willpower to control our youngsters? Or, are we going to play costly games—such as having metal detectors at school entrances, video monitors, locked classrooms, hallway guards, teacher panic alarms, and in general a jail-like atmosphere at our schools? Youngsters could be stopped very easily from bringing weapons to school. You say, "How, Williams? What makes you smarter than the experts who haven't figured it out?" Here's my prediction: If the punishment for the first offense of bringing a weapon to school was five lashes on the butt with a cane, and the punishment was carried live on the six o'clock news; there'd be an end of weapons being brought to schools. Children, especially boys, are born barbarians. We, as parents and teachers, have a mere eighteen years to civilize them before foisting them off on the rest of society; and we are not doing the best job that we can.I thought that was very apropos and timely, for me, for this sermon.
Correct your son, and he will give you rest; Yes, he will give delight to your soul. (Proverbs 29:17)This is the flip side of what we just read in verse 15, and what Walter Williams said. If we train them properly, what joy children bring to us! The parent has rest, or peace, because he doesn't have to be hounding his children all the time to behave themselves. He can feel content; and he doesn't have to worry that his children are out there doing something they shouldn't do. What peace of mind that brings to a parent to know he can trust his child—wherever they are, whatever they're doing, whatever their age. Correct your son, and he will give you rest.
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15)We saw, in chapter 29, that the rod and reproof give wisdom. Well, this is the flip side of that. Here, Solomon says that the rod drives the foolishness out. You have to get the foolishness out before the wisdom can go in.
Spanking, like I've been saying, gets the child's attention and causes him pain so that he understands what is "acceptable" versus what is "unacceptable." The words alone will probably not do it. I don't know how many times I've chastised my children for something—whatever it happened to be—and not followed it up with a spanking. And they go right back to doing it. By the end of how many times I've told them not to do that, I ended up saying, "Okay, now you're getting a spanking." When I should have given the spanking the first time that they did it; and after that, probably, my word (saying, "Stop that.") would have stopped it in its tracks, because they were afraid of getting another spanking. So, words alone are not often enough. It takes the spanking to put an exclamation point on your words.
And you know what? There's another article that I won't read. I didn't bring it with me; but it appeared just recently in the newspaper. It was by John Rosemond. For the most part, I would recommend the advice of John Rosemond, if you get him in your local paper or if you see any of his books. He, basically, has the philosophy that, if the parents are in control, they don't have to spank. Now, he believes that spanking has to be done early and often to set the tone; but once the child understands who's in control and knows that the threat of the spanking is there, then they probably won't be getting into trouble very often.
They know just where the limits are; and they know that if they go over their limits, the wrath of their parents is going to come down upon them. So they learn. They know what their limits are and they stay within them. Just the threat of having the spanking over them will often keep them from doing it.
Now they are going to test the limits. All children do—at different times, for different reasons. And so the idea (the threat) of the spanking always has to be reinforced. But, if it's applied consistently and with fairness and immediately, then normally just one spanking every once in a while will keep that child on an even keel.
So, it's not like I'm saying you should be behind them all the time with a paddle and swat them for whatever they do, every time. But you have to set the tone, and the child has to know that you're the one in charge and your word goes; and, if he crosses that line, he is in danger of getting that paddle on his rear end.
Let's go back a few more chapters, to Proverbs 20 and verse 30. This gets into the more hardened children, the ones who have started to make a habit of disobedience.
Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, as do stripes the inner depths of the heart. (Proverbs 20:30)Harsher punishment is reserved for actions that are truly evil—those which break God's commands, specifically those that show an attitude of rebellion. Parents should always make the punishment fit the infraction. If it's something that is just slightly wrong, don't give them ten or twelve swats for it. That's way overboard. Often times, all they need is a slap on the wrist (not figuratively, but literally), or one swat across the rear end, or a very harsh word. But if it is something that is really bad—something that breaks God's law—then you need to teach them that that's the sort of thing that's going to get them a red backside. They've got to learn that God's law is inviolate on their part.
Spanking will help them clean up their act. And if you are consistent with it, persistent, it will clean it up quickly. Turn back a few pages to Proverbs 15 and verse 10, to a very similar thought.
Harsh discipline [correction] is for him who forsakes the way, and he who hates correction [reproof] will die. (Proverbs 15:10)That's how far it goes. We wouldn't kill a kid for it; but if he forsakes the way and does not get harsh correction, it may end up killing him—because his own actions will lead to his own destruction. So make sure that the punishment fits the infraction. That means that you have to think about what has gone on and what your reaction is going to be. I think sometimes it's a good idea that you don't set down how many swats are going to be for such-and-such an infraction. I think parents should learn to be creative about those sorts of things.
Always punish, but don't always have the same punishment. The reason I say this is because the kid will often accept the punishment to break the rule. He says, "Okay. Dad's going to give me three swats if I go down to Junior's house. And, let's see, is it worth it? Junior's got that new game and I really want to play it; so I'll go anyway. I'll take the three swats." Now that's a kid who has learned how to work the law. And he'll turn into a lawyer who finds loopholes for big corporations; and he'll make lots of money. No, you've got to drive that sort of thinking out of a child. If you find that your child begins to think that way, you'd better come up with a better punishment that he's not willing to take.
Here are a few hints that I've garnered from experience, and various sources. Hopefully they will be helpful to you. Here's the first one. Punish immediately after the infraction, as soon as you find out about it. Don't wait, because the kid's attention span is about that of a gnat. He forgets how, why, this punishment goes with whatever he did. He looses the connection between the two of them. So as soon as you find out about something that's been done, make sure you punish—so that the kid knows that he's being punished for such-and-such a thing. (It's not for you. It's for the kid.)
Second one: Be consistent. I've said this a couple times already. Don't let the child get away with something [today] that you punished him for yesterday. If jumping on the bed is against your house rules on Tuesday, make sure it's against your house rules on Thursday. Don't let something slip.
Now, you might not (like I said) want to give them the same punishment each time. But make sure that you punish for these infractions so that they don't get away with anything. Be consistent about it. Make sure those lines that you've drawn (and your rules and limits) are clear. And, if they cross them, well that's their mistake. Give them the punishment.
Point number three is that both parents need to give out the punishment. Make sure that both parents are on the same page. One parent shouldn't be the cruel taskmaster, slave driver, whip wielder; and the other one be the old softy. Don't let your children play one parent off against the other. Don't play "good cop, bad cop" with your children. Make sure that you both are on the same page. If you have to, sit down and decide (between yourselves) what it is that you are going to punish for, what your rules are, where your limits are. And make sure you both stick to them. That's part of being consistent.
"Oh, Dad's got me today, and he never punishes me. Maybe I'll go over to Junior's house and play that game now. If Mom were here, she'd give me my three swats. But Dad's here and he'll just let it slide, because he's too interested in the football game." That shouldn't happen. Dad should have the same rule as the mom and be just as willing to enforce them (and visa versa).
The fourth point is continued disobedience of the same rule should be countered with escalating the punishment, or changing the method to one that gets the child's attention and successfully corrects the problem. If three swats on Junior's butt is not getting through to his head... That reminds me: My neighbor once said, "Did you know that all children are born with their brains in their butts?" And I said, "No." And he said, "Yeah, the parent's suppose to spank it up into their heads."
You've got to come up with a method that gets the child thinking and gets him to stop the behavior. So, if you tell your child not to run into the street; and he does it over and over again. And, every time that he does, you give him a little slap on the wrist and say, "No, Billy. Don't do that." If he keeps on doing it, then obviously the one little slap on the wrist is not working. So escalate the punishment. Maybe, two slaps on the wrist. Maybe, pulling down his pants and giving him a very major slap on the rear end will work. Maybe, he needs the ball that he keeps chasing taken away. But whatever you decide to make the punishment, make sure it fits the crime and make sure it works. And, if it's not working, find something that does.
The fifth point is something I've already mentioned. Be creative. Use the method that works best for the particular child and the particular circumstance. Some children are stoic when it comes to punishment, and they'll take their swats. Maybe they'll whimper, or maybe one tear will drop down his cheek. Well, he's willing to endure it; but I don't think it's probably getting through. So you, as the parents, have to be creative. Find something that the child values and take it away. Do something to grab that child's attention, so that he listens to you and is not willing to cross the line again.
Courtney (We'll use her for an example.) loves to read. Particularly, right now, she's reading lots of Laura Ingalls Wilder books. And, if spanking her didn't help, I know the first thing I would reach for would be her set of Laura Ingalls Wilder books. And I'd say, "Courtney, you are not allowed to read these for a week."—or two weeks, or three weeks.
Now, for an older child, maybe they've got this idea that sometime in June (just after they get out of school) they want to go to an amusement park. They've planned this with their friends for months and months. But, come May, they do something stupid—a direct rebellion against you. This kid (thirteen, or fourteen) can take it like a man (five, six, seven, eight swats). So you decide, "Hum, you've been wanting to go to this amusement park. If you don't straighten up and fly right in the next four weeks, you're going. One more infraction, and your ticket is going to someone else."
Be creative. Think about what they want. Maybe they've been saving for a new bike. You could dock them for an infraction. "Okay, you've been using very foul language. Every time that you say something foul and I hear of it, that's five bucks that's coming out of your bike savings." Be creative. Think of ways that will get the child's attention (That's the point!) to where they'll take you seriously, and what you have to say.
Being creative is very helpful in the public—when you are out in the public and the child is misbehaving. These days, and in this age, spanking in public is not very well received. Be creative. Think of something that will stop that child doing what he'd doing when you can't get to a private place to spank him. This takes thought! Parents can't be lazy in their job. They have to know their children. They need to know how their children tick. What pushes their buttons? So, really keep an eye on them and know what they are up to, what they want, what they are striving to get, where they want to be—and take appropriate action in your punishment.
Point six I've also mentioned before. Make sure the punishment fits the crime. Like I said, rebellion requires harsher discipline than forgetfulness or laziness. Forgetfulness and laziness should be punished; but rebellion is worse than those two. There are whole sections of PROVERBS about laziness; but rebellion is even worse than that.
Think about this: You don't swat a fly with a hammer. That's a little much. Nor do you try to lasso a bull with a piece of dental floss. That's definitely not enough. You've got to find a proper punishment to fit the infraction.
Number seven: If possible, punish the offending member. Now I'm not saying that, if you have three kids and the one did the crime, then you punish him. What I mean is, if the hand touches (and you said, "No."), then smack the hand. If the lips speak (and you said, "Be quiet."), then smack the lips. It gets their attention and it directs the punishment directly against the offending member [body part]. Didn't Jesus say something about if one member offends you, cut it off? Well, apply that principle. If one member sins, smack it. If one member offends (instead of cutting it off), at least direct the punishment towards that so that they know.
This works best on little children, because sometimes they don't get the connection. Jared loves our CDs at home. Now, we are dumb parents because we have them all directly at his level, where he can get them. But we figure if we can get thorough this, he'll never touch these CDs again. Anyway, we smack his hand a lot. He's at that time in his life when everything is interesting. And he just wants to get in there. He doesn't care what kind of music it is. He goes for those CDs. Well, we always slap his hands on that, because that's the thing we want to stop. Now he's getting a lot better on it. A lot of times he just looks at them with these big eyes. You can just see his thoughts right on his face, "Oh, I'd really like to grab one of those CDs. I think Tchaikovsky would be good right now—to eat, not to hear." But he's mostly actually going for the glass right in front of our CD player now. That's better than the CDs, I think. It's just got lots of smears and drool all over it. But that's what we do.
When our children are in church and they are making a noise (and they shouldn't be), you can just bop them right on their lips. It doesn't have to hurt. Just a little smack right on the lips. We don't want to necessarily make them cry during church—because then you're defeating the purpose of wanting them to be quiet. But a little smack doesn't hurt, and it's directed at the offending member (the mouth, the lips). And they usually come up short, because they are not expecting it. And maybe, just maybe, those synapses in the brain will click, "Oh, maybe
| Articles | Bible Q&A | Bible Studies | Booklets | Sermons |
