2006-07-17

Use google to make web pages

If you have a gmail account, you can create web pages easily through firefox or safari. I made this one as a lark. You can upload files and do all the other useful things a web site normally does. It is free of cost as long as you have a gmail account. Another feature I find useful is to keep my daily calendar online; google provides this free of cost as well. You can choose to make any or none of these features public. Anyone who has a gmail account usually has one or two or more invites that they would be willing to send you.

Yes, I am an enthusiastic fan of Google's initiatives.

2006-07-16

Hannah and Luke to Oliver; Manasseh and Liturgical Memories

My priest once taught me that the name "Manasseh" is derived from a causative form of the verb "to forget". Hence, 'to cause to forget.' Manasseh causes Judah to forget by liturgical change - rebuilding high places, erecting altars and Asherahs, and so on. Memory is nourished by the repetition and familiarity of a liturgy; forgetfulness by liturgical perversion and frequent alteration.

This merits further thought. But another time.

In other news, my son and daughter have gone to sunny Oliver for the next 10 days. I will miss them. Sadly the truth is that they seemed quite pleased to be leaving! I guess I will never be a 'buddy' to my kids or someone they look forward to seeing. Nevertheless, I hope they have a fun and joyful time around the pool! Ramone and I will drive to Oliver in 10 days and spend 4 days visiting; it is my hope to do some wine tours and ride our bicycles while there in the hot arid climate.

2006-07-13

A Thought on Creation, Hunger and Food

It is always wise to bear in mind what Christ says brings blessedness. I was struck by the thought that when you read the story of Adam's creation you learn that God brought him forth and had him eat. As one who enjoys the intellectual life, this seems counter to my instincts. But the Lord didn't bring man forth to wonder at universal grammar, string theory, propositional calculus, theories of forms or of general relativity; he offered man food. Now this pre-fallen hunger is something I yearn to experience, for daily I fight a fallen aspect of hunger. But hunger as a good desire is foremost on Jesus' list of the Beatitudes; so it must bring blessedness if the hungry desire is pure. There are intimations of the Eucharist in this creation 'hunger' that would merit deeper analysis.

Creation Symbolism in James

The epistle of James has long presented dificulties for protestant New Testament scholars. Its seemingly moralistic tone, its apparent inattention to theological concerns, its defense of "justification by works" all have made it difficult for Protestant interpreters to discern its compatibility with other New Testament books. Luther's dismissal of James as an "epistle of straw" was only a characteristically blunt expression of an attitude shared by many. Of course this is not a problem for us; only for those looking to establish non-New Testament based views.

Recognizing the parallels between James and the Gospel of Matthew points us toward a more correct assessment of the epistle's character. There are many of the themes common to the two books. I will cite only a few: rejoicing in trials (Mt. 5:12; Jas. 1:2); perfection (Mt. 5:48; Jas. 1:4); meekness (Mt. 5:3, 5, 9; Jas. 3:13, 17-18); anger (Mt. 5:22; Jas. 1:20); the poor (Mt. 5:3, 25:35; Jas. 2:5, 16).

Several passages, moreover, show that the epistle of James has a more theological orientation than many protestant commentators acknowledge. In particular, there are several passages in which James alludes to the early chapters of Genesis in ways that display a penetrating grasp of biblical theology. Let us discuss two such passages.

1. James 1:12-18. The epistle of James begins with a discussion of two types of temptation. In 1:2-4, James encourages his readers to rejoice even in the midst of trials and afflictions. Such "temptations" bring endurance and perfection. In the background of these verses is James's confidence that the Lord is working even in these trials and affliction for the good of His body, the called.

In verses 12-18, James turns to a discussion of temptation in the moral sense. In this sense, James insists, we cannot say, "We are being tempted by God." God governs the circumstances that aflict and try us, but He cannot be accused of encouraging sin. For James, this is axiomatic, a simple implication of the holy and just character of God; the reason we cannot say, "God is tempting me," is simply that "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (v. 13).

In 1:14-15, James argues that we are enticed to sin not by our external circumstances but by our own evil desires or lusts. James uses conception and birth as an analogy for the process by which temptation leads to sin. Having given into temptation, lust conceives (the word describes the female role in conception) and then bears sin. Sin, in turns, fulfills itself in death. Already, we can see a faint reference to the temptation of Eve in Eden: She first desired the fruit, and then, having conceived, her desire gave birth to sin and her sin led to death.

That Genesis forms the background to these verses is confirmed when we examine verses 17-18, where James continues and develops the conception-birth imagery. Men give birth to sin; God, by contrast, is not the Father of sin, but the Father of lights. This is clearly a reference to Genesis 1's account of God's creation of the lamps of the firmament on the fourth day. Only good things come down from the One who created light; no darkness comes from Him; all His works are very good.

The phrase, "Father of lights," however, is dificult. If James has only the creation account in mind, it is an odd way to speak of God's relationship with the luminaries of heaven. "Creator," "Lord," or "Prince" of lights would be more expected. The use of "Father" thus points not only to the Creator but to the Redeemer, and suggests that the "lights" in view are the Lord's sons and daughters. The thought becomes clearer when we recall that the heavenly lights are often symbols of God's redeemed people (Gen. 26:4; Dan. 12:3). Specifically, the heavenly lamps signify God's people as a royal race. James's thought, then, is this: God does not tempt because He is not a God who gives birth to sin and death; instead, He is Father to a righteous, royal race that shines like the lights of heaven. His children are not death and sin, but lights.

The remainder of verse 17 emphasizes that since the Lord is the Father of lights, He does not change as the heavenly bodies do. Using several technical astronomical terms, James indicates that the Creator is not subject to the variation or darkening that the world is subject to. The light of the sun disappears each night; in the creation, God separated darkness and night. But the Creator is pure, eternal Light.

The birth imagery is carried on into verse 18. By the same word that brought about the first creation, God brings forth His people as the firstfruits of a new creation. Adamic man gives birth only to sin and death; the Father of lights brings forth a new creation. "Lights" and "firstfruits" are therefore two ways to describe the Lord's re-created people.

This passage, then, shows that James had a theological foundation to his moral exhortations. Here James comes very close to Pauline theology, especially in the use both make of the creation of light in drawing an analogy between creation and redemption (e.g., 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17).

2. James 3:7-8. One of the dominant themes of the epistle is the proper use of the tongue. Much of the third chapter is devoted to exhortations to control the tongue.

Verses 7-8 provide another example of James's creative use of biblical theology, and of the early chapters of Genesis in particular. Verse 7 is an obvious allusion to the mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, though James's list of animals is different from that of Genesis (interestingly, it includes reptiles). Both passages are concerned with human mastery over the lower creatures.

But James gives a remarkable twist to this allusion. Instead of considering the "dominion mandate" as a continuing project, he says that it is completed. Every animal of the heavens, earth, and sea have been brought under the yoke of man. Even the serpent-like "reptiles" have been mastered. Yet, though the creation mandate is completed, man has not yet tamed his own poisonous tongue (v. 8).

James would surely admit that some animals have not been tamed. The point, however, is to bring attention to the true character of the Christian's dominion. The unrighteous frequently rule the lower creation, but are incapable of reining in their own sin. Having died and risen with Christ, the Christian is freed from the mastery of sin and given resurrection power to live in holiness and righteousness.

The most important dominion is not dominion over the lower creation, but dominion over the flesh. Controlling the tongue, James implies, is one of the chief manifestations of this Spiritual dominion.

Man's initial act of dominion involved the tongue: naming the animals. His fall also involved the tongue. Adam stood by and failed to interrupt the serpent's attempt to seduce Eve, and then Adam lied to God. Thus, James is reflecting on the place of the tongue, the human image of the word of God, in directing human life. The "Father of lights" spoke the world into existence; man corrupted it with his words.

All of this shows an intense theological reflection upon Genesis 1-3.

2006-07-11

A Thought on Creation


Assuming Gen. 1:1 describes an act of creation and is not a title: It's striking that the Genesis account begins with the creation of two realms rather than a single entity or realm.

Hesiod says that there was one reality, chaos; Anaximander says "together were all things"; Thales claimed that water was the beginning.

But not Genesis: Duality and difference does not arise from a prior unity. Difference is primordial in creation, as in God.

Gospel vs Over-helpful therapy vs Self-reliance: the battle rages in "One Nation Under Therapy"!

We need less opportunities to absolve ourselves of responsibilities. According to Sommers and Hoff, as a society in North America, we need to stress more self-reliance, not more of the psychological 'helpfulness' that tends toward removing challenges and responsibility.

PE classes are dangerous places. Dodge ball might leave nasty bruises, and, worse, the frustrations of competition and failure permanently destroy a kid’s psyche. Non-competitive activities like juggling or learning to use a wheel-chair are possible alternatives, but anyone who's tried juggling knows how psychologically destructive that can be. One expert helpfully suggests juggling silk scarves, which "are soft, nonthreatening, and float down slowly."

As Shakespeare would say, "Pity the satirist."

According to Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, both resident scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, much contemporary child-rearing is founded on the assumption that kids are fragile and need to be kept inside a protective bubble. This is no insult to children, though, since "therapism" treats all of us as hand-wringing Hamlets and flower-throwing Ophelias, teetering on the edge of breakdown. Moral accountability is painful, so we avoid it. Addicts do not lack self-control; they are victims of "brain hijacking." The helping industry pathologizes normal human reactions to death, disaster, and loss, and in the process of pathologizing, professionalizes.

One Nation Under Therapy not only argues that the helping professions don't; the authors insist that therapism often, as in the case of Post-Vietnam Syndrome, makes a bad situation worse.

Hoff Sommers and Satel's polemic is well-researched, convincing, and frequently entertaining, but I had reservations. I wonder if the helping professionals are as dominant as the authors suggest. Virtually every high school in North America, after all, still has a basketball team, and millions of North Americans have the good sense to scorn the self-absorption of psychology.

At the same time, I'm also unconvinced by the authors' prescription that we just need to "cowboy up" in defense of the good ol' American "creed of stoicism and the ideology of achievement." If, as the authors say, psychology has displaced religion and ethics, a creed of self-reliance will not be a sufficient response.

And again, I wonder if the creed of stoicism really does justice to the complexities of the human soul. St. Augustine would be no supporter of the therapeutic culture, but he was deeply in awe of the intricacies of human passion and behavior. Far superior were the Fathers to stoicism because of their embracing the received wisdom. Of course this has largely been rejected in North America.

One Nation Under Therapy is loaded with information, but Philip Rieff’s Triumph of the Therapeutic, because it zeroes in on the religious dimension of therapism, is a far superior book, more relevant now than when it was published in 1966.

2006-07-01

Serpent-wise?

Jesus said that we should be wise as serpents, but how are serpents wise?

Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was more "crafty" (ARUM) than any of the beasts of the field, and the same word is used a number of times in Proverbs, often translated as "prudent." A crafty man conceals what he knows (12:23). The crafty man acts knowingly, not impulsively (13:16). The crafty man is not gullible but considers his steps (14:15). Crafty men see evil coming and step aside to avoid it (22:3; 27:12). A related word is used in 15:5, where the prudent accept correction. These are some ways to imitate the "craftiness" of serpents as we minister as sheep in a world of wolves (Matthew 10:16).

Dominion Day at Kurt and Vic's

It was a blast. Thanks for the great time, Kurt and Vic.

2006-06-12

Odes of Solomon


From the 35th Ode of Solomon, it being my favourite:

The gentle showers of the Lord rinsed me with silence, and they caused a cloud of peace to rise over my head;
That it might guard me at all times. And it became salvation to me.
Everyone was disturbed and afraid, and there came from them smoke and judgment.
But I was tranquil in the Lord's legion; more than shade was He to me, and more than foundation.
And I was carried like a child by its mother; and He gave me milk, the dew of the Lord.
And I was enriched by His favor, and rested in His perfection.
And I spread out my hands in the ascent of myself, and I directed myself towards the Most High, and I was redeemed towards Him.




Most scholars date the Odes sometime around the middle of the 2d century, yet if they are heavily influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought and especially the ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a date long after 100 is unlikely. Henry Chadwick and many other scholars, remain convinced that they must not be labeled "gnostic," and therefore should not be dated to the late 2d century. The Odes remain one of my all-time favourite almost-canonical reads. Read them for yourself and decide whether some of the early Orthodox were not wise in thinking these sublime pieces of writing to be worthy of canonical inclusion.

2006-06-04

Certainty and doubt


Is it possible to know and doubt simultaneously?

The vast number of men are caught somewhere between a consistent sceptical doubt and that which is certain. A few fortunate holy ones seem to attain to that level of 'comforting', undoubtable knowing. Most do not completely despair, but get caught somewhere above epistemological despondency; many of these learn to accept the knowledge of ethics, logic and aesthetics as ambiguious, as 'relative'. This notion comforts some men as it makes no one better or worse than another.

On the other side of the question are those who are comforted by thinking they know with certainty. Asked for a proof and they will reply with an appeal. But no appeal leads one to certainty. To be sure one requires a logical proof or a direct experience. Since all appeals are usually a pointer to one of these, the appeal is held by trust or belief; neither of which are undoubtable.

Again, regarding matters of tradition and faith, is it possible to know and doubt simultaneously?

Take the notion of friendship. My priest taught me that Christ's teaching on what it is to be a friend is a hard truth. At John 15:13, the full implications of friendship are made clear; a willingness to lay down one's life for another is the standard of friendship. Now I accept this as true. That is I know it to be so because I trust it is stated by Truth itself. Yet all of us who accept this idea of friendship can also entertain the idea that our trusted belief is capable of being doubted, even though we know it is the true doctrine of friendship.


Hence, I would suggest it is possible to know and doubt simultaneously. According to Hegel, that is what knowing in the fullest possible sense really is. How comforting is that? hehe.

2006-06-03

Gregory and The Prophet; dancing

My priest's son in law is getting me set up with a good bike; I think I will upgrade to sram XO immediately. The Cannondale model I will buy is called 'The Prophet'. This summer I am going to train by riding around The Fort and Glen Valley; also I will do a few dry runs to work with Ramone once we obtain a bike rack for her Subaru Forester. As well as the bike and rack, I will need to acquire the cycling wear for riding during the fall and winter months; but this can wait, for I need only some biking shorts, a helmut and a jersey to get through the summer.

In other news, my daughter had her dance recital tonight. She danced well with a big smile on her face; yet I sure do miss the days when Hannah studied Irish! All this hip hop and rap doesn't bring me delight; it is one of those grin and bear the sound sort of things. Fortunately it was held at the Chief Seapass Theatre inside the Fort Langley Fine Arts School just a block from my home; accordingly after Hannah was done, I walked home and had a cold ale. A fine day it was weather-wise, as we had some unexpected and most welcome sunshine.

2006-06-01

rainy

It has been rainy and very humid lately. More than I can recall ever at this time of year. I am reminded of Dante's descent into Hell and of the sign that reads, "Abandon hope all ye who enter." Well perhaps that is an exaggeration, but when it is rainy and muggy, the air is overbearing and too sweltering for a manly man; and one can even have trouble getting a good deep breath. Truly the rain itself is cool and renewing, but the humidity removes hope and drags a man.

Next September I am planning to ride my bicycle to work from the SFU campus at Surrey Central where Ramone, my money-lending wife, parks for her job. At the close of my day I will cycle back to rejoin Ramona. This will give me some consistent aerobic exercise; it will be a challenge for me to maintain 3x/week. I am going to start 'preparations' for this discipline after school gets out in two more weeks.

The petrol savings will be an added bonus, as will a slight loss in my stoutness:)

2006-05-27

course load revisited...

Another more senior colleague at my high school grieved the fact that the head of my department had assigned me History 12. As the formula the union uses to resolve such disputes involves looking at years of teaching beyond equivalent credentials, it was clear to me that my colleague would get what she wanted -- I am almost 41 and she is in her late 50s. My only solace was in the fact that my department head thought I was the best teacher to take the course. Accordingly I had to accept a different course load, albeit a slightly easier load for which to prepare materials. This will be my load in the coming 2006-2007 school year:>

2 blocks En.12
3 blocks En.11
2 blocks En. 8

In other news, I gave up the computer coordinator block. So my duties will be strictly in English this next year.

2006-05-24

course load

Next school year I will have a rather heavy marking load. A full time instructor has 7 teaching blocks and 1 preparation block. My schedule for 2006-2007 looks so:>

En.12 - 2 blocks (English 12=loads of essays to mark)

Hi.12 - 2 blocks (History 12=content volume; essays)

En.11 - 1 block (English 11=loads of essays to mark)

En.8 - 1 block (English 8=easy load to mark; just manage the teeny-boppers by scaring them with my trademark wildeman.manly.looks)

The astute among you are wondering where I get my seventh block, aren't you? Well, I won't keep you in suspense. That other block comes from my computer coordinator block. Yes, knowing how to use OpenBSD and other Unix-like systems has its advantages. However I may drop the computer coordinator block and pick up another En.8 if I think I will have to help a load of llama newbie computer lusers with their problems reading documented directions.

Accordingly this summer I will be beefing up my En.12 lecture notes and assignments. Similarly I will do the same for Hi.12, which covers the years 1919 to 1991. Yes, the years are wacky; I didn't set them: the ministry did. And we all know what great decisions the ministries of education have made over these last fifty years Canada-wide. I will never forgive the dropping of classical Latin and Greek from the curriculum. That, for me, was much like saying forget what in great part has formed your world. But being culturally disinherited is not the worst thing that could happen; being spiritually disinherited is the worst. Hold the phone...that hasn't happened, or no?

2006-05-19

For Vic

You Are an Old Soul

You are an experienced soul who appreciates tradition.
Mellow and wise, you like to be with others but also to be alone.
Down to earth, you are sensible and impatient.
A creature of habit, it takes you a while to warm up to new people.

You hate injustice, and you're very protective of family and friends
A bit demanding, you expect proper behavior from others.
Extremely independent you don't mind living or being alone.
But when you find love, you tend to want marriage right away.

Souls you are most compatible with: Warrior Soul and Visionary Soul


For what it is worth...I do think it is fairly accurate. The Soul Titles are so flaky!

2006-05-09

Like butter: moooove over...



thomas --

[adjective]:

Similar to butter in texture and appearance



'How will you be defined in the dictionary?' at QuizGalaxy.com

2006-05-08

parenting

Being the father of twins, I found these five points about parenting as an Orthodox Christian to ring true. I found these 'principles' in an article years ago. As turnabout is said to be fair play, I recently found them again being exposed by Leithart in the same original text! Here below is my rendition of these common sense points on parenting.

1. Children are sinners, not innocent and naturally good (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:9-18). As Jesus said, infants and children are models of dependent faith. Yet, our children are also descended from Adam and therefore are corrupted by original sin. This condition characterises infants and children as well as adult sinners.

This innate corruption manifests itself in many ways. Crying is an infant’s only mode of communication, and it is not necessarily sinful; despite what Luther wrote in "Away in a Manger," Jesus in the manger did cry and yet was sinless. Yet, our infants do more than communicate with their cries. When only a few days old, infants cry to express their anger or impatience when their desires are not immediately fulfilled. Worse, descended from fallen Adam, our children resist anyone who tries to control or exercise authority over them. They invariably test the limits. When I said "No" to my 2 year-old son as he stretched out his hand to touch the computer keyboard, I could see on his face that he was debating whether or not to go ahead with his plans. Some children are less overtly rebellious than others, but all are rebels.

Most Christians believe in original sin, but often it plays little role in our parenting. We are reluctant to regard our children’s sin as sin. Instead, we make excuses for them. Very young infants, of course, have not learned the meaning of "No." Once they have learned that, however, we should not say of a disobedient child, "He doesn’t understand." When a child is uncooperative, we should not say, "Oh, he’s just tired." When children fight and treat one another cruelly, we should not say, "Boys will be boys." At other times, we refuse to believe that our children are capable of being as depraved as the Bible says they are: "Oh my child would never lie, steal, cheat, etc." But he would, and he does. We should recognise sin as sin and treat it as such. Circumstances might make children more prone to fuss and fight but circumstances are not an excuse for sinful behaviour. If your child has done something wrong, admit that it is a sin and give him the opportunity to confess it. Otherwise, you are training him to avoid responsibility. Thus, a corollary of this first notion is, don’t make excuses.

Also it poses a challenge to us as parents. Infants cannot raise infants. If you want your children to grow into mature adults, you have to act like an adult. Parents who make excuses for their own behaviour, who resist and rebel against those in authority over them, who follow whatever impulses pass through their heads, can hardly expect their children to behave differently.

2. You are the parents and they are the children. By this, I mean several things. As parent, you know better than your children what is good for them. They prefer sweets and ice cream to green vegetables, but you know that they need vegetables. You know that brushing their teeth is good for them, even if they do not understand that. You know they need a certain amount of sleep, so you set times for naps and bed.

Being the parent also means that you set the rules. Of course, we need to make sure that the rules are fair and biblical. If parents make up rules as they go, children can never know when they have broken the rules, and they will become frustrated. Children should see that parents too are under rules, that we cannot make up whatever rules we like. The fundamental rule to teach very young children is the fifth commandment: "Honour your father and mother." Every instruction or command from a parent becomes a rule because it comes from the parent.

Being a parent also means that you enforce the rules of the house and make sure the children live within the structures you set up. This is perhaps the most frequent failing for parents, especially new parents. We tell our son he needs to finish his vegetables before he has ice cream, but he complains and we eventually give in. We tell our daughter to go to bed, and in five minutes she is back in the lounge asking for a teddy bear. We tell a child to come, but he runs in the other direction.

This pattern produces enormous stress on parents and children. Parents get more and more frustrated and angry because their children do not listen, and children bear the brunt of the parents’ frustration. But parents often bring frustration upon themselves. In the short run, it takes some extra energy to make sure that children follow our instructions. In the long run, it is much easier on both parents and children if parents to follow through with their instructions and enforce the rules from an early age. Laziness is the main reason we do not follow through. And laziness is sin. If we have told our son to finish his vegetables, we need to make sure he does, even if this means spooning them into his mouth or leaving them for next morning’s breakfast. If we insist that he finish his vegetables before he eats anything else, he will eventually be hungry enough to eat broccoli, asparagus, and mushroom soup. If we send our daughter to bed, she should be required to stay there. If you tell your child to come to you and he does not, do not say it again, do not beg, coax, bribe, threaten, or count to three. Go get him and make him come. If you tell your children to help with the dishes and they do not, do not walk away. Make them do it.

In enforcing rules, parents have to recognise and resist their children’s efforts to manipulate. Do not let a child manipulate you by threats (I’m gonna run away) or emotional appeals (you don’t love me). If your child says such things, it may be a signal of deeper problems. More often than not, it is mainly a way to control you and to keep you from controlling him. Do not fall for it.

Being the parent means, finally, that your children owe you respect. Respect does not come naturally any more than obedience does. You need to train children to respect you. One way of teaching respect is by requiring them to submit to your control and your rules. If you tell them to do something but let them get away with ignoring you, they will lose respect. Children should also be disciplined specifically for disrespect, whether it manifests itself in words, actions, a tone of voice, or a gesture. Children should be disciplined not only for their disobedience but also for bad attitudes. If a mother tells her children to do something and gets a cheeky response, that is a sin and needs to be corrected.

Given points 1 and 2, it follows that conflict and confrontation are an unavoidable part of parenting. If your child is a sinner who wants to go his own way, and if you, as parent, take seriously your responsibility to train your children, then conflicts will occur. Of course, we should not create conflict, but when it happens we should not ignore or side-step it. Do not let a desire for peace and quiet dominate your parenting. What passes for peace is sometimes nothing more than a thin layer covering intense hostility. Conflict is not a sign of failure but of serious effort and even success. It shows that you are doing your job, not letting your children go off into foolishness but confronting and stopping it. If peace and quiet are supreme priorities, if you want to avoid conflict, do not have children.

3. Corporal discipline is a good and proper method for child training (Proverbs 19:18; 29:15). The Bible, tradition and the Fathers are clear not only that corporal discipline is a key tool for parenting, but also promises that faithful discipline will have spiritual effects. Stripes reach to the inner parts and cleanse away evil (Proverbs 20:30), the rod drives away foolishness (Proverbs 22:15), and disciplining a child will save him from Sheol (Proverbs 23:13-14). Christian parents sometimes come up with excuses for not spanking their children: It will turn our children against us, make them hateful and violent, get us in trouble with authorities. None of these holds weight. Using corporal discipline is a simple matter of obedience to God’s Word. We must use this tool wisely, but there is no valid reason for completely refusing to use it.

Corporal discipline must occur in a context of love and understanding. If done outside a loving and close relationship, smacking will seem harsh and arbitrary and it will be difficult for your child to believe that you are disciplining out of love. Your child will get the impression that they have to get into trouble to get any attention at all. Besides, children are different and respond to different kinds of training and discipline. At a young age, there is no substitute for swatting. No matter how persuasive you are, you cannot argue a determined one- or two-year-old out of running into the street. He needs to be restrained. As children get older, other forms of discipline may be more effective for particular children in particular circumstances, and you need to know your children well enough to discover what means are most effective with each.

Developing a close relationship requires some time. Parents should schedule individual time with each child to listen to them and seek to understand them. For several years, I have taken one of my children on a "date" every week. I spend an hour or so at the park, a coffee shop, or shopping mall. This gives me an opportunity to talk with each of them without interruption, and is a chance to discuss things that need to be addressed, such as school, future plans, friends, and so on.

When should a parent use corporal discipline? In part, this depends on the child and the parent. You will learn when your child will be corrected with a verbal rebuke and when they need a smacking. And it depends on the seriousness of the wrongdoing. Yet, as a rule, swatting is legitimate whenever your child breaks the rules. Breaking the rules is rebellion, and you must nip rebellion in the bud. If a parent calls a child, and the child refuses to come, the parent should go get the child, swat him on the bottom and make him come. If a daughter who has been put to bed keeps getting up, she should be spanked and sent back to bed. If a boy keeps climbing out of his high chair, he should be swatted and put back into the chair until the parent is ready to let him down. If they follow this procedure, mothers especially will feel that on some days they do nothing but swat the children. That can be emotionally draining, but my wife and I have found that early practice of corporal discipline does bear fruit, as the Lord has promised.

If corporal discipline is, as the Bible says, an act of love, it should look like an act of love. Parents should explain that they are disciplining out of love for the child. Afterwards, the parent should hug the child, kiss him, pray with him, and tell him again that he uses the rod out of love and out of obedience to the Lord. Loving discipline, however, does not mean mushy or vague discipline. Just as the Lord is specific in His demands upon us and specific in His rebukes, so loving discipline should be firm and specific. Parents should make sure that the child understands the rules, and make sure that he knows what rule has been broken. We should encourage children to take responsibility for the specific sin they have committed. Saying "I’m sorry" is usually not sufficient; the child should be required to say, "I’m sorry for hitting Julie" or "I’m sorry for taking your truck without asking" or "I’m sorry for lying." In this way, we train our children to take responsibility for their own specific actions.

I do not believe it is always wrong for a parent to swat a child when he or she is angry. The Lord disciples His people in wrath, and anger at disobedience can give the child a proper sense of the seriousness of his sin. It is wrong, however, for a parent to swat a child because he or she is angry. That would turn discipline into an opportunity for the parent to vent his frustrations, and would encourage the child to express himself violently. Corporal discipline should always be motivated by the loving desire to prevent the child from doing something wrong or harmful, to purge foolishness from his heart, to keep him on the way of righteousness. As the Bible shows us, God’s love for His children and His anger at their foolishness are closely linked.

4. Children grow up. At this point the goals of parenting come into play. What are we trying to accomplish during the 15--20 years we raise our children? Should protection be our main goal? Do we want to produce children that are carbon copies of ourselves, imitating our tastes, plans, and dreams? Or do we want to encourage them to chart their own course without regard to our opinions? As Christians, our goal in parenting is to raise mature adult believers who trust in and follow Jesus and serve His Church and Kingdom. With respect to our faith, we hope our children will imitate us, insofar as we are faithful. The Church, however, is made up of many members with many different gifts, and we should not expect our children to have the same gifts we have. Parents who are ears in the body of Christ may end up with children who are hands, brains, and toes. Our goal is to train our children to be the best hands, brains, and toes they can possibly be, rejoicing in their specific abilities.

In parenting, then, there has to be a balance of control and freedom. Maintaining this balance is difficult, but the Lord’s training of Israel gives us an example to follow. In Galatians 3:23-24 and 4:1-2, Paul says that Israel under the Old Covenant was like a minor child under the control of tutors and child-minders. Though a child is the heir of the whole house, he is treated like a slave during his childhood. But now, Paul says, those who are in Christ are no longer under the "elementary principles" of the law, but are mature and fully active sons and heirs. Paul’s point is clearer when we consider the character of the Old Covenant system. The Lord told Israel what to eat (Leviticus 11) and what kinds of clothes to wear (Leviticus 19:19; Numbers 15:37-41). Normal bodily functions caused uncleanness, so Israelites had to bathe before entering the Lord’s house (Leviticus 12-15). Their lives were tightly controlled and regulated. All of these commands to Israel are instructive for the Church today (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17) and God is still concerned about the details of His Word and of our obedience to it. Yet, we no longer have to perform these "elementary" regulations because, in Christ, we have grown up.

Similarly, in raising our children, we move through four general stages. These are not absolutely distinct and it would be a mistake to make this some kind of absolute framework, but they give a rough outline of how the parents’ role changes as the child grows.

First, when children are very young, parents control them. Young children should be trained to obey their parents immediately without discussion or question. Parents supervise the most minute details of their lives: what to wear, when to go to bed, how to hold the fork and spoon, how to chew food. In this phase, parents must do many things for the child. This is the predominant mode of parenting for the first seven or eight years, though the time period will vary somewhat.

Second, the parental role changes to coaching, from about eight to young teens. Coaching involves detailed and ongoing guidance of the child. A coach teaches and corrects, but the child is responsible to follow the coach’s direction. Thus, the older child has more responsibility and independence. Parents can test whether their children are ready for this transition by giving them small projects or tasks and evaluating their performance. A child of eight or nine should be able, for example, to go to the post office to buy stamps or to a newsagent to buy a paper. Daddy might first accompany his son, show him what to do, and then send him on his own the next time. By giving responsibility at this micro-level and gradually increasing it, parents avoid overwhelming their children, increase their confidence to act on their own, and give them room to fail and learn.

If a coach is doing his job, his players will eventually learn to think independently, calling some of their own plays. They will sometimes want to ask the coach for his advice in a particular situation, but they will increasingly learn to make decisions for themselves. This is the stage the Whites call counselling. During this period, parents advise children when asked, but leave them considerable room to experiment with their own ways of doing things. Even at this stage, parents exercise some degree of control. Parents should never give their children freedom to sin. As long as my children are in my house, for example, I will expect and require them to attend worship, participate in family worship, walk in God’s commandments. But the parents’ role is changing as the child grows into an independent adult believer.

Finally, with adult children, you reach the stage of caring. Grown children may ask parents for advice and sometimes even detailed coaching. There may be occasions when a parent must, in obedience to Christ, take the initiative to rebuke or correct a child. Here, however, their relationship has become more like that of two unrelated adult believers. Generally, parents should avoid giving their grown children unsolicited advice, freeing them to make their own decisions and their own mistakes.

To help make this scheme more concrete, let me offer one specific example: money. At the control stage, a child is physically unable to handle money. If given an allowance, he is likely to lose it. So, parents should exercise a great deal of control. If a child receives a monetary gift, the parent should decide how it is spent, perhaps even without consulting the child. If the child makes some change by working around the house, the parents should keep it for him.

Once the child can keep track of money without losing it and can add and subtract, the parent shifts to coaching. At this point, the child may be given an allowance, but the parent will still exercise a significant degree of authority over how it is used. The parent might require, for example, that the child give 10% to the church, keep 40% for savings and gifts, and have 50% for spending. If the child wishes to make a foolish purchase, the parent may forbid it. Alternatively, it may be prudent for a parent occasionally to allow a foolish purchase, which can be turned into an opportunity for the child to learn from a mistake. At least, the child who makes a rash financial decision will learn the painful but absolute economic truth that money spent on one item cannot be spent on another.

At the counselling stage, parents give advice concerning how money is spent and may occasionally intervene to forbid a purchase. In the main, however, the parents’ role is one of advising. If a child wishes to buy a computer, for example, the parents might help him find information, instruct him how to decide on a good purchase, point out the costs of using and maintaining a computer, warn against the temptations that might present themselves on the Internet or in some computer games. If the child finds that he has made a poor decision, he should be left to correct the problem himself.

When children have grown to adulthood and left home, parents should generally leave financial decisions completely to them. If parents have been careful to train their children in financial prudence, they are less likely to get into serious financial problems as adults. If they do fall into difficulties, parents should resist the temptation to intervene immediately to protect them from ruin.

In this process, two main errors must be avoided. Parents err if they fail to exercise control at the early stages of life or give too much responsibility too early. On the other hand, parents err if they try to maintain tight control when their children have outgrown that stage of their lives. Knowing when to loosen and when to tighten the reins requires a great deal of wisdom and prayer. This brings me to the fifth and last point…

5. God is sovereign; the Trinity rules all things for His own purposes, including our children. We must make every effort to train them in His ways, but their future is ultimately in His hands. That is a good thing, for I would certainly make a muddle of things! For parents, the truth that God is sovereign means: Relax and Trust the risen Lord.

2006-05-05

Emily is for manly men


Because I could not stop for Death

BECAUSE I could not stop for Death--
He kindly stopped for me--
The Carriage held but just Ourselves--
And Immortality.

We slowly drove--He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labour and my leisure too,
For His Civility--

We passed the School, where Children strove
At Recess--in the Ring--
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain--
We passed the Setting Sun--

We paused before a House that seemed
A Swelling of the Ground--
The Roof was scarcely visible--
The Cornice--in the Ground--

Since then--'tis Centuries--and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses Heads
Were toward Eternity--

Emily Dickinson

I've considered Emily Dickinson to be a poet of the highest order for many years. If pressed, I would say this gem is one of my favourites.

I enjoy how the poem can aid one in contemplating a restful drive outside of our time-space continuum. Be sure to make note of the number of passengers.