Sexual restraint in our Western culture is not a virtue. To
deny your urges for sexual expression is, at the least, a passé morality of a
puritanical by-gone era or, at most, abusive. Sexual expression is practically
a sacred right, codified by law-making bodies and upheld by the courts under
the constitutional privilege of “right to privacy.” Even so-called
conservatives become libertarian when it comes to questions of sexual morality.
What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms or how they want to
identify themselves sexually should be up to them, and no one should be able to
say anything negative about them or deny them any privileges that those who
live out “traditional sexual morality” enjoy. This lack of personal and
authoritative discipline seems fine until you are dealing with sexually
transmitted infections, rampant illegitimacy, homosexuals demanding to be “married,”
and Johnny proclaiming himself a female so that he can shower with the girls
whom he recently beat in some athletic competition.
Our sexual lives are not private. They are a part and parcel
to the world-building, dominion project that God gave us as his image from the
beginning. For this reason, they are public; not in the sense of being open to
voyeurs, but rather in the sense of having public ramifications. Our sexual
lives are created to serve our mission as humanity. When unrestrained by that context,
sexual expression becomes bondage to sin leading to death. For this reason, God
has called us to discipline our sexual appetites.
The way of wisdom in Proverbs is the way of discipline.
Solomon’s concern for discipline is heard from his opening words. We don’t pick
up on it too readily because translations render the Hebrew word musar
as “instruction” in some places and “discipline” in others. “Instruction” is
not a bad translation, but we tend to reduce instruction to the verbal
communication of truths from one brain to another. The Hebrew word, however,
more literally speaks of a “chastening lesson,” which, I believe, is better
rendered as “discipline” (though even that translation has connotations in
English that may be misunderstood). Solomon desires that his son know wisdom
and discipline (1.2), to receive the discipline of wisdom (1.3), to hear the
discipline of his father (1.8). Fools despise wisdom and discipline (1.7).
The discipline of wisdom is the training of mind and body
to produce a specific character that will cause you to fulfill your God-given
purpose and enjoy God’s promised rewards. There are numerous sources for
discipline, people and situations that are aimed at shaping our character. A
primary source for discipline in Proverbs is parents. Parents are exhorted by
Solomon not to neglect the discipline of children (19.18; 23.13-14). This
training involves positive examples of discipline in the lives of the parents
themselves, making the truth of God beautiful in their own lives. Parents must
train also with positive, purposeful habits that give direction to their children
as well as instructing them through teaching. Because the hearts of our
children are bound up with foolishness (22.15), discipline also involves
correction.
One parental tool that is prominent in Proverbs for this
corrective training is the rod. It is not an exclusive tool. The rod and
reproof–verbal rebuke and instruction–give wisdom (29.15). However, the rod is
a tool, an obviously necessary tool, in the training of children.
Images come into our head when we read or hear “the rod.”
Maybe the switch that you had to cut from the tree for your daddy to spank you
comes to mind. You might think of a wooden spoon, paddle, belt, or some other
instrument of pain that was applied to your seat of learning. If you’ve ever
been spanked well, it is understandable that the instrument and its effects are
all that come to mind.
Those images are not absent from the biblical use of “the
rod,” but they are incomplete. The rod is the instrument of a shepherd and,
therefore, a king (see Ps 23.4). In fact, it can be translated “scepter” (see
Pss 2.9; 45.6; 89.32). While it can be used to destroy (see Ps 2.9), that is
all a part of a larger purpose: to put the world in proper order.
Parents are rod-bearers, shepherd-kings of our children. We
are shepherd-kings with God-given authority and a God-given instrument to be
wielded to set put our children’s worlds in order; to train them so that they
relate properly to God, others, and the non-human creation. The rod is not used
arbitrarily or for selfish purposes. It is not an instrument of frustration
that divides you from your children. The rod is used to set relationships
right, which means that it must be applied in such a way in parent-child
relationships that reconciliation and peace are the aims. Your child is not
your enemy and should not be treated as such. You are not out to destroy him
with the rod. Yes, the rod is an instrument of pain, and corrective discipline,
just like all discipline, is painful (see Heb 12.4-11). But the pain is aimed
at positively shaping your child’s character so that he avoids what is
destructive and embraces what is life-giving.
Avoiding physical pain in corrective discipline is popular
in some circles. If any pain is involved at all, these parents believe that
psychological pain is sufficient. Scolding, isolation, removal of privileges,
and things as such are seen as adequate applications of the “rod principle.”
While these methods can be useful at times, we shouldn’t discount what the
Bible says about physical pain in correction. Our children are not disembodied
psyches. Training the mind through the body and the body through the mind are
both needed. Enduring physical pain helps train the mind as much as enduring
psychological pain trains the body. The two are interrelated. Neither should be
neglected.
The aim of all our discipline is to shape the character of
our children so that they embrace the way of wisdom with all their hearts.
Parents, God has given you the authority and tools to do this. Wield them
wisely.
While people condemn the blasphemy laws in God’s law as
being barbaric and severe, every society has blasphemy laws. These are the laws
that tell you what you can and can’t say about certain people and subjects;
“gods” you must worship or, at least, refrain from criticizing. These laws are
not arbitrary. They tell you who defines the culture and what the culture is.
They tell you who the gods of the culture are; that is, what or who is
worshiped. Sometimes these laws are
codified and enforced by authorities. At other times they are general cultural
practices that are endorsed by the authorities’ unwillingness to stand against
injustice. Pressure by activists is put on companies to conform to their
morality. If they don’t conform, they will be canceled or attacked. Whether
codified or passive among government officials, or a loud, powerful, cultural
movement, blasphemy laws exist, and violators will be prosecuted.
We all develop daily routines and rhythms. We all have morning routines, whether well regimented or not, whether that is to always sleep in or to rise early. Again, whether well regimented or not, we also have nightly rhythms. Nevertheless, we are creatures of habit. As James K.A. Smith observed, we are inescapably shaped by the various liturgies we partake in. He goes on to say, “Liturgies aim our love to different ends precisely by training our hearts through our bodies. They prime us to approach the world in a certain way, to value certain things, to aim for certain goals, to pursue certain dreams, to work together on certain projects.”[1]
We develop routines, habits, and
rhythms because we are liturgical worshipping creatures. The scriptures teach
us that we were created to glorify God (Is 43:7), that daily routine matters
(Deut 6) and that we become like what we worship (Ps 115).
Here’s where the rubber meets the
road: since our daily lives are lived out of what we love and worship, our
routines necessarily shape us. This should cause us to take stock of our
routines and consider what might need to change.
Here is a question of appraisal: How
often do you verbally proclaim Jesus is King, even if just to yourself?
In the incredibly helpful work Pro
Rege: Living Under Christ’s Kingship: Volume 1, Abraham Kuyper contrasts the
popular view of Christ within Christian circles with the view of Mohammad in Muslim
circles.
Even if you haven’t experienced firsthand
the deep adoration Muslims have for Allah and his Prophet Muhammad, most know
that it is detestable to speak lightly of Muhammad in Muslim culture.
The discipline of this adoration
is commendable. It is also a harsh indictment on evangelicals. Most
evangelicals don’t feel any inner anguish when we hear pagans use the name of
King Jesus as a swear word. Rather than Jesus’ name being highly revered
because it is by which men may be saved (Acts 4:12), it is treated as common.
Kuyper notes that more than the mandatory
five prayers a day, many devout Muslims even add a couple of voluntary prayers
throughout the day. Kuyper says, “Altogether, this adds up to approximately
1,800 prayers per year, and for some Muslims over 2,500 prayers. In each of
them, the commemoration of Muhammad occurs between four and five times. This
means that every single worshiper commemorates the name of Muhammad more than
ten thousand times per year.”[2] No wonder it is
unthinkable to treat their prophet’s name lightly.
Kuyper admits that there is
certainly a mechanical (meaningless) element to this practice. Christians must
admit that the reason for the mechanical nature of the Muslim prayer life is
due to the fact that they are not offering prayers to the true God or a true
prophet of God. Christians must not ditch habit, routine, or personal
liturgies, just because a pagan does it wrong.
In light of the desire to be
conformed into the image of Christ, we develop habits, or daily liturgies, such
as prayer and scripture reading to form us into the type of people we aim to
be. May I suggest developing a habit of verbally proclaiming the Kingship of
Jesus throughout your day? The goal would be to direct your heart towards a
deeper adoration and reverence for our King.
A car stitches its way down the highway that needles through the shimmering desert. No one but the inhabitants hears the brakes as it slows. It spits two children out in school uniform. “See you later!”
The
car drives off, accelerating quickly into oblivion.
The
two kids look at each other. The sun begins to suck sweat out of them.
It is very hot in the wilderness today.
I
would like to talk about three different ways of teaching.
The
first is indoctrination. You’ve been told to hate it, but it resembles one part
of true education just like a changeling resembles the baby the fae stole.
Indoctrination drills a single lesson, a single position or idea, into the
student’s head. This is the truth and there is no other.
Indoctrination
creates blind humans. They cannot recognize other perspectives. They don’t even
recognize other perspectives as perspectives. To the indoctrinated man,
all other thoughts are insanity. They, and they alone, know the truth.
The
second is teaching the controversy. As the idea of Darwinism gained bastion
status in public schools, Intelligent Design proponents started a campaign
begging public schools to “teach the controversy,” that is, include I.D.
alongside Darwinism in public schools, teaching both sides as equal options.
This was shot down, of course, but since then I’ve heard the phrase advocated
in different education questions, whenever some controversy about some theory
or knowledge comes along. Teach the controversy, maintain neutrality. Show both
sides, and show that you aren’t biased. All existential and fundamental
questions get answered with a shrug. Who’s to say?
Teaching
the controversy is dropping your kids off in the wilderness, and expecting them
to find their own way to civilization. It’s bad parenting, and it certainly isn’t
education. But like indoctrination, there’s a warped resemblance to true
learning in that heat mirage.
The
third is the journey. All education is a journey from falsity to truth, from
wickedness to wisdom, from the fear of everything or nothing to the fear of the
Lord. Take your students on a journey, and show them how difficult the road to
truth is, but for God’s sake don’t let them walk it alone. It is good for them
to know how hard it is to walk through the wilderness. But show them that taking
them with you through it, not by stranding them there.
One
exercise I do with my class involves taking on the character of an atheist and arguing
the problem of evil. I state it both logically and emotionally, as strongly as
I can. I pull no punches. Then I end the class and tell them to come back
tomorrow with an answer. They spend a few minutes in the wilderness. But the
next day they come back, and after I hear their answers, I give them the
logical and emotional answer to the problem of evil. Not everyone is
able to walk the road, but I take them with me. By the end, they know how
desolate that wilderness is, but they have also come out of the
wilderness to the garden city.
So,
yes, teach the controversy. But also teach the answer to the controversy. They
must come through the welter of conflicting ideas to safety on the other side.
So,
yes, tell them that what you believe is the truth, is the truth. But
show them how you get there, remembering that you too can take wrong turns away
from the well-lit path of the Word.
If
you do teach them the controversy, then your students are not indoctrinated –
they have seen the wilderness. They will know how to recognize the tempter who
lives there. But you must also bring them out again to the city, or they will
be vacant, lost souls, swept clean and ready to be possessed by the
schizophrenia of relativism.
Do
you not wonder why so many children are medicated? Why so many mental issues
and therapists and irrational and insane people? Why has the world gone mad?
Because we weaken our children’s mental
immune system through indoctrination, making it incapable of dealing with a new
idea; or make it comfortable with holding contradictory ideas – a functional
insanity. They either do not know any other city besides the indoctrination
they live in, or, if they do make it to the wilderness of controversy, they
stay there, wandering. If my teacher didn’t even care enough to show me the
answer to the contradiction, does it really matter? They shrug their shoulders
and decide that they should just believe whatever they want to believe, since
smart people disagree and there seems to be no way out of the controversy. If
everything is wilderness, why not call it home?
Let your students get dirt on their boots. But don’t make them walk on their own in the wilderness. From the walls of the city of truth, you can see the slums of indoctrination, and the wilderness of controversy alike – both burning in their own way. Show them how far you have come and they will love the city that you have brought them to – and it is that love of truth that makes them truly educated, that prevents them from letting the city become another slum. Someday your children will issue forth from the city as warriors, and take the city to the wilderness. But that’s a journey for another time.
Carson Spratt is a Rhetoric and Humanities teacher at Logos Online School. He lives in Spokane, Washington, with his wife of seven years, Ellie, without whom life would be inconceivable.
One of my parishioners posed the question about parenting five children. My general answer–which can be applied to 1 or 11 children–is that it comes with all sorts of inherent traps related to doubts about whether we are doing well or whether they will end up on the front page of the city paper for the right or wrong reasons. I confess my skepticism about parents who act as if the struggle is not necessary.
Because of my role in the community, I receive lots of questions on parenting and I happily oblige with my thoughts, but never from the standpoint of achievement, but from the perspective of mutually pursuing the good of our little ones; and certainly not as an expert, but as a traveler on the yellow-brick road. I begin by asserting that I am in the middle of the battle with five kids ranging from 4-13. Everything is fresh and applicable, and it is a lot easier to opine when the experiences are literally running around your feet.
Whatever piece of wisdom I offer may stem from the incalculable amount of hours I’ve spent reading and writing on parenting over the last 15 years and hopefully, and primary, a heavy dose of biblical wisdom. But as we all know, the entire process is a flurry of unexpectedness. Parenting is not formulaic, it’s relational adjustments momentarily and momentously. Parenting is the art of adjusting to circumstances well.
As a member of the hated patriarch, I support a healthy dose of rituals that shape a home. Some things ought to be consistent like a Tom Brady Superbowl ring. Family worship should happen consistently, but not rigidly like a Puritan songbook. Table dinners together should happen as frequently as possible. But none of these things are Gospel necessities. We are not saved by food or singing, but by faith alone. Faith manifests itself in food and singing and Bible reading and table fellowship, but those are not the final ingredients of justification. Of course, my entire public writing history is a history of encouraging those endeavors as unto the Lord. But I hope I have not treated them as a self-help manual.
In the beginning, God gave a mission to the man: he was to
take dominion over the earth. This was his mission, but it was revealed he
could not do it alone. So, God created the woman to be his helper, one who
would come alongside him, who would be oriented to him and his God-given
mission. The mission of the dominion of the world, bringing order and glory to
a disordered and immature world, was beyond the capabilities of two
individuals. God blessed them, giving them the ability to be fruitful and
multiply. As children grew and eventually left their original household,
cleaving to a spouse and creating a new household, a division of labor emerged
that moved the mission forward. Each household, led by the husband who was
helped by his wife, would develop its own mission that would contribute to the
larger mission of the dominion of the world.
The grand mission continues and, therefore, the division of
labor continues. Each household or family is responsible for an aspect of the
mission. Within each household, the man is responsible to determine the mission
of the household. That is the duty of headship. What this means is that must
determine how the family fits in and
works toward the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. You are not responsible
for the entirety of the mission. But you and your family are responsible to
pull part of the load.
The New York Times addressed the current birthrate decline in the United States. In an article entitled, “Why American Women Everywhere Are Delaying Motherhood,” the authors peruse the landscape of the American scenery and conclude that the prioritization of careers and education have caused women to delay having children well into their 30’s. In fact, the pattern has become quite acceptable and the reason for enormous jubilation among the feminist elites.
America is now experiencing its slowest growth among the population since the 1930s. The traditional route of having children early on has now been quickly substituted for children in the 30s, which inevitably diminishes the opportunities for larger families (the birthrate in America is 0.8%). These are not barren women, but physically capable females who could decide to bear children but decline to do so.
As the NYT observes, the American women find themselves desiring the incentives of careers rather than the incessant needs of little children. They have traded the classic model of womanhood accepted in much of Christendom and classic Western history for the trailblazing academic and career pursuits. Thus, by the time their 30’s arrive, they are psychologically fulfilled and ready to bring children into a world of financial stability and happiness–or at least that’s the theory. The theory is summarized further by a demographer who notes, “Maybe there are fewer babies right now, but people are able to live the lives they want to, and that’s a profound thing.” And another who summarized the sentiment: “I want to know who I am first before having kids,” she said.
This identity crisis is a result of the professionalization industry which treats the priority of the home for the woman (Titus 2:5) as a dismissal of logic. The concept of woman as a beautifier of the home is a strange artifact in the ever-so-modern library of humanity. What we are witnessing in our day is the reversal of categorical trends established in history for new ways of contemplating the woman’s role in society.
It is also worth observing that this quest for “knowing who you are” contradicts basic sociology. Young couples often understand themselves at an entirely new depth when children enter the world. It is true that we may discover the hideous fact that we are self-absorbed beings, but we too may also find that we have the gift of self-giving in a way that never would have been manifested prior to children. We may even say that identities are built in the presence of diapers and sleepless nights. But instead, many women will have to convince themselves that their identities come only through well-furnished apartments and other pre-requisites. And who determines when enough is enough? Ultimately, this is a quest of self-deception for no woman can truly be happy outside their God-giving humanity.
Indeed, the reality of God’s imperative cannot be overturned no matter how much the modern woman seeks to find solace in her childlessness or even in the significant delay to motherhood. She cannot undo “be fruitful and multiply” for “be yourself and simplify.”
Such philosophies cannot succeed long-term. Women under such spell will find themselves utterly dissatisfied when their 30’s are passed. They have changed the benedictions and flatteries of bosses for the gentle and tender affirmation of their Lord and Master.
Instruction, education, or discipleship can sometimes be
reduced to the transference of ideas from one brain to another. The young
person who needs to learn needs to read a book, listen to a lecture, and follow
commands, we think. Teaching of this sort is indispensable to learning wisdom.
God, after all, gave us a book of books that we are to hear and read to know
him, to understand his works and his will.
If left to mere talk, the communication of information, our
teaching is truncated and insufficient. The goal of education in wisdom is
about formation not merely information. Teachers are looking to
capture the disciple’s heart, shaping his desires as well as his ideas, forming
habits as well as inculcating facts.
Desire is key. What you desire you will pursue, love, and
cherish.
What do we desire? We desire that which we believe is
beautiful. What is beautiful is the highest good. What we consider beautiful
draws us to itself promising us, with and without words, the good life.
Solomon wants his son to desire wisdom’s beauty. So, in
Proverbs 3.13-18 he paints a portrait of wisdom’s beauty for his son. This
little section might even be considered a hymn of praise of Wisdom. There are
no commands in the section. There is only the portrait of the beauty of Wisdom
with the promise of the blessedness for those who lay hold on her. There are
commands, exhortations, and admonitions elsewhere in Proverbs. All of those are
needed, but they need to be conjoined with why we are doing all of these
things: the pursuit of the beautiful.
Because of the foolishness that is bound up in our hearts
from conception (Pr 22.15), our visions of beauty are distorted. We will tend
toward the superficial, vaporous beauty of Harlot Folly. We need our vision
reordered to see the beauty of Wisdom; the beauty of a well-ordered life that
lives at peace with God, others, and the non-human world around us.
Instruction in wisdom, therefore, is not merely explicated
but demonstrated. For our children to learn wisdom, wisdom needs to be exemplified
in our well-ordered lives as parents. It is not enough to have strict rules,
stridently catechizing children, and rigidly doing all the right things. Rules
are needed. The discipline of catechesis and doing the right thing even when
you don’t feel like it are needed. There will be times you will need to fight
the distorted visions of beauty that come from the heart of foolishness in a
child. But there must be more. Wisdom’s beauty must be exemplified in the home
in affection between husband and wife, parents and children. There should be
hefty bouts of laughter as well as non-anxious quiet that comes when people are
at ease with and around one another.
I’m not talking about putting on sappy, superficial,
over-the-top, fake acts, but training your own hearts to love wisdom’s beauty
so that the genuineness of your love so pervades your life that your children
want to grow up and be like you. As your children grow, they can see the
contrast between the life that they see in you and what is going on in people
who give themselves over to sin. As you have instructed them along the way
about why you are the way that you are, they know how to lead the life that
will direct them to be like you.
This wisdom must also be portrayed in the church for the sake
of the world. The church is, after all, Lady Wisdom, the helper of the eternal
Son in ordering the world under his lordship. Because we are Lady Wisdom as the
church, we are to be the embodiment of beauty. The church is to be living a
well-ordered life with proper relationships in authority, serving one another
in love, maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, exuberantly
worshiping our God.
As we adorn the gospel in wisdom, with our well-ordered
lives, in union with Christ we become “the Desire of all nations” (Hag 2.7),
the beautiful bride of Christ to whom the nations come for healing and to bring
their gifts (Rev 21.9—22.5).
The incarnate beauty of Wisdom is key to discipling the
nations.
If you have been a part of the church in America for years,
then you have probably seen a general pattern in the lives of people. At an
early age, a child is involved in the church, being baptized as an infant or by
profession of faith. As he grows into his mid to late teenage years, he begins
to stray, sowing his wild oats through his college years. Somewhere around his
late twenties or maybe early thirties he decides to settle down, get married,
and have children. Church meant a lot to him when he was young, so he needs to
get his family back in church. He becomes involved in church again so that his
child can go through the same pattern he did.
Parents of those in the “wild oats” years tend to accept
this pattern as axiomatic. This is just the way things are. They will
commiserate with one another with one saying, “You know how it is,” and the
other giving the melancholy but affirming nod of the head, acknowledging the
unalterable pattern of growing up. Both feel some sense of justification.
There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’Abraham Kuyper
