Quote: Whitefield on Making them Pray
As George Whitefield sailed from his native England to Georgia where he was to be a missionary, he ministered to those on board the ship. Here is an excerpt from his journal where he discusses a ministry encounter with a particularly willful child:
Had a good instance of the benefit of breaking children’s wills betimes. Last night, going between decks (as I do every night) to visit the sick and to examine my people, I asked one of the women to bid her little boy say his prayers. She answered his elder sister would, but she could not make him. Upon this I bid the child kneel down before me, but he would not till I took hold of his two feet and forced him down. I then bid him say the Lord’s prayer (being informed by his mother he could say it if he would), but he obstinately refused, till at last, after I had given him several blows, he said his prayer as well as could be expected and I gave him some figs for a reward.
Commenting on this (a passage I’ve been laughing about since I read it last night), Arnold Dallimore says (quite rightly) “this action seems both foolish and cruel by today’s standards and it is not in any attempt to excuse it that we notice that it was in keeping with the customs of those times. … We must deplore both the custom [of attempting to conquer a child’s will] and Whitefield’s action on the basis of it.”
This brief encounter aside, Whitefield’s period of ministry upon the boat is remarkable and this brief journey was used by God to call many to Himself through His humble but flawed servant.
Comments (47) »
1. Seth McBee
April 18, 2007
3:06 PM
Oprah would have a hay-day with that story…
lol…
that is interesting to say the least…and to think we are afraid to just hand someone a Bible…they might roll their eyes at us!
2. Brad Williams
April 18, 2007
4:32 PM
I agree with Dallimore. That boy should never have gotten a fig.
I’m a little over halfway through the second volume of Dallimore’s biography of Whitefield, and I believe that it’s the best history/biography that I’ve read. It puts the revival of that day in stark contrast to what passes for the concept of revival today.
3. david
April 18, 2007
4:38 PM
While I doubt the wisdom of forcing a child to pray (it would be no real prayer), and I hope the “blows” administered were within reasonable limits of discipline (it’s impossible to say from this account), I will defend the necessity of conquering a child’s will. The methods and motives of Whitefield seem to be wrong in this case, but it is one of the major duties of parents. Indeed, our Heavenly Father must conquer our wills to save and sanctify us.
4. afrikaner
April 18, 2007
6:00 PM
David: “I will defend the necessity of conquering a child’s will…….Heavenly Father must conquer our wills to save and sanctify us.”
Please supply scriptural evidence for these statements. Salvation has never been accomplished by “will conquering” as you put. You say our Heavenly Father must conquer our wills to save us - balderdash. I suppose you also believe to save a child eternally an earthly father must conquer a child into submission? This may be the reason why so many reformed churches are patriarchal with children towing the line of their fathers, but really never understanding the gospel of grace except in some sort of legalistic head knowldege sense. I suspect if you dig into some reformed churches you will find wife bashing and child bashing (both physically and emotionally) behind closed doors. (You ask me how I know? I’ve seen it over and over again - I grew up in this oppression whilst having reformed doctrine taught so pietistically from the pulpit.)
5. lisa4given
April 18, 2007
6:58 PM
David wrote: I will defend the necessity of conquering a child’s will. The methods and motives of Whitefield seem to be wrong in this case, but it is one of the major duties of parents. Indeed, our Heavenly Father must conquer our wills to save and sanctify us.
In the process of sanctification… yes, at times we will justifiably be “divinely chastised” for we are a strong willed and selfish bunch in our flesh, when our eyes are off Christ. Conquer our wills to be saved? I gently disagree in that I do believe He draws us to Himself, irresistibly so.
As far as conquering a child’s will. I can understand what you mean by that. But the word conquer seems to imply crushing in the process. And it is not my desire to conquer in the sense of crushing my child’s will (nor do I believe that is what you mean). But to conquer in the sense of training, teaching, overcoming through consistent action, follow-through that sometimes entails “time-out” or even a spanking (but NO counting to 3 because that just gives the child 3 more seconds to disobey)… The goal of such discipline is so the child knows what to expect, knows that there will be consequences “that fit the crime”, etc. That is reality and if we allow our children to exercise their strong wills to the point of disrespect, and outbursts of anger, or just to get their way, etc., I find that to be far more cruel that training them through appropriate discipline.
6. david
April 18, 2007
7:25 PM
Let me rephrase that. Justification is not accomplished by conquering the will. However, in drawing us to himself, God does bring our wills into submission, or else we would not come, because we are by nature his enemies. That is what I meant.
Just so with discipling our children. They are by nature rebels. They aren’t born with a desire to obey God and parents. They are born wanting what they want when they want it, without regard for anyone else. They disobey, and we discipline them. In disciplining them, we are not only trying to change their behavior, but train them in righteousness. We are training them to not only do what is right, but to will what is right. That won’t happen without God’s grace working in them, but part of God’s gracious plan is the instrument of parental discipline.
As for what you “suppose [I] also believe,” [afrikaaner] I see no reason to defend myself for what I have not said.
Also, anecdotes of abuse, however true or contemptible, do not prove anything. They just tell us what we already know: wherever there are men, there is sin.
7. afrikaner
April 18, 2007
8:24 PM
“It’s a very big, and very bad thing, to put a man into hell because as a child we would not teach him humility”
Please reconsider this statement. Do you really believe that is possible? Where is the sovereignty of God in predestination and election, of His irresistible grace and preservation of the saints? I mean - this argument of beating a child to save its soul - does it stack up with the rest of scripture? In my reading of scripture it doesn’t.
Perhaps Tim might also like to open up the matter of ‘covenant children’ as well. Does grace somehow run in genes?
8. afrikaner
April 18, 2007
9:16 PM
Thank you David for a somewhat clearer biblical description of how God acts to will and to do as to His good pleasure. Out of His good pleasure though He also gives us His spirit and a new heart to repent and believe the gospel (the mystery of rebirth). It remains important that we be clear when discussing these matters that others reading may understand the truth and not become confused with fuzziness at best….
9. david
April 18, 2007
10:09 PM
Thank you David for a somewhat clearer biblical description…
Sometimes “somewhat clear” is the best I can do!
10. Johnny
April 18, 2007
10:35 PM
I just thought it was hillarious. Absolutely hillarious
11. Esau
April 18, 2007
10:46 PM
Brad said: I agree with Dallimore. That boy should never have gotten a fig.
Exactly!
12. Josh
April 18, 2007
11:21 PM
It’s a good thing they landed on the east coast and not the west. I hear they can’t do that out there anymore…
Thats a great quote and thanks Tim.
Josh “…the word of God is not bound.” —2 Timothy 2:9
13. seeker
April 19, 2007
1:05 AM
It was good to mention the difference between justification and sanctification. While the former is by faith, the latter comes with brokenness, chastisement, and learned submission.
Without having to discuss the relevant scriptures, the general principle of breaking a child’s will is scriptural and a well-established doctrine in xian child raising. Here’s how it is described.
It is similar to breaking a horse. You don’t want to crush it’s spirit, but you want to break it’s own willfulness so that it can work safely with you (safety for both of you) and not freak out when accomplishing challenging tasks, like pulling a cart in a crowded street.
Children come into the world at the mercy of their own unbroken wills. If you don’t control them, they will not learn self-control. When you break their will through consistent, loving discipline and training (the latter of which occurs BEFORE they make a mistake), you give them back a broken will, which is a gift, because you give them self control.
If you fail to control them, and break their will with meaningful limits, training, and discipline, they end up insecure, feeling unsafe, and like they and their surroundings are out of control. Hence a majority of ADD kids, who never got the right kind of discipline.
And not only are they often driven by insecurity and feelings of unsafe surroundings, without discipline, their consciences are not cleansed after doing things they know are wrong (but were unable to resist due to their self-will). With this guilt, they are often driven by self-loathing. This is why such kids end up adoring tough mentors (or teachers in juvie facilities) because someone if finally caring enough to make them safe, to help them feel in control, and to help cleanse their consciences from the things they do.
Once the discipline is over, they start with a fresh slate. God’s wisdom is like no other.
14. Martin James
April 19, 2007
3:55 AM
Well this is interesting.
I agree with the black and blue’s of scripture concerning evanglism and training our children.
But if I understand out cultures correctly:
In both the U.S. and Canada, a parent will be thrown in jail and his/her children will be taken away from them if they spank them to the point of leaving black and blue bruses.
15. afrikaner
April 19, 2007
4:07 AM
I do not wish to take over Tim’s blog but need to answer Kirby:
Scripture is quite clear what our responsibilities are wrt training up of children. No argument. However scripture is also clear that salvation is through faith, by grace in Christ alone. Being raised in a godly household and with biblical discipline is no rubber stamp of salvation. Again I’d like to say that saving grace does not run in genes nor in ‘correct discipline’. In some instances, in fact many instances, it is possible to see that God sovereignly draws many within christian households to himself…. but not always. As a father I am responsible to obey God in His requiring me to discipline my children. I leave it to Him to irresistibly draw His own to himself and will continue to pray for my unsaved children. I do not castigate myself for having failed as a father in not being severe enough on my children to save them from the lake of fire.
I am not ashamed of the doctrines of grace as they are drawn from scripture. I am not one who worships doctrine for doctrine’s sake but am humbled by the love of God shown through His electing and predestining grace.
16. Blake
April 19, 2007
9:26 AM
I for one speak as a young man who wishes to God that my father and pastors and others would have loved me enough to conquer my will when I was a boy. By the time I was a teenager, I was a lazy, work-shirking, self-centered, pansy. I still feel the effects now of having my own will as a boy. I see nothing wrong with Whitefield, acting as the boy’s pastor/teacher (able to administer corporal punishment), teaching the boy that he cannot shirk the authority of his pastor, parents, or God.
17. Brad Williams
April 19, 2007
10:25 AM
I don’t know what happened, but the joke tag after my fig comment vanished. That was a joke. I always hug my son after punishment and when he has complied with his duty.
18. Travis Seitler
April 19, 2007
10:38 AM
Dallimore sounds like a pansy. ;)
19. Josh
April 19, 2007
11:25 AM
I think we’re seeing the fruit of this whole Dr. Spock don’t spank but build self-esteem thing. I’m telling you if you don’t do it, if you don’t break those stubborn wills and help them to submit to God they will learn the hard way to submit to Uncle Sam.
Josh “…the word of God is not bound.” —2 Timothy 2:9
20. Sam
April 19, 2007
12:47 PM
If you can’t convince your child to pray based upon its own merits, surely hitting your child to “force” a prayer isn’t going to accomplish anything. Furthermore, hiding behind the Bible after hitting your children is foolish in the extreme. It is your responsibility to be good parents who raise your children right - it is not your responsibility to rely upon physical strikes to compel that child’s adherence to whatever it is that you believe. It is absolutely unbelievable that people here to claim to care deeply about children object not one bit to physically hitting a child.
21. Travis Seitler
April 19, 2007
2:58 PM
“If you can’t convince your child to pray based upon its own merits, surely hitting your child to “force” a prayer isn’t going to accomplish anything.”
It will convince the child that being stubborn doesn’t pay. It’s not about the prayer at that point; it’s about the stubborn heart.
22. Sam
April 19, 2007
4:15 PM
I’m sorry Travis, but I only have one child whom I have never hit. Explain to me again how physical violence is related to stubborness? A stubborn child who refuses to recognize the need to pray will do so if s/he is hit by a parent? That’s really how you want to fix stubborness in children? I suppose the stubborn child who refuses to pray after being hit once should be hit twice? And then three times if twice doesn’t work? And so on? I wonder if you wouldn’t mind being hit everytime you were acting in a stubborn manner. Or is physical violence only acceptable when a much more powerful and mature figure visits it upon a weaker and less mature figure?
There is never any excuse to hit a child. Ever.
23. GUNNY HARTMAN
April 19, 2007
5:06 PM
I have my children pray even when they don’t want to, because it good and right for them to give thanks, even when they don’t feel like it.
Likewise, I obey even when I don’t feel like it. We also have them go to church when they don’t necessarily feel like it, as do we attend.
Obedience doesn’t mean you want to; it just means you do.
I realize it’s much better if they pray, worship, etc. with the right motives, but it’s worse to not obey than to obey without joy, though I often hear the folly of the opposite.
Just try telling your wife that you were going to be faithful, but you didn’t want to be a hypocrite so you cheated.
Whitefield’s actions may seem harsh, particularly “the blows,” but I appreciate adults in our family of faith handling up on my kids if they get out of line.
They wouldn’t whip them, but I’m not concerned when the big person tells them to stop running or whatnot. If we’re a family, I think we should help each other raise children.
It doesn’t take a village, it takes a church.
As to the idea of breaking their will and all that … I guess that could be in the eye of the beholder. I do think it imperative that parents teach their children the necessity of obedience and submission to authority, for rebellion is in essence rebellion against God (i.e., when we rebel against parents or governmental authorities, Rom 13).
I know what the one commenter means with the overly domineering, authoritative father. There are churches that breed drill sgt. daddies whereby momma on down to the rest of the subordinates need to “know their place” and speak only when spoken to, etc. That’s heinous and pathetic on so many levels and that is not the way God parents His children or Christ loves the Church, His bride.
24. Travis Seitler
April 19, 2007
5:32 PM
Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts.
Proverbs 20:30 (ESV)
25. david
April 19, 2007
8:18 PM
There is never any excuse to hit a child. Ever.
Proverbs 10:13 — In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.
Proverbs 13:24 — He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 22:15 — Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 — Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Proverbs 29:15 — The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.
26. Even So...
April 19, 2007
9:36 PM
There is never any excuse to hit a child. Ever.
First of all, thanks Thirsty (David)…
Now, how about if some child (lets say a young terrorist) had a gun and he was raising it to be pointed at your wife? You are behind him…and could easily tackle him, subdue him, and get the gun because he doesn’t know you are there…well, tackling him would be hitting him, wouldn’t it?
You can say it is a different scenario, sure, but you said there is NO scenario where we should hit a child…just wanted you to reign that nonsense in fella…we can argue about parenting and such , but your assertion is patently ridiculous, even if you think my illustration is as well…
27. Sam
April 19, 2007
10:31 PM
Even So…,
I thought about your scenario as I was writing my comment, wondering, is somebody going to bring up something so ludicrous? And the answer was, of course, the idea being that if I agree to hit my child for pointing a gun at my wife or myself, surely I must then agree that the child who doesn’t want to pray should be similarly beaten.
So how about we do this: I’ll grant you that in the scenario you present, these rules might go out the window. But a child who refuses to pray isn’t threatening anybody’s life. So they hardly seem like the same scenario.
Let me try this instead: there is no excuse to ever hit your child, unless s/he is a threat to themselves or another person. Better?
Incidentally, you can pull all of the proverbs out of left field that you’d like - proverbs don’t make hitting a defenseless child right, appropriate, or necessary.
28. david
April 19, 2007
11:36 PM
Incidentally, you can pull all of the proverbs out of left field that you’d like - proverbs don’t make hitting a defenseless child right, appropriate, or necessary.
I didn’t pull them out of left field. I pulled them out of God’s Word. So what you have really said is, “I don’t care what God says, he’s wrong,” or “I don’t believe the Bible (or is it just the Proverbs?) is God’s Word.”
It makes little difference to me if you agree with me, and God certainly doesn’t need my defense. I’m just trying to clarify where you stand—because the Bible clearly says what it says, and it either is God’s Word or it is not. And if it is God’s Word but it is wrong, then God either is not perfectly righteous, or he is not perfectly wise.
29. Sam
April 19, 2007
11:49 PM
There’s an awful lot of stuff in the Bible - God’s word! - that I feel like you don’t take particularly seriously. You’ll excuse me if I don’t believe you’re incapable of looking at proverbs advocating child abuse and thinking that there might be a better way.
30. Even So...
April 19, 2007
11:58 PM
Let me try this instead: there is no excuse to ever hit your child, unless s/he is a threat to themselves or another person. Better?
Yes. I still disagree, but now we are in a more clear light, and yes, we always need to make sure of our terms and issues, etc., I am sure you will agree…
David said,
I’m just trying to clarify where you stand meaning Sam, where he stands…
Sam doesn’t believe in the authority of the Bible, I checked out his site after the first comment he left…
Sam, the difference of degrees is a vaild question, I think; there is quite a difference between abuse and corrective and preventative measures. Many confuse these, indeed, but that doesn’t make the principle wrong…I despise child abuse in any form, but scolding, spanking, and the like are different in quantity and quality than abusive violence in whatever form…
If you are not inclined to the standards of the Bible, than I could see your problem here, and only ask that you might see that some parents can discipline their children in loving ways while still spanking them. I do believe it is reasonable as well…
I understand if you cannot do that, but my conscience and life is beholden to the Word of God, if that seems brainwashed and barbaric to you, I cannot help that…
31. Wyeth Duncan
April 20, 2007
12:24 AM
Consider this a “testimony” (I’m not trying to argue with anybody!):
Many years ago, when I was a teenager (or pre-teen, I don’t precisely remember), I was talking back to my great-grandmother when—Whop!—she slapped me upside my head. I believe I was kneeling or sitting on the floor at the time. Well, after she slapped me, I found myself getting up off the floor!
Although, I resented it at the time (of course!), I knew I was in the wrong. She was not wrong. I “asked” for it, and she simply gave me what I “asked” for. Since it happened to me, I can tell you: I was not physically hurt (my head was hard—both literally and figuratively); the only thing hurt was my pride.
With the passage of time (at least 30 years), I honestly believe I deserved exactly what I received that day. I was way out of line. In no way at all was my great-grandmother abusive—absolutely not. I didn’t think so, then; and I don’t think so now.
One more thing: In light of Hebrews 12:5-11, I think it is reasonable to conclude that God inflicts corporal punishment on His children (and, in my opinion, He sometimes slaps them upside the head, too, if that’s what it takes). At least, that’s been my experience.
32. Sam
April 20, 2007
1:04 AM
Obviously, our religious differences (all of you are, I am not) separate us, but I don’t disagree with spanking on religious grounds - although most advocates of spanking seem to be religious. I object because, as a social worker for three years, I witnessed the intense horrors of child abuse.
Without knowing any of you personally, you don’t seem the sort who would visit such evil onto your children. But why tred even near that road?
Wyeth, I absolutely agree that you deserved some sort of retribution for mouthing off to your grandmother - but I feel like a strongly worded, “You’re being a jerk right now,” would have accomplished just as much as what she actually did do.
Simply put, the lesson that is “taught” via phyiscal retribution isn’t the one that is intended - it is that might makes right. In other words, your ability to hit your child makes you right. But that isn’t the point, is it? Isn’t the point praying and recognizing God’s love? Isn’t the point establishing a relationship with this important figure within your religious doctrine?
How is it possible to do so when the other end of the spectrum involves a an open hand, waiting to strike? It’s like telling a spouse to love you, because if s/he doesn’t, you’ll hit her/him. Of course you can hit your spouse; nobody is denying that. But doing so is wrong, and it doesn’t become any less wrong if we replace the woman with a child.
The goal accomplished isn’t the intended one. Needless to say, I have appreciate the debate here. I recognize that we’re likely never to agree.
33. Mark
April 20, 2007
1:54 AM
Sam,
I am loathe to enter this discussion, but the following must be said, in my opinion…
First off, thank you for engaging the ‘religious’ folk on this thread with sincerity and forbearance.
Continuing on from above, I think it’s necessary to point out something about Christian corrective discipline (spanking) that everyone has omitted so far: the restoration process. While I appreciate Wyeth’s intention in #33, it’s definitely not the ideal. There’s far too much to go into in detail here (see Tedd Tripp’s book Shepherding a Child’s Heart) but here are a few bullet points:
-A parent should never discipline in anger. If a parent is hotheaded, a spanking should not be applied at that moment. -There is a process. A child should understand their need for correction before the spanking - the parent should be down on the child’s level, not towering over them or approaching them with an open hand. -The spanking should take place in a ‘neutral zone’ - by that I mean a place away from whence the offense took place. -Restoration is the goal. The parent should reiterate his/her love for the child and instruct the child in the correct behavior (our point is always to address the heart, which is where the main change must occur. Behavior change minus heart change is largely moot). -My wife and I usually enjoy hugs and kisses and a prayer with our son and daughter before they resume their activities. I never cease to be amazed by their un-coerced sweetness after a consequence.
Sam, you might think all the above is cold and calculating, but I assure you our ultimate aim is to save them from running headlong into something much worse than the street.
Blessings on you.
34. Josh
April 20, 2007
9:14 AM
So we see the view of the world conflicts with the view of the Word. There’s a surprise for you.
Josh “…the word of God is not bound.” —2 Timothy 2:9
35. david
April 20, 2007
10:06 AM
There’s an awful lot of stuff in the Bible - God’s word! - that I feel like you don’t take particularly seriously. You’ll excuse me if I don’t believe you’re incapable of looking at proverbs advocating child abuse and thinking that there might be a better way.
Sam, There is nothing in the Bible that I don’t take seriously. I’m sure I don’t get everything right, and there are things I admit I don’t understand, but it all comes straight from the mouth of God, so to say I take it seriously is an extreme understatement. I take it so seriously that I would never consider the possibility that there is a better way.
God is not advocating child abuse. There is a great difference between loving, measured discipline and an angry, violent beating. And there is more to discipline than spanking, but spanking is definitely part of God’s ordained method of discipline.
It’s unfortunate that you oppose spanking because of instances of abuse. That is a pretty poor basis for opposing anything. Everything is abused at times. As I said earlier in this thread, anecdotes of abuse, however true and horrible, don’t prove anything. They just show us sinful man’s ability to pervert everything, even the best of God’s gifts.
36. Blake
April 20, 2007
10:57 AM
Proverbs 13:24 — He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
That’s really all there is to it and all we need to know to know that it is right and good to discipline our children by corporal punishment.
It’s the same with the issue of women pastors. The Bible is clear on the issue but people fog it up to serve their own views.
37. Wyeth Duncan
April 20, 2007
11:04 AM
Mark,
I truly appreciate your bullet points. They are very helpful. However, what they assume is some knowledge of child psychology (possbibly as a result of reading Tripp’s book, or some similar text). My great-grandmother was born in 1896 and never went to high school and never studied psychology. Her form of discipline was with love (you have to consider the discipline within the wider context of daily life) and it definitely taught me there were consequences to mouthing off.
Incidentally, I only recall two times I was physically struck by her: the one time that I mentioned (comment 33), and another earlier time when she roundly spanked me on the behind (numerous times, not once or twice). Basically, I didn’t need to be spanked or slapped for the same thing twice! I’ve never had any lingering, lasting effects from either encounter. I received much love, care, sound advice, biblical instruction and wisdom from her.
And, Sam,
I was stubborn child (and stubborn adult!) and I could argue. Just telling me I was being a “jerk” (a term which, by the way, I never heard my great-grandmother use) would not have gotten the point across at all. I would have just argued. Sometimes, in my opinion, it takes a physical “jolt” to get a child’s attention. That’s what corporal punishment does quite effectively.
Anyway, I suppose my main point is that physical discipline is not necessarily abusive. Obviously, not everything that causes “pain” is physically hurtful (causing welts, cuts, bruises, etc.). A lot depends on the wider context of daily family life (e.g., Is it a loving home? Is physical discipline the exception or the rule? etc.).
Incidentally, I know what abuse is—my grandmother was abusive to her children (my mother and uncle have told me that). That’s a whole other story altogether. My great-grandmother (who reared me, and who was my grandfather’s mother) was absolutely not abusive in any way—there was no comparison at all.
Most everyone of my generation (40-something) that I’ve known, from a similar cultural background (working class, African-American), can identify with the type of discipline I experienced. We’re adults now, with children of our own, and I don’t know any one of us who have lingering psychological damage from our growing up years.
As incredible as it may sound to some (or many?), I still thank God someone cared enough about me to “go upside my head”.
And, Tim,
My wife and I also laughed, reading about Whitefield’s encounter with the willfull child. Though we feel that we now know better, I don’t think God disapproved.
38. Sam
April 20, 2007
12:21 PM
David,
I have no way of knowing how religious you are, but in that this is a Christian website, I’m assuming that you take some of the dietary restrictions laid down in the Old Testament less seriously than, say, Jews. But if I’m not mistaken, the Old Testament is part of the Word, isn’t it?
Most Christians cherry pick the parts of the Bible that they do and don’t like. There is no debate about this, because it is plainly impossible to follow all of the “laws” laid down in its pages because so many are in direct conflict with one another. I’m from West Virginia, and down south from here, we have snake handlers. Those people fervently believe that they’re doing what the Word instructs them too. But you’re not juggling snakes, are you?
The point is that there is a huge amount of wiggle room in the Bible which allows for people to say, “Hey, things have changed.” As I’ve written before, I don’t believe that there is any excuse for hitting your child, outside of the need to protect your child from him/herself or others. And as I’ve previously acknowledged, we’re not going to agree on this particular point, because I am absolutely dug in and I think it is fair to say that you are too.
39. david
April 20, 2007
2:25 PM
Sam, this is a topic too big to thoroughly cover here, but interpretating the Bible, or any other literature, requires attention to context. We don’t take any text by itself without considering the whole body of Scripture (analogia Scriptura).
Christians do not observe the OT dietary restrictions or practice circumcision because their purpose has been fulfilled, and we are told so explicitly in the NT. That doesn’t mean we take those commands less seriously than others, we just recognize that their time or purpose is past because God has told us so. However, they still illustrate something to us about the character of God and his redemptive plan.
As for snake handlers and the like, Scripture does not direct us to handle snakes. Those people have indeed “cherry picked” a passage, ignored the context, and entirely missed the point.
Scriptural interpretation requires work. You’ll never do it by focusing on one passage or another. You’ll miss the forest looking at the trees. You’ll notice differences from one tree to the next, and you’ll never see how they all blend together into one beautiful, harmonious picture.
I don’t intend to prolong this debate and hammer my point in, but I hope you’ll consider that.
40. Sam
April 20, 2007
6:00 PM
David,
Of course I’ll consider that, but please understand that you claiming that the snake handlers have cherry-picked a point is exactly what I’ve done to you. There are parts of the NT that you believe to be very important; there are probably parts of the NT that you tend to glaze over. You do so because this is how your faith operates. What I’m arguing is that everybody sees the trees instead of the forest, and that once we understand this, we understand that we can choose which trees to look at. Which to me means ignoring the trees that allegedly mandate physical repercussions for bad behavior.
41. david
April 20, 2007
7:12 PM
Sam,
You can argue that everyone does that, you can say I do it, or even prove that I do it. What does that prove? Only that I am flawed, to say the least. Whatever everyone does or what I do is not the standard of righteousness. God is. So comparing yourself to everyone else does not justify your treatment of God’s Word.
I’m sure I do fall short of perfection in my treatment of God and his Word. But when I do, I am wrong. I am not free to choose my own “truth.” I can’t ignore any part of Scripture because I don’t like it.
You say I do it because that’s how my faith operates, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Faith believes, and acts on that belief. It’s my flesh that resists truths that are unpleasant to me. And that is sin that I must confess and, by God’s grace, turn away from.
42. Even So...
April 20, 2007
8:00 PM
This is why we try and follow the rules of grammar, genre, context, and basic hermeneutics to come to a more full understanding of things, and we look to the scholars and the teachers and other faithful men of God whom interpreted before us, so as to have a bulwark to guide against going overboard.
We call this looking at “common trees” orthodoxy, and when we understand church history and orthodox interpreation, not that we don’t question it, but that we consider it, then we don’t fall into the trap of “snake handling”.
Ask any of those snake handlers if they have ever heard of Tertuillian, have read any Calvin, looked at Matthew Henry’s commentary, or even read CS Lewis at all, and I’m sure the overwhelming response would be in the negative. They work from a common experience, but it is all amongst the same “trees”.
Of course, my explanation of Christian orthodoxy could be extrapolated by you to ask why I wouldn’t consider other faiths, but that would be swinging the pendulum too far, for theirs is not a biblically based faith, which is what we as Christians are supposed to consider when interpreting for faith and practice…
43. Even So...
April 20, 2007
9:44 PM
Whoa..not sure what is going on, but when you click on the link for my site, it says it is the same url, but it goes to some weird bible prophecy gobbeldygook site…
44. david
April 20, 2007
10:25 PM
That’s pretty funny, J.D. Check the URL again. It’s voiceofvision.blogpsot.com. I’ll fix it, but you better change it next time you comment.
45. Even So...
April 20, 2007
11:02 PM
Interesting…does this mean I am somehow important…?
:-)
46. david
April 21, 2007
12:28 AM
No. It just means you can’t type.
47. Mark
April 21, 2007
2:22 PM
Hardy-har-har!!
Comments 45-48: one of the funniest exchanges I have seen on a comment thread in some time. Tickled this Englishman’s funny bone, anyway. Dry humour always does. BTW, how does comic timing work in the blogosphere?