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, 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 (66) »
1. Zach
July 25, 2009
11:47 AM
We should not deplore how Whitefield behaved. He did the right thing, as exemplified by the fig reward. Boys and young men do not learn life lessons without emotional, physical, or mental pain.
2. Reg Schofield
July 25, 2009
1:00 PM
Once again we are reminded why we need always look to Christ alone and point others to Him , not anyone ones testimony or even their life . Even though Whitefield was an amazing servant of Christ , this is an example of why we are not the gospel. He was a man of his times and supported slavery, so this type of of heavy handed discipline from him is not surprising . While on this side of heaven we will be as Luther clearly stated , sinners and saints simultaneous.Still an amazing preacher , but as you observed Tim,flawed like we all are.
3. shane
July 25, 2009
1:17 PM
It is too easy to judge behaviors from other times and cultures through the lens of our own times—but what would Whitefield say of how we deal with children? I think this story doesn’t illustrate much of a flaw, in Whitefield; in fact, it seems like a perfectly reasonable way to deal with a rebellious young boy.
4. ChrisB
July 25, 2009
2:50 PM
“We must deplore both the custom [of attempting to conquer a child’s will]”
Huh? We do that all the time.
At least we do in the South. The rest of y’all are on your own.
5. Logan Paschke
July 25, 2009
3:23 PM
Little boys left unchallenged become evil men with no regard to the law. My humble opinion. Obviously Whitefield forgot to tell the boy WHY he ought to pray his prayers, but let us learn a lesson then.
6. Logan Paschke
July 25, 2009
3:24 PM
Little boys left unchallenged become evil men with no regard to the law. My humble opinion. Obviously Whitefield forgot to tell the boy WHY he ought to pray his prayers, but let us learn a lesson then.
7. julius mickel
July 25, 2009
4:40 PM
as a father of six boys and a firm believer in discipline (especially to drive out folly), I would commend brother Challies for pointing out that this was WRONG. A child YES must learn to SUBMIT, but a child should not be FORCED to do such a thing as pray. Perhaps an extreme case of covenant theology might lead someone to think this would be beneficial, but it would only serve to ‘PROVOKE’ a child. Such a means of grace forced upon a child would only confuse them.
I would have liked to see Whitefield speak to the mother in quiet and remind her not to lay such a burden upon her child even though she may need to discipline him ONCE due to the child’s refusal to obey and then to make it known that such a thing is no longer required.
A parent must firmly uphold the authority they have been given by God yet at the same time learn what doesn’t need to become a disciplinary case.
REG,
if I remember correctly Whitefield become unpopular in the South because he DIDN’T support slavery (at least it’s abuses) in the same light the Apostle Paul didn’t.
8. Mike
July 25, 2009
5:00 PM
If we should someday have a chance to talk with this child, that will settle the question of merit. The value of discipline isn’t likely to be apparent at the time of administration.
9. Reg Schofield
July 25, 2009
6:32 PM
It is true that Whitefield did have a concern for slaves and did advocate better treatment and even education them , he failed as many of his day to take the next step and was influenced more by politics and economics on this matter than God’s word. He was influential in getting slavery legal in Georgia in the late 1740’s. This move was very pragmatic in that it helped support economically his orphanage . But this was typical of the day and he was in no way unique among other clergy or denominations . No Christian great is without his own flaws and unfortunately this was one of Whitefield’s. But I deeply respect and admire him and love his sermons . God still uses sinners to bring about his kingdom .
10. Daryl Little
July 25, 2009
8:13 PM
For all of Whitefield’s failings (of which I am aware of none, I’m just assuming that being a man he had lot’s of ‘em) surely this wasn’t one of them.
The only issue I would have here is that the child’s father should have been the one involved, but as long as Scripture tells us to use the rod to drive foolishness from the heart of a child and reminds us that “if you beat him he shall not die” but that rather his soul would be saved because of it, how can we fault him for what he did there?
Children are sinners and need their wills to be broken and brought into submission. Not all children need what this little gaffer did in order to say his prayers, but they all need it sooner or later.
11. Armen
July 25, 2009
10:55 PM
By Shane: “but what would Whitefield say of how we deal with children?”
Agreed. He is accused of being tainted by his culture, yet I have to believe he was convinced he was acting biblically. He even records the event without hesitation.
Perhaps if it were possible for us to step back far enough from the present, we’d see that what we now consider biblical, is more tainted by culture than Whitefield was.
12. julius mickel
July 25, 2009
10:56 PM
Reg,
What I meant was perhaps it wasn’t a flaw since the apostles themselves did not try to abolish slavery, rather they gave guidelines to masters and to slaves. The slave trade was in fact the bigger problem of which I think many were pretty ignorant of the details (perhaps willfully), interesting that Spurgeon refused to come here for this reason.
As regards the ‘custom’ of breaking a child’s will, this seems to ONLY be shocking to our time. Wisdom is justified by it’s children and in a literal sense we (the character and maturity) haven’t produced much fruit. That’s why it’s so hilarious to hear so much about children in sports and all the so-called character building it does when in reality sports is a weak substitute for godly discipline (and those most involved in sports don’t shine as role models).
It would be well for us to turn to the past to seek advice in this area of common failure. Praise God for men like Pastor Voddie Baucham and Albert Martin (to name a few)who give scripturally balanced treatments of such matters.
13. Michael
July 25, 2009
10:57 PM
Whitefield did what my grandfather would have done. My father would have wanted to do it. And I can’t imagine that being done to my son. Times they are a’changin’. The boy was either drawn to Christ or pushed away in that moment, but how are we to know. And what were the “blows” anyway? And as for slavery, what is it today that we consent to in our culture that 150 years from now Christians and non-Christians alike will find deplorable? Abortion? Poverty? Gluttony? Waste? Public education? Debt? That snapshot of Whitefield’s life speaks much to our own hang-ups and excesses.
14. Reg Schofield
July 26, 2009
12:09 AM
Being a history buff I realize that men in all ages are to a degree or another slaves to their environment . Whitefield was and is a great preacher .
The issue of slavery is still a hard pill to swallow because it was something that other Godly men like Spurgeon and William Wilberforce openly condemned and argued very forcefully from scripture that the slave trade that was being practiced fall far outside biblical guidelines. Just like today as people starve to death , abortion mills continue we choice not to see the ugliness , probably like many did back in those days , but that does not excuse it.
The last point I would like to make is what kind of blows for example did he inflict . Who knows, but beatings were common . My grandfather told me stories of the lashings he had and he vowed that when he had kids , the only discipline he would administer would be with a open hand on the back side. Plus he felt if you left a mark it was abuse . I agree . Times have changed not for the better perhaps as some would say , but surely the abuses of the past cannot be justified using scripture to break a child’s will by violence and force. Discipline is needed , I punished my boys but not to break them and blindly submit. Plus we have a over glamorized view of the past . Sin has and will always be part of any generation , it just takes on different strains at times.
For the record I think we could use more preachers like Whitefield . I still admire the man , the sinner , the saint in Christ.
15. J.P.H.
July 26, 2009
12:54 AM
It boggles the mind that people are giving Whitfield a virtual high five for something that seems pretty plainly out of line.
First, the whole things reeks of imperiousness. Visiting “my people”. Then he asks a woman to tell her son to say his prayers. What business is it of Whitfield’s? It’s not his kid. But then he goes the extra mile and physically disciplines another person’s child. Oh, and to what end? So he’ll do some rote recitation.
I’m just imagining how I’d react if, say, my wife were on a mission trip with a group of folks from our church. Along with them on the trip is a visiting pastor of some renown. He asks my wife to have my son say his prayers. She complains that he won’t. This pastor then physically forces him to the ground and demands he recite the Lord’s prayer. He refuses, and is smacked a couple of times until finally relenting. (I’m giving Whitfield the benefit of the doubt here and assuming the “blows” he recounts weren’t actually something I’d consider abusive.)
Suffice it to say I would have some strong words for this guy about laying his hands on my kid.
16. Reg Schofield
July 26, 2009
8:04 AM
JPH- I completely agree with you . If someone had done that to my child , we would have words.
17. P.A.M.
July 26, 2009
8:08 AM
From Sussana Wesley’s report on how she raised her children found in John Wesley Journals. I’m sure she would say this child’s condition started with his mothers indulgent attitude.
Conquer the Child’s Will”
“In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their will and bring them to an obedient temper. To inform the understanding is a work of time and must with children proceed by slow degrees as they are able to bear it: but the subjecting the will is a thing which must be done at once; and the sooner the better. For by neglecting timely correction, they will contract a stubbornness and obstinacy which is hardly ever after conquered; and never, without using such severity as would be as painful to me as to the child. In the esteem of the world they pass for kind and indulgent, whom I call cruel, parents, who permit their children to get habits which they know must be afterward broken. Nay, some are so stupidly fond as in sport to teach their children to do things which, in a while after, they have severely beaten them for doing.
“Whenever a child is corrected, it must be conquered; and this will be nor hard matter to do if it be not grown headstrong by too much indulgence. And when the will of a child is totally subdued and it is brought to revere and stand in awe of the parents, then a great many childish follies and inadvertences style=”#_ftn11” name=”_ftnref11”>[1] may be passed by. Some should be overlooked and taken no notice of, and others mildly reproved; but no willful transgression ought ever to be forgiven children without chastisement, less or more, as the nature and circumstances of the offense require.
“I insist upon conquering the will of children betimes, because this is the only strong and rational foundation of a religious education; without which both precept and example will be ineffectual. But when this is thoroughly done, then a child is capable of being governed by the reason and piety of its parents, till its own understanding comes to maturity and the principles of religion have taken root in the mind.
“I cannot yet dismiss this subject. As self-will is the root of all sin and misery, so whatever cherishes this in children insures their after-wretchedness and irreligion; whatever checks and mortifies it promotes their future happiness and piety. This is still more evident if we further consider that religion is nothing else than the doing the will of God and not our own: that the one grand impediment to our temporal and eternal happiness being this self-will, no indulgencies of it can be trivial, no denial unprofitable. Heaven or hell depends on this alone. So that the parent who studies to subdue it in his child works together with God in the renewing and saving a soul. The parent who indulges it does the devil’s work, makes religion impracticable, salvation unattainable; and does all that in him lies to damn his child, soul and body forever.
18. Meredith B.
July 26, 2009
1:53 PM
I have to agree with Julius and JPH. For all of Whitfield’s honorable qualities, I think he was out of line here. That doesn’t mean that the child was right. Of course children need to learn to obey their parents. But that is just the point. Whitfield was a stranger to this boy and he had no right to take over discipline.
Let me give you an example of one of my children who has refused to pray on occasion. She is 8 years old. One night, after a period of time where she was reluctant to pray at bedtime, I asked her why. She told me she was scared of God. After further discussion, I found out that our history lessons and discussions on Muslims and hell had scared her. Apparently, she was confused and felt insecure about approaching God. I was so thankful because God gave me an opportunity to minister to and teach my daughter about the kindness and goodness of God to those who know Him. We as parents need to be discerning about what’s going on in our children’s hearts, and not just react mechanically a lot of times assuming they are being willfully disobedient.
19. Richard
July 26, 2009
7:15 PM
Man, I can’t believe how many people on this blog are unwilling to state Whitefield was wrong. HE WAS WRONG, PEOPLE!!! Jeepers.
20. Reg Schofield
July 26, 2009
7:21 PM
Richard - I agree he was wrong concerning slavery and even the way he dealt with this child . But as the post points out , he was a flawed saint as we all are .
21. Richard
July 26, 2009
7:58 PM
Reg, absolutely right; but I guess I would call him, not a “flawed saint, ” but a justified sinner, as are WE ALL. And Whitefield himself would have thought no less. As would Luther, who said the entire life of a Christian should be one of repentance. We sin because we are sinners, and remain so until our glorification.
22. Richard
July 26, 2009
8:27 PM
I guess I am just amazed that some of us are so enamored with a “humble but flawed servant,” that they are willing to justify a form of child abuse. God have mercy!
23. Renee
July 27, 2009
1:52 AM
If pride was satan’s greatest downfall, what must pride be to a child, a believer, a man or a woman left unchecked? If children are not disciplined young by those who love them, will they be disciplined later by people or a system that loves them not? I guess the real question is, what does true child discipline look like? Someone?
24. Jason R. Kaiser Sr.
July 27, 2009
7:18 AM
I haven’t seen much in the way of biblical references to the matter, so here you are. Personally, I believe Whitefield did this child a great service.
Prov 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently).”
Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”
Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”
Prov 23:13: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”
Prov 23:14: “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel).”
Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”
25. Reg Schofield
July 27, 2009
8:23 AM
Richard- I think the term “a justified sinner” is better , totally agree.
Jason R. Kaiser - There can be be no denying that corporal punishment is biblical . But these verses have been so abused and used to justify unwarranted beatings that we must be careful in how we use them. I used corporal punishment on my boys when they were young but the number of offenses that I deemed to be needed were few and I confess at times I acted out of anger and less for the purpose of instruction , therefore violating Ephesians 6:4 about provoking your children to anger. Consistent intent in discipline is the key and agreement of both parents, so its consistent. But I have seen children who have been forced to submit and harshly treated within church by fathers who were so domineering that once the children were of age , they rebelled and as of right now I have seen none return to the faith and the respect they have for their fathers is very little. Whitefield’s actions were in line with the times but that does not make them right or totally acceptable. Plus its difficult to judge the incident completely because we are not given any information concerning how the child was acting.
26. David Kjos
July 27, 2009
8:37 AM
I don’t think the question here is whether or not corporal punishment is biblical. As the passages quoted above indicate, it certainly is. Whether or not it was Whitfield’s place to administer that discipline is not the main problem here, either. The real issue is whether or not one can force another to pray. It’s just absurd to think that possible or right. It reminds me of one occasion when I was virtually forced to “accept Jesus.” Did I recite a “prayer”? You bet I did. But, if anything, I was farther from God afterward.
I think Whitefield was quite wrong, but this doesn’t decrease my respect for him. He was a godly man, and is truly giant of church history. I hope, if I’m remembered at all, it won’t be for my sins, which far exceed this one episode in Whitefield’s life.
27. Mike D
July 27, 2009
9:57 AM
It would seem to me that too many of these comments have focused on what is right in regards to the child. No one has yet mentioned what is right in regards to God. God is deserving of our prayers, our songs and our worship. And if you read the Psalms, he is deserving of that from our children and from all of the nations. The bottom line is that is RIGHT to pray to God, and it is WRONG to not pray to him. It is RIGHT to obey your parents, and it is WRONG to disobey them. This child was a) disobeying a parent (I hope everyone still agrees that this is a punishable sin); and b) dishonoring God (again - a punishable offense - for an adult, punishable by God - but for a child, punishable by God’s authority in that child’s life). In this instance, in the apparent absence of a father on this journey, and amidst obstinate rebellion of a child and the inability of the mother to make the child obey, this minister of God lovingly administered punishment to correct both disobedience and rebellion. And since the account is short and concise, let’s give the dear man of God, sinful though he be, the benefit of the doubt that he administered the rod lovingly and with instruction with the purpose of bringing forth the desired response.
It is alarming in our day to see children in worship who are not made to sing, to revernce God and His Holy Word in the worship service and pay attention. Folks, until the glory of Almight God becomes our passion, and until we put aside the notions that it is bad to make our children do something that is contrary to their wills our of fear that it will make them hypocrites, we will never escape the spiral downward that we are currently in. If you don’t believe that, then read Ken Ham’s and Brit Beemer’s new book “Already Gone.” If God’s glory was more important than our comfort (both parent and child), than maybe so many of our kids would not be leaving the Christian faith.
I will admit - it is possible that Mr. Whitefield sinned in the carrying out of this punishment. But oh how great the sin must be when the sons and daughters of believing parents are allowed to withhold due reverence from Jehovah. And before any would say, “It is not right to go through motions when the heart is not in it,’ I would remind you that the majority of the time, we who are genuine Christians fail to put our heart in it. We often bring self-serving worship. We often bring the sick, the lame and the blind as our sacrifice. It is not about us. It is all about HIM !
28. Renee
July 27, 2009
10:18 AM
Mike,
I agree with many of your points. On the very last though, it may be that it is next to impossible for us to put “our hearts” into God willingly at times. We are flesh and the flesh is corrupt and we struggle. I would add that it is actually necessary for the Christian to do things, whether his heart is in it or not, knowing that what he is doing is truth…be it prayer, be it praise, be it forgiveness…especially forgiveness. As someone once said, “It is better to act your way into a feeling than to feel your way into an action.” Our feelings are not reliable.
29. Richard
July 27, 2009
11:57 AM
Mike,
God is deserving of our prayers, our songs, and our worship FREELY GIVEN. God is not honored when we beat someone into submission so they will pray to Him. Don’t we sound like some of the old Catholic missionaries who forced the peoples of South America to “worship” God at the point of a sword? God is NOT glorified by that.
30. Mike D
July 27, 2009
12:51 PM
Renee, I whole-heartedly agree with your point.
Richard, I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am not advocating such. I was careful to point out in my comment that we have jurisdiction and authority over our kids - jurisdiction that we do NOT have over other peoples (and over our own children if they are adults and out of our house). So your example is taking my comment to extremes. I am talking about my children - the ones whom God has told me to bring up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
I cannot agree with the additional wording you chose. God is DESERVING of our prayers, our songs, and our worship - PERIOD. Does that mean that God is honored by it? Absolutely not . If you had stated that God is HONORED in our prayers, our songs, and our worship when FREELY GIVEN, I would agree with you 100%.
Joshua said, “As for me and MY HOUSE, we WILL serve the Lord.” He did not take a poll to make sure everyone was on board. He made the statement and commitment because God was worthy. That was enough.
When I ask my children to pray or to sing or to pay attention in church, I am not trying to create little hypocrites. I explain to them what the book or Proverbs teaches - that even the plowing of the wicked is sin. But God is God - and he is deserving of their praise.
Would you require your kids to share their toys ONLY if they could so FREELY? Would you ask them to take the garbage to the road ONLY if they were so INCLINED? Would you require them to honor and respect you ONLY if such honor and respect can be FREELY GIVEN? Would you not require them to obey no matter their heart attitude? Would you not point out that thoght they obeyed outwardly, they did not obey inwardly? Would you not be requiring outward conformity of which you were deserving simply because of your authority, and at the same time pointing out the fact that you were not being honored becuase it was not freely given? Or do you dismiss them from doing what you ask simply because their heart is not in it?
31. Richard
July 27, 2009
1:07 PM
Mike—I agree. I worded that badly.
32. Mike D
July 27, 2009
1:35 PM
All we as parents have failed in the administration of discipline. But, praise God - we have a perfect heavenly Father.
Heb. 12:10 For they (earthly fathers) disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
May God bless all of our endeavors in disciplining our children; even those times when what “seems” best is not alway what “is” best. God certainly knows my many failures. But He also know the desires of my heart - for the good of my children and for His ultimate glory.
33. Paul
July 27, 2009
2:47 PM
I am surprised at how many people are quick to condemn Whitefield on so little information.
This is not comparable to some mission trip.
It is likely that the woman was a widow or single mother at least for the trip (perhaps her husband had crossed that Atlantic earlier).
We do not know what went on before this episode nor the details of the conversations that took place at the time.
We do not know the exact behaviour of the boy.
“Visit … my people” imperious? I would suggest a more gracious interpretation would be “paternalistic, pastoral and loving”.
Breaking the will of a child is what every parent should do.
34. Daniel
July 27, 2009
3:45 PM
I think it is good and right to encourage our children to pray to God - and good to teach them a proper respect for the prayers of others etc. should they be inclined against prayer themselves. I therefore think it is an abominable thing to coerce an unwilling person to pray, whether that person is a child or not, and whether the coercion is physical or not. Forced prayer is just wrong, and we all know that without having to be told it.
For all that, Whitefield rightly identified a grievious flaw in the upbringing of this young fellow, he was being allowed to rebel.
You see, the problem with rebellion is that every time you fail to correct it, you succeed in strengthening it. I have no problem with the fact that Whitefield corrected the lad physically - as that is entirely biblical (and singularly effective) when administered in love and in the absence of anger. I just cringe at the picture of forcing a child to get on their knees and pray if they are not inclined to it. There is a time and place to deal with rebellion, but when our parenting requires our children to respond to God as an act of obedience to us - we have missed the point of our stewardship.
35. J.P.H.
July 27, 2009
4:11 PM
Let me say that at face value I find Mike and Paul’s comments so repugnant that I would likely disassociate from them if we were in community. By saying that I’m not trying to imply I question their salvation; I just don’t like being around people who bully their kids.
If we as parents are to emulate through our authority over our children God’s authority over us, it should be noted that God, while retaining complete authority, exercises it with an extremely light hand. We are not compelled to believe. We are not compelled to worship. We are not compelled to refrain from sinning.
While I agree that children should be taught to obey their parents, I daresay there’s ample enough opportunity for that in the normal course of life that one need not also compel obedience with regard to prayer.
I pray that my child’s will is not broken. I pray also that he learn to yield to my will instead of his own, and eventually to God’s will, as Jesus did in the garden, out of love for me and a right recognition of my position of God-given authority over him. Not because he fears getting smacked.
36. Renee
July 27, 2009
4:19 PM
Daniel,
You said:
“…but when our parenting requires our children to respond to God as an act of obedience to us - we have missed the point of our stewardship.”
How else does a child learn to honour God except by honouring his parents and obeying them? If I can enforce that my child honours the elderly, to say please and thank-you out of politeness and respect, why can I not enforce that my child honour God through prayers - in essence, by saying please and thank-you to Him?
37. Mike D
July 27, 2009
4:24 PM
So, Daniel, if your twelve year old son (let’s just say you have one for the case of example) tells you Sunday morning that he is not going to churh to worship your God, then he gets to stay home?
Would you also “cringe at the picture of forcing a child” to go to church “if they are not inclined to it”? Would you “cringe at the picture of forcing a child” to ask forgiveness of his brother “if they are not inclined to it”? The child was being requested to RECITE the Lord’s prayer. Would you also “cringe at the picture of forcing a child” to memorize and recite scripture “if they are not inclined to it”?
Just because a child does not have the heart to do something, does that relieve them of doing what God says or what He requires?
I am just trying to understand where you are suggesting the line to be drawn.
As I see it from Scripture - when a child has been asked by a parent to do something; and what has been required is NOT sin; and realizing that children are to obey their parents in ALL things in the Lord; how is the enforcing of that through the means of discipline bad stewardship?
Obviously, the point of Mr. Whitefield’s entry is that this discipline needs to happen “betimes,” so that it does not escalate to such a situation. A child’s will should learn submission LONG before they are even ABLE to recite Scripture. Don’t discipline childeshess; but you better deal with all rebellion.
38. Paul
July 27, 2009
4:39 PM
JPH,
What is the difference between “breaking the will of a child” and “yield to my will instead of his own, and eventually to God’s will”?
I think we mean the same thing.
Are you perhaps reading “breaking the will” as “breaking the spirit”? That would be far from what I mean.
I would ask what do you understand about the Lord chastening those He loves? Is that always gentle? Praise God that often it is. But is it always and necessarily so? Does 1 Cor 11:30 sound gentle “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.”? What about Ananias and Sapphira? I used to just dismiss them as simply false converts now I am not so sure. Is it possible that at times the Lord can see our sin as such a hindrance to the cause of Christ that He simply takes us out of the picture altogether? What about David and his illegitimate child with Bathsheba was that gentle? There are also a number of tales in more recent times of trouble-makers in churches who all of a sudden passed away. It is pure conjecture but I wonder if that was the Lord stopping them from sinning any further.
Lastly I find it somewhat strange that you would say that you would likely disassociate from me if we were in community? Wouldn’t that be disobedience to the Lord himself? If I am wrong wouldn’t the better response be to love me and over time and with grace correct my errors? Wouldn’t you have some concern for my children?
My primary point was let us not be quick to condemn any man, let alone a great man of God, on such scant information.
39. Mike D
July 27, 2009
4:40 PM
J.P.H., my brother…to insinuate that Paul and I “bully” our kids, “break” their wills, and “smack” them around is most unfair.
Read Prov. 3:11, 12, Eph. 6:1-4 and Hebrews 12. There is a time to teach, a time to train, and a time to apply the rod of discipline. No one on this site has suggested bullying, breaking or smacking.
40. Daniel
July 27, 2009
5:01 PM
@Renee
I think you might be misunderstanding the direction of my point, when you ask, “How else does a child learn to honour God except by honouring his parents and obeying them?” I say that because nothing in what I wrote suggests that a child learns to honor God by any other means.
Notwithstanding, I am glad to clarify my thoughts.
I believe that children learn to honor God first by having parents who only honor God themselves and require that their children live also in a way that honors God.
I do not believe however that a child learns to honor God by obeying a parental request that dishonors God. I will use my own family as an example. If I teach my children that I expect from them what I expect from myself - obedience to God, and that I am given a stewardship as their parent, to raise them up to know and obey God, and that they are required to obey me insofar as I am a just steward of this charge; but that they are not required to obey me if I abuse this stewardship and call them to obey a command that is contrary to scripture, “just because I am their father”. Every one of my children learns this as soon as they are able to comprehend it.
They learn that obeying me honors God because God has given their lives in stewardship to me. They learn that obeying me -is- obeying God, for it is God who calls them to obey me. They don’t learn to “obey me” so that later they can “obey God” - rather they learn to obey God, “period.”
I teach my children that in order to honor God they must honor the elderly, so that when they honor the elderly, they are honoring the God who called me to lead them in that way. Does that make sense? I don’t try and teach them to obey me, so that having learned to obey someone, they can eventually transfer that lesson to God. I teach them, as best I can, to obey God through my stewardship.
41. Paul
July 27, 2009
5:07 PM
Mike D,
I just read your response to Daniel and I thought you brought out some great points in those questions. Thanks for those.
Part of the problem I see here is that people are envisioning some kind of enforced religious strait-jacket that would turn anybody off Christianity because it was in the context of prayer. But I do not think we can say that.
The other part of the problem is some finding certain words repugnant assuming that what they find offensive is what the poster meant.
42. Daniel
July 27, 2009
5:40 PM
@Mike D
My eldest son turns 12 in a few months so your example is not far off the mark when you say, “if your twelve year old son … tells you Sunday morning that he is not going to churh to worship your God, then he gets to stay home?”
If my old son told me one morning that he was not going to go fishing with the rest of us I would not let him stay home. He would come along, but I wouldn’t make him fish. He would be expected to sit in the boat or on the dock, and behave in a manner that is appropriate to where we are, even if he personally isn’t fishing.
Do you see where this is going?
In the same way my son would come to church, and I would require him to behave in a manner that respected the sacred assembly - but I wouldn’t require him to pretend to worship, or even to go through the motions.
If my son had made what I believed to be a genuine profession of faith (as opposed to the “standard” I-am-doing-this-just-to-please-mom-and-dad profession of faith, I might be inclined to expect more from him, if only because he is a brother in the Lord under my care. I would not force him to repent, but I would certainly call him to do so, as scripture requires of me. To be sure, these things I say in the vacuum of an ideal situation. In the real world things are not so cut and dry. I -know- I would make my son attend with me for all the same reasons I would make him come fishing, but I would no more force him to worship than I would force anyone else in the pews to worship - it isn’t our place to insist that those who are not inclined, should act as though were inclined, for I believe that hypocrisy, while it might look nice on the outside, is not pleasing to God - and requiring it of someone strikes me as less than wise.
Perhaps I can answer all your specific questions by saying that I only cringe at the thought of forcing a child to act out a faith that isn’t there.
I ask you Mike - would you force our hypothetical twelve year old to be baptized if the same rejected Christ (assuming of course that you’re a credobaptist)? Surely you see the difference between teaching a child to recite the Lord’s prayer and demanding that the child prays it?
To use your own words, just because a child does not have the heart to obey God does not relieve them of that obedience. I think you are so right in that thought. Where I am making my point however is in the arena of coerced (and therefore false) worship. God commands us to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Forcing a child to go through the motions of worship when their heart is not in it is forcing them to worship God in the flesh and as a lie.
That is where I personally see the line - I am willing to demand much of my children - but I do not demand that they worship God falsely.
43. KMS
July 27, 2009
6:14 PM
Dallimore wasn’t dilly dallying when he wrote: “We must deplore both the custom [of attempting to conquer a child’s will] and Whitefield’s action on the basis of it.” Couldn’t have said it any better. Give the child a fig as a reward - please…. Make a dog jump through a hoop and give him a biscuit kind of mentality.
This so called breaking a child’s will sounds like legalistic rubbish where you end up with cookie cutter church goers (who may or may not be christians) who know nothing of grace. I’m glad God doesn’t treat me with the same harshness that some here believe to be ‘biblical’.
Thank you Daniel post 42 for some wise words.
44. Paul
July 27, 2009
6:30 PM
If anyone is interested here is a fuller quote from Whitefield’s Journal. Continuing from where Dallimore left off:
And this same child, though not above four years of age, came to-night on deck, and when the other children came to say their prayers to my friend Habersham, he burst out into tears, and would not go away till he had said his too. I mention this as the proof of the necessity of early correction. Children are sensible of it sooner than parents imagine. And if they would but have resolution to break their wills thoroughly when young, the work of conversion would be much easier, and they would not be so troubled with perverse children when they are old.
Friday March 31, 1738 (it was Good Friday)
45. Paul
July 27, 2009
6:55 PM
KMS,
Please don’t turn this into an attack on other posters. It doesn’t help anyone.
Do you have children? Have you ever physically disciplined one of them? Or do you believe that there are appropriate times to discipline a child physically? (withhold not the rod, etc)
46. Lori
July 27, 2009
8:19 PM
Speaking as a grown child of God who was sorely disciplined for her rebellious and presumptuous disobedience (such as failing to obey her Heavenly Father’s loving command to pray without ceasing), I can tell you with absolute certainty that He repeatedly brought me to my knees—and He was just in doing so. His stripes are good and kind and wise. His discipline was the very expression of His faithfulness to me, His unfathomable love for me, and the truest indication that I belong to Him. He did not leave me to my heart’s wickedly deceptive ways and the sinfulness of my wretched flesh. He did not silently stand by until I was ready to follow HIm—for I never would have been ready but for His grace! He commanded, “Return to me!” and I now humbly and faithfully serve Him with gratitude and awe. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His love is steadfast. He is worthy of all praise. His precepts are wonderful. His yoke is easy and His burden is light, especially in comparison with the yoke of slavery to sin (even willing slavery).
For those who are not His children and those who refuse to willingly kneel before their Maker, it will come to pass that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God. So, one way or another, all will be forced to their knees, made to confess, and bound to receive their stripes at His hand.
Please forgive me for being harsh, but whether you steward your parental gift wisely and administer His discipline as the Bible commands you or not will be to your glory or to your shame. He will either do it now, through you, or later without you. And your lack of faithfulness will harm your child and require the administration of far more stripes to beat out long-ingrained sin with far-reaching consequences. It is cruel of you if you do not faithfully correct your child each time he or she would veer from the path of godliness.
Brother or sister, I do not wish that any would learn the hard way, as I did. I earnestly desire that my warning would save your child the pain my folly caused me. But I would not have them spared an ounce of it if they should go astray.
47. Lori
July 27, 2009
8:51 PM
I should add that, time and again, the Lord arranged the circumstances in my life so that I would be in such distress as to cry out to Him and appeal to Him in prayer. Yet, over and over, I obstinately refused to learn His lesson. If I had acknowledged my dependence upon HIm, had but repented of my pride, and believed in His promises, I would have saved myself much unnecessary suffering, I would have been able to enjoy Him as He intended. Besides that, I would have caused Him to have to discipline me so often and I would not have brought Him such reproach. I would give anything to take that back. But I look forward to serving Him more faithfully as a result of His grace and mercy.
48. Coram Deo
July 27, 2009
8:56 PM
Tim,
On what basis, or by what criteria do you condemn [“deplore”] Whitefield’s actions in this instance? Please explain your moral judgment here, and present the standard upon which you’re basing said judgment.
In Christ,
CD
49. KMS
July 27, 2009
9:16 PM
Paul: “Do you have children? Have you ever physically disciplined one of them? Or do you believe that there are appropriate times to discipline a child physically? (withhold not the rod, etc)”
Yes - 4 children. I frankly rarely had to physically discipline any of them, but they have been disciplined in many ways other than physical. Thanks be to God that all of my children have come to hold and own their own faith. They are now all adults.
Yes there had been on occasions where physical discipline was necessary but having grown up amongst believers who used physical discipline inappropriately and frankly harshly we may have erred on the side of lightness.
50. Renee
July 27, 2009
10:47 PM
I have difficulty understanding parents who will push for their children’s intellectual growth, enforcing their education, expecting them to read, learn, and recite all things academia while showing unusual reticence at pushing for their spiritual growth, dreading even the notion of enforcing scripture reading and daily prayers. We polish the temporal and neglect the eternal. I pity the child whose trek to God is that much harder and that less surer because of fewer pointers and fewer disciplines.
51. Paul
July 27, 2009
11:34 PM
Thanks KMS.
I was just concerned to know that we aren’t speaking from completely different perspectives. I am not so sure that we are that different. Thank God that for all our failings as parents whether too lenient or too strict He can graciously overrule our failings.
The whole purpose of discipline is to teach the child to follow his own self-will, but rather to follow the Lords and for a time to follow ours. That is all I mean by breaking the will it is not a Pavlov’s dogs behavioural control type of thing (although when they are very young it is close to that), but closer to the thought that my higher calling is to do the will of my Master and not my own.
Lori,
A heartfelt thanks for your personal word of testimony. It was much appreciated.
52. KMS
July 28, 2009
1:42 AM
An interesting read on the use of corporal discipline:
http://parentingfreedom.com/discipline/
53. Paul
July 28, 2009
10:14 AM
@KMS what did you find so interesting.
IMO it is a flawed article. The Hebrew word na’ar is used in Ex 2:6 to refer to the baby Moses. Hardly a “teenage boy/young man” in that case. Also when the authors explanation of “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child” is convoluted and unnatural to say the least. Does it mean “tied up” as in restricted? Or does it mean so intertwined that all of the heart is affected?
54. Mike D
July 28, 2009
11:52 AM
Paul, might you be Paul Harvey? Thank you for “the rest of the story” that you brought us. It certainly shows how God blesses the means he has established in His word.
Lori, thank you for that moving testimony. May the Lord restore the years that the locust have eaten.
Renee, amen to that last comment. But praise God that He is able to save to the uttermost ALL those that call out to Him.
Daniel, good to hear back from you. I don’t think we are as far separated from each other as it would seem. I had hoped you would say that your son would be required to attend church, and I agree with the fact that he would be made to behave.
You brought up an interesting point…that God should be worshipped in spirit and in truth. I stand behind that statement 100%, and I actually agree with you. I think the difference we have is that you seem to be stating that you would not require the “truth” portion of the worship without the “spirit” portion being present. I, on the other hand, seek to require my children to be familiar with the “truth” (the content or the manner) of worship, the WHOLE TIME explaining to them that will not be acceptable until it is with “spirit.” I will call on my children to pray from time to time (especially my sons). They do not profess to know Christ to this point, so I remind them that they core of their prayer (though they may be asking God’s blessing upon the food at the table and thanking Him for it - which based on Romans 1, God expects thankfulness even from the heathen) , at the core should be a crying out for a new heart. If God is pleased to save my boys, I want them to know what a leader of a house must do. I want them to know how to pray - and now as coverted men, to know the power of prayer and the privilige of prayer. Like the Psalmist, I want ALL the peoples to praise Him. I want my children to sing the praised of Jehovah because He has been good to them. I want the words that I require them to sing to seep down into their hearts and minds by virtue of the fact that they have had to process the words on the page in order to bring them across their lips. I want them in their times of aloneness to contemplate the state of their souls, and to think, “Is it well with MY soul.”
Daniel, bless God that His arm is not short that it cannot save. May God reach down and save our children so that they will know the beauty of truly worshipping God in spirit and in truth. Bless Christ that by means of His intercession, He can render our feeble worship acceptable in the sight of His Father because of His propitiatory work. Bless the Spirit who gives us confidence and help to cry out, “Abba! Father!”
55. Joanne
July 28, 2009
12:03 PM
From the article mentioned by KMS:
“(Note: In the Old Testament, na’ar also very accurately described Baby Moses. To save his life, they put him in the river. Definitely “shaken off”. It is not a word that would describe a typical baby. The same word was also used for Samuel when he was weaned and taken to the temple. Again, “shaken off” and not a typical experience for a young child.)”
56. Daniel
July 28, 2009
1:43 PM
@Mike D, thank you Mike for your gracious reply. Thank you for your clarifying remarks. If I understand you correctly, you agree with me that we cannot cause our children to worship in spirit, but disagree with me in that believe we not only can cause our children to worship God in truth, but are in fact obligated to do so as good stewards.
I can’t deny that there is a skin deep attraction to the idea that we can separate worshipping in the Spirit from worshipping in truth, in that it creates a pocket whereby we can define the one as worship that takes place in the heart, and the other as worship that takes place in our (correct) practice - so that even if we hate God and reject Him, we can still worship Him as long as the religious activity we are forced to comply with, is orthodox. I think however that Jesus and even the prophets who preceded Him spoke to this very thing - worshipping God with our lips when our heart is far from Him; and they speak of this practice as abominable, and by no means as a fitting form of worship.
I appreciate that we ought to model and expect corrrect (“true”) form, but I would hesitate to call even the most correct “form” actual worship. Going through the motions, even if they are absolutely correct in form, doesn’t strike me as worship until those motions are spirit led and filled.
I think therefore that the distinction you make presents itself to my understanding as artificial. When I say that I love my wife “heart and soul” I do not suggest that I love her with my heart one way, and with my soul another - rather I use the language of “heart and soul” as meaning I love her with my whole being. Likewise when scripture requires that we worship God in Spirit and in truth, I think the intention is to say that we are not worshipping in truth until we worship in Spirit - that both come together or it is not worship.
It is good and proper to teach our children the orthodox tenets of our genuine faith. No one would deny that. The question for me is whether God actually demands that we worship him in form when our heart is not there. I think I am persuaded that God does not want this from us, and doesn’t want us to teach our children that their empty form is actually pleasing to God. We can teach them what the form looks like, and even require them to know what is proper in worship - but I think we go too far if we teach them that an empty form is actual worship.
I wonder if I am making my distinction clear?
Either way, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss the matter graciously. There is certainly merit in teaching our children what true worship looks like - and I agree insofar as to say that we are certainly remiss if we fail to teach our children what is proper. My only concern is that we keep from teaching our children that God demands that men go through the motions of “worshipping” Him with their lips when it is clear that their hearts are not there. That would be a mistake, I think.
57. Paul
July 28, 2009
2:07 PM
@Mike D: No I am not Paul Harvey. I think the fuller story helps us understand why GW wrote what he did, and the lad’s age helps explain the fig too. I couldn’t remember reading this in Dallimore’s Whitefield but I read it close to 30 years ago. I think Dallimore and Tim are being a little harsh.
@Joanne: Thanks for that. I had skipped over that and not registered it. When I looked at the word I went back and looked to see if she mentioned Exodus (searching for ‘ex’) but she didn’t. I should of looked for Moses. I have to say she is unconvincing. Could it be that the “shaken off” refers to being weaned? Could it be that it refers to being active? I came across Rabbis who were suggesting that its meaning is along the lines of apprentice/trainee. It is also used in Gen 21 for Ishmael where it is translated lad or boy. We have Ishmael crying and placed under a bush. Again that doesn’t fit the “teenage boy/young man” theory. The “little lad” with Jonathan when he was firing his arrows in 1 Sam 20 is also a “na’ar”. It just doesn’t fit her theory.
Another example of a very questionable approach to Scripture is the section suggesting that the “rod” is metaphorical. She quotes a book (I assume approving of the statement) that “If this verse is instruction to strike a child with a stick then it’s lying – because you can kill a child by hitting them with or without a ‘rod’”. When people speak and write there are unstated limits in what they say that are usually perfectly obvious. For example, a husband says to his wife “I will always love you”. Does that mean that he will lover her in 500 years? Would anyone argue that is what he intended? Does it even mean that he would love her when stricken with alzheimer’s and fails to even recognize her? No we would all understand that there is an unstated limit in what he said, i.e. that while he is alive and has the ability he will love her. So what limit is implicit in the statement “if you punish him with the rod, he will not die”? Should that be read as if you hit your child with as much force as you can, as many times as you can he will not die? Or does it mean if you hit your child in a manner appropriate for punishment then you will not kill him?
58. Renee
July 28, 2009
5:58 PM
Daniel,
This is a late response and it may be that someone has responded to your reasoning already, but here’s mine:
You said…
“They learn that obeying me honors God because God has given their lives in stewardship to me. They learn that obeying me -is- obeying God, for it is God who calls them to obey me. They don’t learn to “obey me” so that later they can “obey God” - rather they learn to obey God, “period.”
I teach my children that in order to honor God they must honor the elderly, so that when they honor the elderly, they are honoring the God who called me to lead them in that way. Does that make sense? I don’t try and teach them to obey me, so that having learned to obey someone, they can eventually transfer that lesson to God. I teach them, as best I can, to obey God through my stewardship.”
In the early years, a child’s concept of God is dad and maybe mom. Depending on how we teach them (with love and respect or with harshness and legalism), the child’s view of God is created. We may tell them many things according to scripture, but our attitudes as parents will either buttress or dismantle what we are trying to build…so, my point is, there is a time in their development when it is difficult to make them understand that when they obey us, they obey God. Children should just be taught to obey, no matter how well they understand.
Maybe you don’t disagree with this point…just wanted to make that distinction.
59. J.P.H.
July 28, 2009
6:49 PM
Paul wrote:
“Another example of a very questionable approach to Scripture is the section suggesting that the “rod” is metaphorical.”
Depends on the verse. The word “shebet” (rod) is used metaphorically in Numbers 24:17, Job 9:34, Job 21:19 and Psalms 125:3. In the two verses from Job it seems clear that “rod” is interchangeable with “discipline” or “punishment”.
I’ll agree that it’s most likely not meant to be taken metaphorically in all the verses from Proverbs.
Paul wrote:
“Or does it mean if you hit your child in a manner appropriate for punishment then you will not kill him?”
I think that’s what it means. However, that does not imply that to refrain from punishing a child in this particular manner does him harm, so long as “the rod” is being applied in its metaphorical sense (i.e. discipline).
60. Paul
July 28, 2009
10:55 PM
@JPH: I thoroughly agree. I know of one Pastor who never physically disciplined one son because he was of such a nature that mere parental displeasure sent him into sincere repentence.
Proverbs are general principles and not meant to be taken literally to the nth degree. I have seen people take “Teach a child the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” to castigate parents for sons who stray as adults. That is another terrible abuse of Scripture and brethren.
My beef was with the it must be metaphorical or Proverbs is lying.
61. Coram Deo
July 28, 2009
11:07 PM
Tim Challies,
Once again, on what basis, or by what criteria do you condemn [“deplore”] Whitefield’s actions in this instance? Please explain your moral judgment here, and present the standard upon which you’re basing said judgment.
In Christ,
CD
62. Paul
July 28, 2009
11:22 PM
Great question CD. I would have loved to ask Dallimore the same.
Challies is on vacation so I imagine he is not checking the threads.
63. Wyeth
July 29, 2009
1:37 AM
I’ve appreciated the comments from Mike D, Paul, Lori and some others.
What I found interesting about the story is that, apparently, the child’s mother had no complaint and did not protest what Whitefield did to her child. If the child’s mother, who was right there, had no complaint, why should I criticize when I’m well over 200 years removed from the event?
Personally, I don’t see where Whitefield violated God’s word or did any physical or spiritual harm to the child.
64. Mike D
July 29, 2009
9:08 AM
Wyeth, that was an excellent point - one that seemed to be overlooked.
Paul, I agree with you about the misuse of the verse “Teach a child the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it”. I am not sure if you are aware or not, but the Puritans (at least a good number of them) translated that verse this way: Train up a child in the way HE WANTS to go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. Seeing that verse in that light, it shows the need of bringing the will of the child under submission becasue foolishness is bound up in his heart. It also has much relevance to the discussion at hand (this blog entry). This interpretation of the verse also coincides with what we read in Prov. 29:15, “The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.” The child in this story had been left to himself (to the desires of his own heart), and it was clear he was bringing shame to his mother. The rod and rebuke brought wisdom (as was brought out in the additional portion of the Whitefield story you shared), and, by this godly man’s actions, maybe this child was spared from growing old and becoming set in his own sinful desires and foolish ways.
65. Daniel
July 29, 2009
11:01 AM
@Renee
I think I agree with your last comment entirely. It is pretty much what I am saying also. That is, to teach our children to honor God directly rather than to build a proficiency in doing what they are told that can later be transferred to obeying God.
66. Nathan
July 29, 2009
2:15 PM
I didn’t have time to read all the comments so I may be repeating someone else. A fascinating side note to this story is that on Sundays when the seas were calm the boats would draw together and Whitefield would preach from the deck to all who would listen.