Bribery takes behavior out of the moral framework and makes obedience to you optional. Can that be right? What if the child turns down your proffered sweets or sticker and decides being disobedient is more fun? Do you enter into negotiations and up the ante? You are teaching the children that the only reason to comply is if there is something (material) in it for him. 

There is nothing easy about parenting, and nothing easy about the responsibility of training our children in obedience through discipline. Because discipline is unpopular and unpleasant, parents often find themselves looking for substitutes. In her book Parenting Against the Tide, Ann Benton lists five poor substitutes for disciplining our children—five poor substitutes that fail to address the heart.
Excuse Them
This is the voice of therapy culture. Sometimes we make excuses for our child’s misbehavior. We say, “he’s tired, she’s had a hard day, he’s disappointed, she’s traumatised, he’s got low self-esteem …” Now all of these things may be true. But that is not the point. The point is this: Are we going to allow our children to take responsibility for their own behavior/misbehavior or not? Or is it always going to be the fault of someone else or of the circumstances? I am not saying we cannot be understanding or sympathetic. But if we are going to praise our children when they do well, surely it is logical to chastise them when they do badly. They make choices, which are moral choices, all day long. If we commend them for the good we cannot merely excuse them for the bad. That is very poor training because it teaches them to blame-shift.
Ignore Them
This is the voice of liberalism, which would be inclined to allow the children as far as possible to do as they like. When called upon to intervene, liberalism refuses to recognise an absolute moral worldview, whereby some things are definitely wrong and some things are definitely right. This is a failure in discipline because we need to instruct our children’s sense of right and wrong and that this is quite outside of how they fell about it. It might feel great to pull someone’s hair but it is wrong. Children have a moral sense, they have a conscience and this conscience is your friend when you discipline. Bring in right and wrong as absolutes. And be clear that the fundamental right course of action for a child is obedience to you.
Organise Them
[This is] the voice of strategic management. Some parents work really hard to avoid the occasion for misbehavior by organizing their children’s life and surroundings.
Read More
Related Posts:

There may be considerable overlap between the American political right and the Christian church in moral values, especially in matters like abortion, sexual morality, euthanasia, and the like. But at the end of the day we serve Christ, not any party or social movement; for such things are temporal and of human origin, and therefore are never free of sin, whereas God’s kingdom which the church represents (albeit imperfectly) endures forever and is of his Spirit.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) saw controversy recently due to David French’s invitation to participate in an upcoming General Assembly seminar. That immediate controversy I elide here, for prudence commends dropping the matter with the Administrative Committee’s decision to cancel the entire seminar as unhelpful. But controversies are often helpful in revealing auxiliary matters of import, some of which are arguably more important than the immediate controversy itself.
One such matter in the recent controversy that merits comment is the readiness with which our church’s affairs were discussed in political organs. The affairs of the PCA are ecclesiastical in nature, not related to the wider culture and its civil politics. They are, in short, none of the business of outlets such as The Federalist, and their commenting on them (as here) is blamable on various grounds.
If the people doing so are members of our church, then they are violating the principle that our affairs should not be discussed before unbelievers. In cases of apparent fault we are to handle our affairs internally:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? . . . So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (1 Cor. 6:1, 4-6)
Discussing our affairs in outlets concerned primarily with culture and politics exposes us to ridicule by unbelievers (no doubt a large readership of such outlets), who are only too ready to find apparent confirmation for their unbelief. We shouldn’t be giving infidels occasion to justify their unbelief, and so no believer should discuss the church’s affairs in an outlet that does not have an explicit, credible Christian character.
If the people doing so are not members of our church, then they are prying where they have no business and doing us a real disservice. Ask yourself, dear reader, what someone who reads an outlet like The Federalist is likely to think about us when he reads a statement like this:
If the PCA knew this [i.e., various concerns about French] and invited him anyway, shame on them. And if they somehow didn’t know because their heads are buried that far in the sand — unlikely, especially considering the PCA’s leftward decline, but I repeat myself — double shame.
Probably he will think that we are a feckless institution of questionable honesty that has compromised with the wider culture and which is not, as such, worthy of a serious consideration as a reliable moral authority. Whatever its intentions, that article exposed us to opprobrium that has proved unjustified given that the event was promptly canceled after an enormous backlash from many in the denomination (inc. some whole presbyteries). But the harm to our reputation has already been sown in many minds, for the taint of “leftward decline” is not easily shed in many quarters of the very sensitive and reactionary conservative movement in this country, and no one is better for that harm to our reputation—except Satan, who is keen on discrediting faithful churches, of which the PCA is full.
Now I assert all this because the church has a spiritual, other-worldly character, and because her independence on that point is transgressed when outsiders discuss our affairs in their own forums. The PCA is not a wing of any party or platform, and when a political publication of any stripe meddles in our affairs they are implying they have some legitimate concern in them, that we should hold their line and only approve things that they approve. Nonsense. We shall determine whom we associate with or not, and on the basis of our own moral-doctrinal and ecclesiastical criteria, not those of any political movement.
In brief, if you’re a believer and reading this, please do not discuss church affairs in non-Christian forums, and repent if you have been in the habit of doing so. And recognize that when politicians or journalists discuss our internal affairs, they are disregarding the true nature of the church and infringing upon her independence. They are implying that we are somehow allied with or subordinate to them, a part of their ‘base,’ and that as such they have a legitimate interest in our affairs. They don’t, and even if their concerns are understandable or their values are largely the same as ours, there is still wrong in them directly commenting upon our doings or exposing us to ridicule.
Now this is prescient especially because it serves to rebut a mistaken impression that many people have that this ‘spirituality of the church’ I have asserted here is simply a convenient fiction.[1] There are people who say that the ‘spirituality of the church’ is just a dodge to justify a sinful status quo, a thing behind which the church shelters lest she offend the powerful. In the 1800s this allegedly meant the Southern churches refused to denounce domestic slavery as an institution, for fear lest they so offend the planter aristocracy as to be rendered of no account.[2] Today it purportedly means the church declines to support various ‘social justice’ causes which are associated with the political left because of various selfish concerns.
But actually the church’s spiritual independence means that she is to be aloof not merely from leftwing causes, but also from being a direct subservient entity of the political right. Even where the right is in the right, it is not proper for her to act like she can use the church as a subordinate, nor for the church to allow herself to be regarded as such. This is so because the church is Christ’s institutional embassy on Earth. Her loyalty is to him alone, and only to any other thing insofar as he commands it. (E.g., he commands us to honor and pay taxes even to pagan empires like Rome, Rom. 13:1-7, for this is in the best interests of his people.)
An ambassador can only serve the interests of his lawful sovereign, doing otherwise being rank disloyalty. He does not take the part of any faction of the foreign country where he serves, and only involves himself in the affairs of that place with a view toward advancing his sovereign’s interests, and at his explicit instruction. Believers are spiritual sojourners and pilgrims in every earthly nation they inhabit (Heb. 11:13; 1 Pet. 2:11-12), and in all places they are Christ’s representatives, beholden to do his will and not that of others.
There may be considerable overlap between the American political right and the Christian church in moral values, especially in matters like abortion, sexual morality, euthanasia, and the like. But at the end of the day we serve Christ, not any party or social movement; for such things are temporal and of human origin, and therefore are never free of sin, whereas God’s kingdom which the church represents (albeit imperfectly) endures forever and is of his Spirit (Dan. 2:36-45; Rom. 14:15; Heb. 12:28). Then too, from a practical standpoint, political movements so much emphasize the things of this life as to drive out concern for eternity and Christ’s kingdom (Matt. 13:22), which has not come in its fullness (Lk. 17:20-21) and is not a thing of this world (Jn. 18:36). Once wed politics and piety and politics becomes your piety.
For that reason the church must resist at every turn all people who attempt to meddle in her affairs. Our Lord is a jealous God (Deut. 4:24; 5:9) who will share his glory with no other (Isa. 42:8), and who declined to intervene in domestic squabbles (Lk. 12:13-14) or outrages (13:1), but instead found in them occasions to instruct people morally (12:15-21) and to urge them to repent (13:2-5). As his embassy on Earth, his church must take care lest the politics of this life cause her to forget her mission and her loyalty to him. That means she must insist on her right to be free of the interference of those who would have us do their bidding, just as Christ refused all overtures that mistakenly regarded him as an earthly king (Jn. 6:15) or interfered with his redemptive mission (7:1-14).
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] Some idea of the doctrine of the church’s spiritual nature and independence can be gleaned in my article here.
[2] Keyword “as an institution.” The churches did defend slavery in theory, and appealed to scripture in so doing. But there is a difference between defending slavery in theory and doing so as it was actually practiced. The churches also criticized Southern slavery as it was actually practiced, as Eugene Genovese recounts in his A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White South, though we could naturally wish they had done so much more effectively than was actually the case.

Related Posts:

When it comes to working out what your church will do, you first have to figure out what your people are able to do. There is no point coming up with an amazing plan for outreach if it centres around certain key skills your people don’t have or time commitments they aren’t in any position to commit to. You ultimate have to ask what can our people do, what are they interested in, what will they be able to do. Everything else, whilst lovely to think about, is ultimately not workable in practice.

When it comes to church life, there are lots of questions that rear their head again and again. Among them is this: what should we do? Obviously, lying behind that question is a series of others. What, exactly, is the mission of the church? What has God specifically called his people to do? Has he set any boundaries for how they ought to do it? There are many others besides.
But let’s just assume some things for a moment. Let’s assume we all agree that the mission of the church is to make disciples. That is, telling people about Jesus and seeking to grow them to maturity in Christ. Let’s assume for a moment that we all agree the gospel is the key to making disciples. That is, nobody will become a disciple of Jesus without understand the gospel, the good news of who he is and what he came to do. Let’s assume for the moment that we all agree that making disciples, then, involves telling those who don’t know about Jesus about him and telling those who do know Jesus the things about him that will lead to their growth in maturity.
With all those assumptions in place, let’s now ask our question: what should the church do? Or, more specifically, what should my church do? Are there particular things that my church should be doing? How do we even figure out what exactly we ought to do to make and grow disciples?
I think there are two groups of people you need to think about when answering this question. First, who has God given to this particular church? Who are its members? What are their particular skills and interests? What are they able to do? What are they specifically unable to do? We have to look at the gifts, resources and abilities of the people the Lord has given to us and ask what is possible for these particular people to do.
Second, we have to think about who the Lord has placed around us. What demographics are in our community? What are the needs? Are there places these particular people congregate? If not, what ways can we create spaces where that might happen? Are there places they go that I could go with them? Are there places I can go with them where it would be easier, more natural and most appropriate to share the gospel? Are there places it would be inappropriate for me to try and share them gospel with them?
These are not the only questions we might want to ask of these two groups of people. But these are the two groups we ought to be asking these sorts of questions of. 1. Who has the Lord given to us in the church (and what can they do)? 2. Who has the Lord placed around us (and what can we do with them)?
Read More
Related Posts: