Monday Music - The Parent Rap

Lyrics:
Don't make me count to 1-2-3
Yeah, it's the parent rap, y'all
We may spend most of our time chasing toddlers down but
We still know how to rock the hizzle
I don't even know what you just said 

We used to be cool!
Back in the day, back on the block
Watching PG-13 movies, staying up way after dark
Then we had a couple shorties
And now we're really flossy
Cause now we be rollin' with our own little possie
In the mini van
Or in our little wagon
Let me throw it to the moms 
Cause the little one is saggin'

I used to bling it up, I used to dress real shrewd 
Now I accessorize with food that's already been chewed
And that's all right
I make this diaper bag look good
When I'm walking through the mall tryin' to wrangle my brood
My PB&Js will set your world on fire
I could make you mac-n-cheese blindfolded on a wire
I'm wiping the do-do
Kissin' the booboos
Got them eyes in the back of my head, I see all you do. 
Using your full name so you know I ain't playin'
And that's why all my kiddo's, they keep sayin'

Mom mom, she's the bomb, rocking all night till the break of dawn
Cooking them peas so I'll grow up strong
Got my second seat belt if we crash head on 
Dad dad, he's the man, working real hard to support the clan
Traded in his porsche for an old sedan
Raisin' those brows if we get outta hand

When it come to Candyland, I'm a stone cold player
Helping out with the homework, I'm an Algebra slayer
Wrestle carseats into place without spillin' my mug
If I tuck you in at night, you'll be as snug as a bug
Then I'm off in the morning, to make that cheese
You may not know this yet, but it doesn't grow on trees
Now mama take it please, what, uh, take it

I'm droppin' "time out"s like they're hot
Potty training all my tots
Washin' all the pans and pots
Tyin' little shoes in knots 
Giving knowlege to your brain
Like "if your friend jumped off a train you don't have to do the same"
Now get your toys out of the rain!
I'm cleanin' every spill
Cuttin' coupons like a vil
If you need parental skill now you know
We are for real!
You don't think our rhyms are ill boy?
Then your grounded for a mil!

Mom, mom, she's legit
Making us chill when we pitch a fit
Telling us to share and never to hit
If you can't say somethin' nice put a sock in it
Dad dad, he's the guy,
never gets tired of playing "I spy"
The constant barage of kids asking "why"
And he always pretends he needs another tie 

You know money doesn't grow on trees
Why buy the cow if the milk is free
This won't hurt you as much as it hurts me
If you want dessert eat another veggie
Close that door 
You weren't born in a stable
Sit up straight
And kiss your aunt mable
Close your mouth when you chew 
Get your elbows off the table
Mom and dad of the year, check it, that's the label

It's the parent rap y'all
And it's apparent 
We're great parents
Mom and daddy in the house
Mom and daddy own the house
Mom and daddy need to clean the house...

Keep your hands to yourself, boy
Don't make me stop this beat, I'll do it!  I'll pull this beat right over.

Kid's Rube Goldberg device... and a lesson about kids

Dawn Lewis directed me to this:

The buildup is a little long, but the payoff is very sweet.

But now parents (and kids), notice: did this boy get excited and do a victory dance because of unconditional self-esteem? Or was it because he tried and accomplished something?

Loaded question. Of course, the latter.

Yes, parents should encourage their kids, and tell them we love them, period. But at the same time, we should encourage them to do, to try, to accomplish. And then we should praise them for their accomplishments.

Even a child makes himself known by his acts,
by whether his conduct is pure and upright.
(Proverbs 20:11)

Brothers having fun (OR: yep, I'm a parent)

Here's a little bit of fun two brothers share:

...but at the same time, I'm wondering whether all parents have the same thought that I had?

To wit: hope they put as much effort into learning a marketable skill!

Calvin is less fun these days

No no, not the Calvin the Reformer. He's still barrels o' fun. I mean Calvin the Destroyer.

Like everyone else, I loved Calvin and Hobbes in its heyday. How could you not? The strips were very well-drawn and imaginative, the characters were vivid. I especially liked Hobbes, the tiger. How do you make a toy tiger so expressive?

But I guess I've changed, I guess maybe another 15 years of parenting have changed my perspective. Not that my kids are Calvins; I just think being a parent changes your perspective more than merely thinking or reading about being a parent can ever do, even if you have perfect kids. Which, of course, you all do.

Whatever the reason, it's just not being as fun for me to read the strip. Bill Watterson stopped producing fresh strips in 1995 — it's been that long? — but they're still circulating. I've set up a comics page via iGoogle, and see a classic Calvin and Hobbes strip daily.

I still love Waterson's art, and still like the tiger... but Calvin just isn't fun for me. Maybe I'll simply delete the strip.

Why? Oh, you've probably already guessed it

If you take it any kind of seriously, that is just one miserable house, and one miserable family. Calvin is at constant war with both of his parents, everyone at school, his teacher. He hates everything his mother cooks, and insults her over every meal. He won't do anything that isn't his own idea without griping — bathe, get dressed, go to bed, stay in bed, go to school, play. He disrespects both his father and his mother, constantly reports to his dad that he's failing as a father, accuses his mother of trying to poison him.

They can't even take Calvin picture for a Christmas note. Bathe him, dress him, comb his hair - and he makes faces to ruin the shot. He's a happiness-thief. He robs mom and dad of the joy parents should have, and spoils their ability to enjoy each other.

And the parents (do we ever know their names?) aren't much better. They are clearly embattled. They can't enjoy their son, each other, life. They have to approach everything strategically, as if in a war — because they are! They're grim, they're sarcastic, they are worn-out, they are (at best) dutiful, but they are joyless.

Calvin should be making them happy. That's his God-given job.

The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice;
he who fathers a wise son will be glad in him.
Let your father and mother be glad;
let her who bore you rejoice (Proverbs 23:24-25)

Of course, Calvin is not to disrespect his parents...

There are those who curse their fathers
and do not bless their mothers (Proverbs 30:11)

...but he is positively to  honor the both of them: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you" (Exodus 20:12; cf. Ephesians 6:1-3). You know there are a host of similar Scriptures, and Calvin is most lustily failing in the role for which God created him.

The parents? Well, I say again, it is just a comic-strip.

But I don't recall their ever pointing Calvin to Christ, to say the least, nor walking with Him themselves. So they may have had nothing to give — and that is a massive fail, as people created in God's image and as parents.

An aside: you've probably seen the bumper-stickers of Calvin worshiping Christ.  I won't reproduce or link to one, because they are all counterfeit; none of them is authorized by Waterson. Isn't that ironic? People selling something dishonest, putatively to honor Christ? But I digress.

Calvin most needed mom and dad to love God with all their beings (Deuteronomy 6:5) and, out of that overflow, to teach him the words and heart and mind of God (6:6ff.). They failed

Calvin needed them to teach him, and to love him enough to discipline him and teach him his God-given need of the Gospel, and his need to respect God's lordship and their delegated authority (Proverbs 1:8ff.; 13:24; 29:15; Ephesians 6:4). They didn't.

Now, even had the fictitious lad been the model child, there's no guarantee that Calvin's "mom and dad" would have been model parents; and even had they done everything right, there is no guarantee Calvin would have snapped into line.

But, HSAT, reading the strip is like having to watch a horribly dysfunctional family being dysfunctional every day, and it's losing the fun-factor for me.

So I'll probably delete it.

Anyone else feel the same? Am I the last to the party, or just a sourpuss?

Here we go again, again: the illusion of human sovereignty among those who should know better

I'll never get over this. Who are the last people in the world you'd expect to think that Person A can cause Person B to be faithful or faithless from the heart?

Me, I'd nominate hardcore Calvinists.

Not unlikely as to their temperaments, but in terms of their (our) professed doctrine. Calvinists (claim that we) believe in a big mighty sovereign God, and a small weak dependent creature-man. We believe that the human heart is depraved, dead, rebellious. We believe the heart can only be changed by a mighty act of the sovereign grace of God, an act so radical that it is more like resurrection than plastic surgery or a makeover.

AND YET....

I've already once been compelled to go on at great length when razor-brained wordmaster Doug Wilson immediately and eo ipso blamed Todd Palin for Bristol's sexual immorality. Daughter sinned, blame Dad. Boom!

And now that good man has done it again (I infer from the title) and again (check my comments for the remark I target).

In both cases, if you're interested, I'll refer you to my remarks in the comment threads. What never ceases to amaze me (besides the position itself) is the argument (and kinds of argument) I get for — to my mind — pointing out the Biblically-obvious.

I'll close by quoting, well, myself from the second meta:

I think it is a pan-Biblical verity that you can never be assured of drawing a straight line between cause and effect in relationships. God has a human son (Luke 3:38) who sins in spite of perfect fathering, who has a son who is saved in spite of imperfect fathering. There's your template.

My great task — whether as a husband, father, pastor, friend or neighbor — is to trust and obey. I will be judged for that, and not for what others do in response to that.

If God did not use means, the Proverbial charges to me as a father would be meaningless. If means were sovereignly effective, the charges to my son to heed, listen, receive, memorize, learn and obey would be equally meaningless.

If I may ask it, ponder that last paragraph in particular.

I still note that God has no grandchildren. I still note that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17) — not "by the word of Christ skillfully applied by techniques you can read about in my books."

I think many Christians go into parenting thinking a particular formula will yield particular results. Then life actually happens, field work doesn't quite fall into line with that nifty parenting book they read, and they wise up.

But, apparently, not all of them do.

God help the heartbroken mother or father — well, especially father — with an apostate child, who limps over to such a Christian for encouragement and help. Heaven only will tell the full tale of destruction this line of thinking has done to individuals... and marriages ("Yes, that's right, Mrs. ____; if your husband had been a better father, this wouldn't have happened, and your heart wouldn't be in a billion pieces!")

Theology has practical implications. Bad theology has terrible practical implications.

I really would have expected hardcore Calvinists to figure that one out, too.

Question: parental internet locks, etc.

We're thinking of some furniture and pc rearrangement that has us considering parental-lock software or solutions. The pc will move to another room, and we're thinking proactive.

Any of you have experience, warnings, recommendations about the various softwares available?

Sarah Palin's stupid mistake

I'm glad I supported Governor Palin when she ran for the Presidency with McWhat'shisname. I wish they'd won.

When the news came out that Palin's daughter had sinned sexually, I was glad that the Palins were not taking Obama's our-grandchild-is-a-punishment-so-kill-it approach. When Pastor Doug Wilson immediately laid responsibility for Bristol Palin's sin at her father's feet, I took issue with him at length ...and I still agree with myself!

I'm glad of all those stances, with no "But's" or second thoughts.

Now Governor Palin does something I can't defend, and haven't the slightest inclination to defend. Palin gives her shallow, foolish, clueless, unrepentant daughter a global microphone, and lets her strike at the heart of what Palin herself professes to believe.

Be clear: Bristol Palin has accomplished nothing of global significance in her life. Nothing has earned her the spotlight. Her mother, by contrast, is a focused, excellent, disciplined woman. What's more, her mother professes to be a Christian, and has lived a life that adorns that testimony.

The only reason Bristol Palin is in the spotlight is because she sneered at God's law regarding sexuality, was found out, and is herself the child of a famous mother.

This gets her the spotlight — and it is an undeserved prominence.

Still, Bristol could use it for good, in an Ephesians 5:16 way. Were she a humbled, chastened, repentant child of God, Bristol could view the opportunity as repentant king David did:

Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will return to you" (Psalm 51:13).

8 I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;
I will counsel you with my eye upon you.
9 Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding,
which must be curbed with bit and bridle,
or it will not stay near you (Psalm 32:8-9)

She could speak of her sin, and of the glories of Christ. She could point the nation to Christ. Bristol could do all that. But she didn't — and Governor Palin had to know she wouldn't. That, or Palin has been terribly deceived by her daughter, or is a wretched, disengaged, irresponsible mother.

Todd and Sarah Palin let Fox News into their house, and put their still unmarried daughter and illegitimately-conceived and still-fatherless grandson on camera, and they let Bristol share her unrepentant, unchastened foolishness with the world. To the families that defended and looked up to her, Governor Palin has presented her daughter as their Proverbs 13:20b and 1 Corinthians 15:33.

Now, if someone wants to argue that the interview was edited and slanted... fine. Governor Palin knew that would happen. She knows the media hate her and her faith. She had to have told Bristol it would happen.

So how does one defend these statements, from a Christian perspective, in any context?

VAN SUSTEREN: Any sort of -- I mean -- and I realize, you know, what joy a child brings to a family. But was there any sort of thinking that maybe -- did you have any sort of sense about, I wish that maybe this would happen a year or two from now, rather than now?

BRISTOL: Yes. Of course. I wished it would have happened in, like, 10 years so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared and have my own house and stuff. But he brings so much joy, I don't regret it at all. I just wish it would have happened in 10 years, rather than right now.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, it always is sort of a difficult thing, you know, when it's a question of youth, and no one ever really knows what to say to a young person in your situation.

BRISTOL: Yes. I don't know. I just -- I hope that people learn from my story and just, like, I don't know, prevent teen pregnancy, I guess.

She doesn't know, like, y'know, she guesses. Pregnancy, gestation, delivery, motherhood — still doesn't know, still guesses... yet she thought that was worth telling the watching world, the world that already ridicules her mother for her faith in Christ?

Here's what Bristol says about her mother's influence on her decision:

VAN SUSTEREN: What didn't anybody get? What didn't people understand?

BRISTOL: That -- there's a lot of things. They thought that, like, my mom was going to make me have the baby, and it was my choice to have the baby. And it's just -- that kind of stuff just bothered me.

VAN SUSTEREN: And in terms of your mother making you have the baby, I mean, the whole issue of, I guess, the right -- the right to life and choice and things like that.

BRISTOL: Yes. Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: But this is your issue. This is your decision.

BRISTOL: Yes. And would have -- [would have what?] doesn't matter what my mom's views are on it. It was my decision, and I wish people would realize that, too.

Further, we learn that she didn't even tell her parents first. She told a best friend, and her accomplice, Levi. The three of them sat her parents down, and her parents had to hear it from her friend. Not their daughter, not the brave father. The friend. Great.

And Bristol depicts their reaction in terms of her having "a lot of growing up" to do. When someone sins, when I sin, that isn't my first thought; I don't think it ever should be anyone's first thought. Sin is not immaturity — it's sin. Bristol wasn't a tot showing bad manners; she was a young woman knowingly and deliberately violating God's law. Is that what she got from her parents — that she just needed to mature?

Well, it isn't what she needed, nor needs. She needs what any sinner needs. She needs Christ. She needs to humble herself, repent, mortify her sin, make right whatever she could, put off the patterns and sinful attitudes that birthed the sin, and walk with Christ (cf. Job 42:6; Proverbs 28:13; Ezekiel 18:30; Matthew 13:8; Romans 6; 8:12-14; 2 Corinthians 7:10; James 4:6-10). If this exposes that Bristol never truly believed in Christ, she must repent and do so (Acts 16:31; 17:30).

But a chastened humility is not what radiates through the interview. Rather, an in-denial giddiness over the joys and trials of young motherhood — and still, her child is fatherless.

Well, Bristol doesn't think her child is fatherless. She says that Levi is "a really hands-on dad. He's just in love with him as much as I am."

Right.

Gosh, that offends me, as a Christian man and a father. This boy is so "in love with" his son that he doesn't mind if the child bears the stigma of illegitimacy now, nor that he would bear that stigma forever, if Levi were to die before finally marrying Bristol. So "in love" that Levi pursues his life and schooling or whatever as his child and the woman he wronged start the family by themselves. So "in love" with the child that he continues to set an indelibly wretched example for his son, that words alone will never undo.

I can't begin to tell you how impressed I am not with Levi's "love" for that child.

Bristol several times speaks of being "blessed" in her family, but that's always in the context of their usefulness to her, their utility. She shows us more of her attitude towards her parents:

VAN SUSTEREN: Your parents know you're doing this interview. You're 18, so you make your own decisions, but do they know?

BRISTOL: I told my mom yesterday, so...

VAN SUSTEREN: That was good timing, yesterday.

BRISTOL: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: You don't give them much notice, do you, advance notice.

BRISTOL: No.

Well, that's just great. Bristol's mother is an international figure now, almost was vice-president; she (Bristol) caused her embarrassment and threatened the focus of the campaign... but, hey, whatever. I guess it looked like a hoot to get out there and, y'know, blab with Greta.

And blab she does. Once again, Bristol is given an opportunity to say something about her sin. Here's what she says:

VAN SUSTEREN: Teen pregnancy -- what's your thought on that?

BRISTOL: I think everyone should just wait 10 years.

VAN SUSTEREN: That's just -- why?

BRISTOL: Just because it's so much easier if you're married and if you have a house and a career and -- it's just so much easier.

VAN SUSTEREN: What do your parents say about teen pregnancy?

BRISTOL: It's not something to strive for, I guess. It's just -- I don't know. I'm not the first person that it's happened to and I'm not going to be the last. But I don't know. I'd love for -- to be an advocate to prevent teen pregnancy because it's not, like, a situation that you want to strive for, I guess.

Gets very vague and "I guess"-y, doesn't she? But it gets worse, as she's given yet another opportunity:

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't want to pry to personally, but I mean, actually, contraception is an issue here. Is that something that you were just lazy about or not interested, or do you have a philosophical or religious opposition to it or...

BRISTOL: No. I don't want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is, like -- like, the -- I don't know how to put it -- like, the main -- everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it's not realistic at all.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why?

BRISTOL: Because -- I don't want to get into details on this.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, no, I don't mean personally, just big picture, not -- not necessarily about you, but...

BRISTOL: Because it's more and more accepted now.

VAN SUSTEREN: Among your classmates and kids your age?

BRISTOL: Among -- yes, among kids my age.

VAN SUSTEREN: How do you change that?

BRISTOL: To see stories like this and to see other stories of teen moms and just -- it's something that's -- I don't know, just -- you should just wait 10 years and it'd just be so much easier.

I don't know, I guess, I don't want, uh... "not realistic" ...uh... "more accepted" ...uh... "easier." Mercy.

Um, Bristol? It still is not "more accepted" with God. Has no one pointed that out to you?

Now, if I were reading this, I'd be thinking, "Dude, you're being a bit harsh on Governor Palin. Bristol did this without her permission or knowledge. How can you lay this on her?" Fair enough. I don't want to lay this on Palin unfairly.

But Governor Palin enters the interview at this point, and here's what she says:

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. We weren't expecting you because Bristol -- she told me that she had just sort of sprung the interview on you.

SARAH PALIN: Yes!

VAN SUSTEREN: And this is her idea about -- talking about the big picture of teen pregnancy.

SARAH PALIN: Yes. Yes. And I'm proud of her, too, wanting to take on an advocacy role and, you know, just let other girls know that this is - - it's not the most ideal situation, but certainly, make the most of it. And Bristol is a strong and bold young woman and she is an amazing mom. And this little baby is very lucky to have her as a mama. He's going to be just fine. We're very proud of Bristol.

Palin's "proud" of Bristol's "advocacy role."

I could go on quoting, but there's no point. Palin speaks of it as a "surprise," as something that "happened to" Bristol (you know, like being hit by a stray bullet, or catching a cold). She actually says, "Life happens. Life happens and you deal with it, and Bristol's dealing with it wonderfully."

Greta however uses the opportunity to whack on Palin's Christian faith. Oh, she doesn't use the words, "I despise your God and this is as good a time as any to say so" — she uses "abstinence," which to a Christian means "obeying Christ in the area of sexuality." Greta feels it unreasonable and even "unkind" (towards Levi) to obey Christ. Palin does not correct her, nor mention Christ at all.

In fact, nobody mentions Christ, or God. No sign of Him at all.

Final thoughts: I was content to let Bristol be their problem, their business. I was content to give them the benefit of the doubt (not the damn of the doubt, as I think Pastor Wilson did).

But now they let her make it my business, everybody's business.

And the taste it's leaving is bad.

I mean to write about this at Pyro, soon. But often our faith is most severely and bitterly tested when a dearly loved one shames and spites Christ. Do you sell Christ out to accommodate an unrepentant loved one's sin, or avoid that person's displeasure?

Is "Hallowed be Thy name" just words?

Situations like this test the heart like nothing else can.

So... is it true? Fathers control their children's every choice?

Preface: this is much longer than usual. Sorry, truly. But I think Christian parents — particularly some grief-stricken, falsely guilt-ridden parents — may find it important, given some teaching that is going about.

No human being controls the will, heart, nor affections of any other human being. Only God has that kind of sovereignty (Proverbs 21:1). I thought this, surely, was one truth that all Calvinists accepted.

Boy howdy, turns out I'm wrong. Unless I'm not. It's confusing. Follow this out:

When it first was reported that Governor Sarah Palin's daughter had become pregnant, I saw various blogs instantly blaming — her father! No specific evidence whatever was cited. None. It was simply laid down as a "Duh!" dictum. You know: immoral girl = distant, unengaged, failed father. QED. Duh!

If that surprised me, I was astonished to see the frequently-brilliant though often-opaque Douglas Wilson making this argument. Wilson delivered himself of this stunning chain of indicative-moods:

The basic responsibility for this, however, lies with her father. Clearly [!] in some way she was not getting the love, protection, and accountability that she and her boyfriend needed.

I know nothing about the private life of the Palin family. And clearly neither did Wilson. But it didn't matter, to Wilson. The girl sinned, so clearly the father failed her.

In that meta, I commented

Huh? A daughter sins, and it's her father's fault? Which one are you channeling: Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar? Was Adam's sin his father's fault, too?

Wilson was kind enough to respond:

I don't believe fault and responsibility are the same thing. Responsibility is a function of covenant headship. It doesn't mean that the head is guilty.

But is that a distinction with a difference? Pastor Wilson said that clearly Todd Palin had not given "the love, protection, and accountability that she and her boyfriend needed." Were he Palin's pastor, I take it his word to his parishioner would be, "Todd, you are responsible for Bristol's sin. You clearly did not love Bristol as she needed, you did not protect your daughter as she needed, and you did not hold your daughter accountable as she needed."

Pause, just a moment. You're (I assume) heartbroken over your child's sin. You're already doing a Mike Tyson on yourself, and can barely look other people in the eye as it is.

Then your pastor tells you that.

I don't know how you can avoid the conclusion that Wilson is saying this: had Todd not failed to give these things, the girl would not have sinned. "Clearly."

In overall response in that meta, I was referred more than once — not primarily to the Bible, but — to two books by Wilson, and an over seventeen thousand, three hundred and thirty-seven (17,337+)-word article by one Robert Rayburn. (I've often noticed: it takes a lot of words to prove that the Bible teaches something it doesn't, or doesn't teach something it does.)

Well, if arguments are weighed by words, Rayburn certainly wins. One paragraph alone ran 974 words. I don't measure up so well, in my writing. A recent post at Pyromaniacs was only 915 words. This one isn't even 2500 words.

Indeed, one must work his way through over 1300 words before he runs into the first Scriptural citation. In all, it's over 8400 words before we reach a section whose title promises to show the doctrine from Scripture. But to be fair, the title of the whole is, "THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION." Not "the Biblical doctrine" (though the author does emphatically state that Scripture matters more than anything else).

Well, I labored through the article. I had to. After all, the Bible had never taught me that I, a father, could stop my children from sinning, and make them growing Christians. If that was doable, I wanted in on it.

So far from convincing me, I found it to be depressing and appalling, potentially very destructive, and a hopeless jumble of doubletalk. It depresses me to think that Christians believe along these lines.

Many Scriptures are cited, very few are dealt with at any length. Clearly, Rayburn's chief love is the citation of previous writers.

Frankly, the closest analogy that sprang to my mind as I read was Roman Catholicism, and its never-ending game of "Telephone." You know: "The Bible said 123, then A said this about the 123, and B said this about A, and C said this about B, and D said this about C, E said this about D...." Before long, you've built theory on theory on theory, you're far from the pristine revelation itself — and you're saying things like "the Bible teaches ZZ." But no, it really doesn't; the Bible teaches 123, maybe with valid inference A — but that's it.

I'd summarize Rayburn as saying that salvation is inherited by blood. It's absolutely guaranteed by God that all children of believers will themselves be believers — unless they aren't! And if they aren't, it's the parents' fault. "Faithful parenting will result, by covenanted grace, in believing children." There you go. Follow the directions, and this will be the result.

Unless it isn't.

Many readers will wonder whether Rayburn goes in the other direction. If children fall away, is it the parents' fault? Yep. Has to be. "It is no slander to acknowledge that [David] was an inattentive and ineffective father who by his instruction, to the extent he gave it, showed his children the way to heaven, but by his example too often led them by the hand to hell." Indeed, Rayburn speaks of "the accountability of parents for [not just the faithful teaching, but] the salvation of their offspring."

So see, God's grandchildren will be His children for sure... unless they aren't!

I guess he pretty much has to have some kind of escape-clause to cancel out his extended arguments that grace is generational, and children of believers are guaranteed actual salvation. Otherwise, we'd all be saved! Wouldn't we? Wasn't Adam a believer? Then all his children are guaranteed eternal life. Hey presto, universalism.

Or if you're unsure about Adam, then Abraham was surely a believer. Hey presto! all Israelites are saved! And Arabs, too! And Esau! Though God "hated" him!

So this is why so many people instantly blamed Todd Palin for his daughter's sin. She did something wrong, so he must have. If he'd done his job, she'd never have sinned. Again, QED, dust off hands, next conundrum, please?

In all this, I don't see any mention (let alone treatment) of Jeremiah 31:29-30 —

In those days they shall no longer say:

“‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.’

30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Later, Ezekiel targeted this very same notion:

The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:1-4)

Interestingly, Rayburn does mention this passage — but then he says the parents get the rest of "that accountability." I don't think it's that easy. Read on. In verses 5-15, Ezekiel specifically follows with for-instance of a man who does everything Yahweh wants him to do, then has a worthless, reprobate, unbelieving son. Don't rush past this. According to Rayburn and his ilk, a sinning child necessarily means the parents did something wrong. Ezekiel, by contrast, specifically depicts a man who did nothing wrong, who nonetheless clearly has a child not in the family of God.

But Ezekiel isn't done. He then portrays the worthless son doing everything wrong, but having a son who sees his father's sins, and himself repents and lives (vv. 14-18). The first father did nothing wrong, yet had a reprobate son; the second father did nothing right, yet had a saved son.

Now, as a believer in God's sovereignty, I have no conceptual problem with this. I don't raise my children according to God's word because results are guaranteed. And I certainly don't hold to any fantasy that godliness is genetically transmitted, nor membership in God's family inherited.

No, I do my flawed best out of love for God, and love for my children. Then I pray that God will plow the soil and grant root and life to the seed (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:4-9).

But even more significantly, I see no allusion in Rayburn to John 1:12-13 —

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

"Not of blood," John says. "Of blood," Rayburn says — or so says his argument.

Then (stay with me, here) I see Michael Hyatt's article, "Whatever Happened to Modesty?" It's a good rant. I agree with virtually everything in the article, and it's very well-said. I only had one problem with it.

Hyatt sees seductively-clad, immodest young women on an MTV awards show (imagine that! who knew?), and instantly wonders, "Where are these girls [sic] fathers?"

Now, look. Maybe it's true. Maybe every last one of them had neglectful, absent, passive fathers. Or unsaved fathers. Or idiot fathers. God knows, there's enough of each of these to go around.

But why is it assumed that there's a necessary and direct connection to their fathers? Because we all know that daughters (or sons) always respond perfectly and predictably to paternal guidance and love? And we know that on what authority? Where was I when we had that church council meeting?

"Where are the fathers?" he asks. Well, I don't know, Michael. Maybe they're home, grieved and praying with their wives for their straying daughters. Maybe they've loved, reached out, prayed, modeled, counseled — imperfectly, but to the best of their ability. Maybe the girl just didn't listen. Maybe she thought she was too smart to have to listen to old dad. Maybe she never really swallowed the Fifth Commandment all the way, whole. Maybe she rebelled. Maybe she fell in love with the wrong guy, or with the spotlights, or with the cameras. After all, these girls on MTV aren't 10 years old, they aren't 13 years old.

Look, I'm not trying to run in the other direction and absolve all fathers of all responsibility. Ask anyone who's ever heard me teach or preach on the subject.

But my hackles go up every time I see any facile blame assumed onto any person for another's sin.

Think. We don't blame children for getting molested. We don't blame rape victims for being raped. Do we? No.

But....

We do suspect that all divorced people caused their marital problems. And we do suspect that all parents with straying children must have failed their children.

From a Biblical (to say nothing of Calvinist) perspective, I don't get any of that.

I read that you can be right in line with God's will, dead-center — and still be sinned against (Matthew 5:10-12; 1 Peter 2:20b). I read that you can tell someone (anyone) the Gospel, perfectly straight-up and dead-on — and he can still reject it, flatly and finally (Matthew 10:13-15; John 17:12).

So:

Might Todd Palin be a defective father? Sure. Might the MTV nymphets have absent or neglectful fathers? Sure.

In fact, all children have defective fathers. (You mean yours don't? Oh, dude....) We strive, we try, we knock ourselves out. We mess up. We're heroes now, we're zeroes fifteen minutes later. Either way and any way, when our kids do hear and heed, we know it's by God's grace. Same as it was with us.

But if they don't hear... well look, if you need 17,000 words quoting past writers to be convinced, you've got the wrong guy. But this does come to mind:

“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. 20 Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.” (Ezekiel 3:17-21, emphases added — which, ironically, is partly cited by Rayburn)

And that really works for me.

Biblely speaking, that is.

"Gay" child, evil father.... yawn

The media only know two family situations featuring homosexual children.

The first: a homosexual child is portrayed as a warm, vulnerable human being, whose parents wisely and lovingly approve of his choice to embrace his homosexual passions. These are good parents. There are (in the media's eyes) a lot of these.

The second: a homosexual child is portrayed as a warm, vulnerable human being, whose parents hatefully, narrow-mindedly, ignorantly and irrationally reject his choice to embrace his homosexual passions. These are evil parents. There are (in the media's eyes) not many of these.

There is no third category.

For the most recent example, see the Washington Post's Marc Fisher regaling us all with the little morality story, When Sexuality Undercuts A Family's Ties. It it we learn what was previously suspected: that Alan Keyes has a lesbian daughter. He does not approve of her embrace of her homosexual passions. Therefore, he is a type-two parent -- according to this column.

Now, my own admiration for Alan Keyes has charted a downward course over the years. The first Keyes address I heard was an electrifying, marvelous, passionate speech on abortion. It literally had me want to stand and applaud. (As I was driving, I had to suppress the impulse.) After that, however, I found him to be insufferably full of himself, repeatedly sabotaging his own more-brilliant points by his arrogant attitude and behavior.

Further, Keyes is a Roman Catholic. So I can have no assurance as to what he told his daughter, beyond (by her own admission) that homosexuality is evil, and that she should pray for God's help to leave it. Thus far, I'd certainly agree -- and he's done better by her than parents who enable such a destructive choice by their embrace of it.

I hope someone, somewhere along the way, preaches Jesus Christ to this girl. I hope that someone tells her that, indeed, she shares with all the rest of us that she was born a slave to sinful passions, and under the just condemnation of God (Romans 3:10-18; 5:12). I hope that someone will tell her that no ritual, no effort, no sect, no discipline, no program, no external pronouncement of any kind can help her in the least bit to be free from her sins, and from their inevitable consequence. I hope that someone tells her that her only hope is not in a sect nor its rituals, but in the person of Jesus Christ, in whom alone we can be forgiven and freed from both our sins and our sin (Acts 4:12; 13:38). And I hope that someone tells her that, in Jesus, she can be freed from her the death-grip of immoral homosexual passions as well (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Whether anyone has ever told her these things, I can have no certainty nor confidence. I pray someone does, if no one has. And I pray she will listen, will respond in repentant faith in Jesus, and will know the wonder of God's great salvation in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone.

UPDATE (2/16) — as I look again at the title, I reflect -- aren't fathers always evil, though? Either they do evil things, in which case they're, well, evil; or they let their wives do evil things, in which case they're passive and evil; or they don't let their wives/children do wonderful things, in which case they're oppressive and (you guessed it) evil.... Maybe they can only be good by letting their wives/children do good things, or supporting them when they do. No, wait; when they do that, they're disengaged.

And evil.

UPDATE II — there is an essay at FreeRepublic that gives some other thoughts and considerations on this. What is particularly striking about it is that Maya herself, or someone claiming to be her, entered a post in the thread. This gave me an opportunity to try to be used of God in answering my own prayer; I sent a private response to her, with just what I wished above that someone would tell her. If it was she, now I can know that someone has tried. Pray that God will give her the ears to hear, and do His work of grace in her life.

Still legal to be a practicing Christian parent in CT -- for now

The First Amendment still evidently carries some weight, even in Connecticut.

We read that the State Appellate Court has ruled that parents may spank, to some degree and under some circumstances.

That must come as a real relief to practicing Christian parents in Connecticut, who have read in the Bible that corporal punishment is one occasionally-necessary expression of parental love (Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15). The Christian, always "ahead of the curve," is more impressed by the eternal wisdom of God than the most recent breathless finding of the latest self-appointed child expert.

Having said all that, I do have sympathy for the court and for anyone dealing with such issues. It is a nightmarish minefield. On the one hand, surely every Christian soul is horrified at the reality of actual child abuse. On the other hand, surely every Christian soul is horrified at the reality of actual governmental abuse of Christian families for practicing their faith. I've read appalling stories of children mistreated by monstrous parents; I've read appalling stories of families shattered by monstrous statist mini-tyrants.

I don't pretend to know the ultimate and flawless solution. It is far easier to criticize abuses (on both sides) than to propose solutions. Genuine child abuse cannot be tolerated. Genuine statist interference with Christians practicing Biblical faith cannot be tolerated.

Ideally, all parents would be practicing Christians, so it wouldn't happen. Less ideally, but more realistically, they would all be in healthy communities (churches, etc.) that could spot signs of trouble, and personally become involved before bringing in the state. (I do not have in mind the neighbor who reports homeschooled children because they're not at the government indoctrination center along with the other statelings-in-training.)

Meanwhile, we just have to grope our way, striving for that essential balance between the safety of children and the rights of parents. If it is in the best interests of children that they be protected from harm — and it is — it is no less in their interests that they be raised by parents free to practice Biblical child training, and not raised by the State.

We must find ways to put the safety of children at the top of our concerns, all the while remembering that the State is not God, and that the First Amendment still does guarantee free expression of religion without government interference.