Having so recently made mention of
Voddie Baucham's sermon and one of his books, while revisiting his
teachings, I wanted to revisit another matter. Some time ago, a
reader sent me information about Baucham's online claim that
“anti-Baucham websites” have completely distorted a 2007 sermon
he delivered on child discipline and corporal punishment.
Someone online summarized one of
Baucham's teachings in this way in an online discussion where the charge of misrepresentation was made: “I
meant to unsubscribe after your ridiculous argument that 'a parent
who doesn't make their kid say hello to me is sinning, and if I allow
the parent to let their child disobey I am sinning.'”
Since the topic at hand was a matter
that I've addressed here specifically in the past, I thought that I
would make Baucham's own words more easily accessible to arrest any
confusion about his claims that the way that he was quoted here was
“inaccurate.” I don't believe that I misrepresented him in any
way. This person's assessment of the matter sounds fairly direct,
concise, and accurate to me.
First Time Obedience
I've written
in more detail about Baucham's preaching concerning what others
have named “First Time Obedience” (FTO), a principle that he
later adopted as his own position. Because this is a lengthy subject
about which writings are plenteous and the discussion long, this
element is not my primary focus in this post. However, while
mentioning it in the context of the sermon in question, I would like
to reiterate that I find the concept quite cruel, as Baucham seems to
demand of young children what most adult Christians fail repeatedly
to yield to God themselves. Even God allows men to stumble and
repent, and Jesus spoke of “seventy times seven” forgiveness.
God not only allows us to make sinful mistakes while He beckons us to
choose righteousness, but He also readily forgives us when we turn
from them.
I find it ironic that I'm accused of
forsaking Biblical principle in favor of professional knowledge and
secular or societal influences, all while Baucham explains that
tolerance and forbearance actually train a child to accept sin as
permissible. The Apostle Peter was instructed by Jesus Himself to
forgive others, but Baucham claims that immature children can only
make a single sinful error. He also teaches that parents sin when
they tolerate more than a single error, sending the message to the
child that sin is not a serious matter. The consequences of the
child's error must be severe enough that they understand that they
cannot repeat it.
In short, I would first say that
Baucham's thesis sounds a bit to me like a practical psychology of
parental
convenience. He also fails to support his ideas with specific
Scripture, other than general ones about correcting children and
encouraging good behavior. It sounds to me like a works-based
salvation of general intolerance that spiritualizes personal
preference. Second, I believe that those who embrace the concept of
FTO put their children at great risk. Though I do not share all of
the opinions of Alice Miller, I believe that her works including For
Your Own Good point out several flaws in this approach as
well. When we train children to become profoundly obedient adults
who respond to forceful authorities, as Christians, we
destroy Bereans. We create people who fail to think for
themselves. In society, we create citizens ripe for totalitarianism
because “might makes right.” They will follow authority
for authority's sake, primarily because they sign over their decision
making to an intermediary who speaks for either Caesar or for God.
Has Voddie been misrepresented? Listen for yourself.
Voddie Baucham on Corporal Punishment and Shyness in a Young Child from Under Much Grace on Vimeo.
In previous posts on this subject, I
linked to a few audio downloads of Voddie Baucham. I appreciate
that, for the most part, his tone sounds kind and reasonable.
Perhaps this is why so many people like him as a speaker. He sounds
nice and is engaging, so perhaps people assume that what he's saying
can't be that bad. Amazingly, I don't have that problem. I find
those things which he proposes to be quite troubling. But I also
suppose that most people don't have time to listen to an entire
sermon when trying to understand this topic. In the interests of
clarity, I've pulled out just a few limited clips related to some of
the more problematic statements in just one of Baucham's
presentations.
From Voddie Baucham's Child
Training Sermon at Hardin Baptist Church (2007.11.04 AM-020):
(I didn't transcribe the first section.
I included it in the audio (via video) as an afterthought at the
request of my husband because he felt that it elucidated a great deal
about homeschooling's “Biblical” patriarchy movement.)
20:50 – 22:10 “'Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, and the rod of correction will drive it far from them.' The Word of God says that your children desperately, desperately need to be spanked. Amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord and spank your kids, okay? They desperately need to be spanked. And they need to be spanked often. They do. I meet people all the time, you know, and their like, 'Yeah, you know, I can think of maybe four or five times that I had to spank Junior.' Really? That's unfortunate. Because unless you raised Jesus the Second, there were days that Junior needed to be spanked five times before breakfast. If you only spanked your child five times, that means that almost every time they disobeyed you, you let it go. And almost every time they dishonored you, you let it go. When they were two and you said, 'Come 'ere,' and they said, 'No!' You should have “worn them out,” but you didn't. And so you think because it didn't escalate to a certain point that that means that you didn't need to spank 'em. No. They disobeyed. We can't tolerate disobedience...
25:20 -25:38 A lot of your toddlers throw fits because you've taught them that that's the way they can control you. When instead, you just need to have an all day session where you just “wear them out”...
27:25 – 28:20 “Let me give you an example. A prime example. The so-called 'shy kid,' who doesn't shake hands at church, okay? Usually what happens is you come up, you know, and well, here I am. I'm a guest, and I walk up, and I'm saying 'Hi' to somebody, and they say to their kid, 'Hey, you know, say – say good morning to Dr. Baucham.' And the kid hides, and runs behind the leg. And here's what's supposed to happen. This is what we've agreed on silently in our culture. What's supposed to happen is, I'm supposed to look at their child and say, 'Hey, that's okay.'”
“But I can't do that. If I do that, then what has happened is, number one, the child has just sinned by not doing what they were told to do. It was direct disobedience. Secondly, the parent is in sin for not correcting it. And thirdly, I'm in sin because I just told a child that it was okay for them to disobey and dishonor their parent in direct violation of Scripture. I can't do that. I won't do that. I'm going to stand there until you make them do what you said.”
Voddie Baucham has inserted himself
into the process of how a parent deals with their child? If the
parent choses to handle the situation differently than he would, how
long will he “stand there?” How would he go about ensuring
against the “sin” of the parent? Will he publicly take that
parent to task, regardless of circumstances or issues with the child
about which he may be unaware? Will he go to the pastor and demand
that some formal disciplinary action be taken to ensure that the
parent in question does not sin?
Take note of this similar theme in one
of Baucham's books.
From Family
Driven Faith, pp 109 - 110:
What this means is the degree to which children properly respond to the authority of their parents is indicative of the degree to which they are filled with the Spirit. In other words, obedience is a spiritual issue...
You tell your two-year-old to do something in front of the pastor’s wife and she sticks out her tongue yells “no,” and takes off running in the other direction... Eventually you learn that everyone is willing to accept this behavior, or at least to make comments that suggest their acceptance.
I am in no way suggesting that parents
should not train or discipline their children, nor that inappropriate
behavior should be tolerated, though I'm sure that my own critics
will try to paint me this way. (I'm also criticized by many
anti-spanking activists because I do believe that limited corporal
punishment can be appropriate when a child is at risk of a greater
and immediate physical danger.) My concern regards healthy and
realistic expectations of a young child and their ability to master
behavior and emotion, especially when those standards have been set
by someone other than parents, family, and those who are familiar
with a child. Please take note again, I in no way condone rudeness
such as sticking out one's tongue or running anywhere inside a church
building under any circumstances which Baucham offers in his book as
exemplars of inappropriate behavior.
Nurses are required to train in basic
child growth and development to be able to not only identify
developmental delays but also to assess how children respond to
illness and treatment. Included in that developmental theory is an
understanding of age appropriate emotional development and
self-mastery. Young children often manifest fear as shyness or as
anger, especially when they are pre-verbal, because their ability to
communicate and modulate their own emotions is limited. Physical
illness or unidentified learning disabilities can also interfere with
communication.
Though I am painfully well aware that
many parents do not discipline their children appropriately, I also
do not believe that it is Voddie Baucham's place to determine the
appropriate standard for children, nor is it appropriate for him to
determine how all parents should best discipline their own children.
Not all parents believe that it is the best choice to spank their
children, and for those who do employ corporal punishment, I know
many that would not agree that God requires that children be spanked
“often.” I also believe that it is quite inappropriate for
Baucham to suggest that he has the ability to discern whether parents
are, in fact, “filled with the Spirit,” particularly by his
standard of personal preference concerning the behavior of their
children. Christians within the pale of traditional, conservative
orthodoxy also disagree on the matter of “responding to authority.”
(Many reject Baucham's high demand, ecclesiocentric system of
patriarchy and family integration as aberrant.)
In the audio sermon at Hardin Baptist
Church, immediately before the statement about the “so-called shy
kid,” Baucham speaks of a three year old. Because he expresses a
similar concern in his book about how a two year old should behave in
a church setting, I'm inclined to think that children who are three
and four years of age should be skilled at greeting him in this way.
Though I agree with him on nature of the desirable and undesirable
behavior he cites, and I also agree that both negative behavior in
small children and issues of sin are sober matters, I find his
authoritarian approach to this topic to be quite flawed. They are
matters to which a parent must attend. If a child manifests fear as
shyness, or if an overwhelmed, young child manifests fear by sticking
out their tongue, I don't necessarily find this to be a sin,
particularly considering the age of the child. But I also find
Baucham's concept of single trial learning or “First Time
Obedience” to be highly abusive.
? ? ?
So after listening to the clips themselves, what do you
think? Did the woman's comment noted above sound like a distortion
based on misrepresentations of things that Baucham has said himself?
Does he expect that his pleasant tone and style should somehow
mitigate the offensive, inaccurate, and intolerant things he's said?
Decide for yourself.
Baucham on FIRST TIME OBEDIENCE
First Time Obedience and Unquestioned Submission (Pearl-style, authoritarian discipline)
- About First Time Obedience (FTO) from the series on Multigenerational Faithfulness
-
- FTO in young children. A review of the submission required under multigenerational faithfulness as Vision Forum’s carryover from Bill Gothard’s submission teachings with various examples of this demand for unquestioned obedience without credulity.
-
- A review of the principle of sacerdotalism and parental convenience (as a control issue in dysfunctional families) as rationales for requiring FTO and “leaps of faith” required under multigenerational faithfulness.
- Review of the tendency to make every banal daily activity one of great eternal spiritual significance as a consequence of works-based salvation. Includes a discussion of viewing personality traits that do not fit the belief system’s paradigm as sinful as well as the building up of all gender related activities as sacramental for the impartation of inward sanctification.
- Blog host’s personal experience with inherent personality traits treated by parents as sin, the idolatry of seeking parental approval, and the consequences of requiring unquestioned submission with the use of guilt and shame that predisposes one to easy brainwashing and compliance with thought reform. Includes a section from Biderman’s Chart of Coercion addressing the powerful effects of devaluing individuals in religious settings.
- Discussion of the development of how perfectionism, works-based salvation and First Time Obedience squelch problem-solving skill and prevent the development of critical thinking under the guise of multigenerational faithfulness.
- Discussion of the development of how perfectionism, works-based salvation and First Time Obedience squelch problem-solving skill and prevent the development of critical thinking under the guise of multigenerational faithfulness.
