There is little doubt that today's parents and parenting methods are not very much at all like prior generations. And it would stand to reason that, therefore, today's kids are not much at all like kids in prior generations. I got to see this first hand in one generation -- mine. When I was growing up, I was taught a serious sense of responsibility. Right after I got my driver's license, my family headed out on a caravan trip to Alaska -- four families, two motor homes, and a Volvo. We headed up through California, my dad's motor home in the lead. He got tired after a long drive, so he turned it over to me. Got that? A new, teenage driver in the lead vehicle, a motor home populated by the whole family, and I'm that driver. Years later, when my kids came of age, I thought back to that. I had done the best I knew how with them, but I'll be honest. I wouldn't have put that kind of weight on any of them at that age. Because in one generation the parents had already diminished the push for responsibility. Me included.
That was two generations ago. I have grandkids now. And their generation isn't anything at all like the previous ones. For instance, in my day we sat in church and were made to be quiet and still. Today I know of precious few churches that have kids in church with their parents. They'd be too disruptive. Maybe for the singing. Then it's off to "children's church" or some other kids' thing because no one expects young children to be obedient, quiet, respectful, or attentive. It just isn't reasonable. Except that, in earlier generations, it was.
What's changed? Parents and parenting, of course. First off, the concept of the "stay-at-home mom" is practically nonexistent. Not only is it impractical -- you need two incomes to pay for those kids -- but it's also unwanted. Mothers "gotta be me." They've gone from the nearly unfathomable task of being "homemakers" to being bread winners. And kids lose. Modern moms look down on housewives, striving instead to have fulfilling careers, and the time it takes to raise a responsible generation is not there anymore. So parents model a "me first" perspective that encourages selfishness in their kids. "Just be yourself." "Bloom where you are planted." Parenting has gone from parent-centered values to kid-centered wishes. From criminal neglect to helicopter parents, the gamut is not good.
One common component of yesteryear was corporal punishment. Common, expected, normal, even effective. Of course, we're so over that now. It doesn't work. Just ask science. Studies show that abusing children with corporal punishment tends to have all sorts of negative effects on them. Because modern psychology has discovered that the Bible is dead wrong on this topic, it has become quite clear that we shouldn't really care what the Bible says about parenting. All those "Spare the rod, spoil the child" kind of things (e.g., Prov 13:24; Prov 22:15; Prov 23:13-14; Prov 29:15, 17) just nullify the Bible as useful, at least on this topic. Of course, the Bible says the same thing about God (Heb 12:3-11), so if we're going to reject Scripture on the subject, we should also reject God. So, there you have it. Modern parenting is a reflection of a generation that has learned more than God ever knew and we know better. Right?
The biblical instructions on this aren't hard to find or hard to figure out. God holds parents -- fathers in particular -- responsible to train up their children. What parents train their children to be they will likely remain (Prov 22:6). Fathers are not to provoke or exasperate their children (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21), but they are responsible to discipline them and instruct them. Biblically parenting is not part time. The description in Deuteronomy includes "when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." (Deut 6:7) And, no, the Bible is not a proponent of modern psychology, but neither does it support abuse. Instead, it premises parenting on love and recommends carefully considered and controlled "corporal punishment" to be administered from love, not anger or rage or personal offense. The fact that modern psychology has never been able to measure the results of that version is a testament to the monumental failure of parents and modern psychology. Parents are to teach, disciple, admonish, and train their children with all the available tools including the very important work of being a model of love and godliness (Titus 2:7).
Modern society knows better. Modern psychology has it figured out much better. And the current largely unguided and self-absorbed youth is the cream of that crop. They consider God an abuser. I consider their approach abuse. Because if we love our kids, we will discipline them. If "the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and chastises every son whom He receives" (Heb 12:6), should we do any less? Conversely, how can subsequent generations tolerate the negligence parents are heaping on them in the name of "modern psychology" and not suffer lasting, severe consequences? I suppose we'll find out, won't we?
7 comments:
I’d suggest that high taxes also play a role in the “need” for two incomes.
Yes, I imagine that is true. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. I had a wife and 2 kids. For the duration of that time, the IRS rated me as "subpoverty." My wife never worked. We didn't starve. I suspect that the biggest contributor to the need for two incomes is the American love of "things" We equate "a better life" with "stuff." We certainly do not believe that "less is more."
I certainly agree that keeping up with the Jones’s is a part of the problem. We’ve been fortunate enough that both of us have had jobs with a great deal of flexibility. Not ideal, but not chasing stuff either.
When my wife and I lived in southern California with four kids, the cost of living at a moderate level was more than a single income could bear. I'm pretty sure that things like that are factors to consider. I'm pretty sure that too often parents think, "I'm giving my kids a better life" while they remove their parents from them to do it. And, as we've been discussing elsewhere, it's wrong to assign motives to parents as a group. In practice, we need to consider individuals as individuals. That is, you're not just saying what you said because you're a parent. :)
True, as I said we were fortunate to both have very flexible jobs and we also lived close to grandparents. We were even able to connect with some amazing young women who were able too give our boys great care during some of the summers. We were also fortunate that grandparents were on board to help with the cost of things like sports and camps.
Definitely not perfect, but not horrible either.
Ah, close to grandparents. Nice.
I knew a young married man whose parents lived with the couple. The plan was to support his parents in their old age while he and his wife worked and started a family. You know, the original nuclear family, where parents passed values on to their kids who become parents and then, as grandparents, supported those parents passing on those values to their kids. Win-win. Care for the elderly while maintaining continuity in family values. Gone are the days.
After my dad passed, we tried to get my mom to move in with us, partly for that reason and also to help stretch her investment income.
Post a Comment