Biblical Parenting

A few weeks ago I was perusing the shelves of the small Christian bookstore in our town and I was chacking out the parenting section (cause I need all the help I can get! Haha!). There was a book on the shelf called To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debbie Pearl. I shuddered. For those who aren't aware the Pearls run a website and "ministry" called No Greater Joy. It's awful. These are the types of people who advocate spanking for every and any offense. Recently a 5 year old daughter of parents who closely follow the Pearls' teachings was beaten to death. The autopsy performed reported that she died from complications due to the blunt force trauma she received from being repeatedly beaten with rubber hose. Isn't that awful? I left their book on the shelf. I would encourage you all to do the same. I do however have some excerpts from their book that I'd like to post here for you all to chew on. Some of these things are truly terrible.

1) The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They describe whipping their own 4 month old daughter (p.9). They recommend whipping the bare skin of "every child" (p.2) for "Christians and non-Christians" (p.5) and for "every transgression" (p.1). Parents who don't whip their babies into complete submission are portrayed as indifferent, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are "creating a Nazi" (p.45).

2) On p.60 they recommend whipping babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them "to get up." On p.61 they recommend whipping a 12 month old girl for crying. On p.79 they recommend whipping a 7 month old for screaming.

3) On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with. On p.56 Debi Pearl hits a 2 year old so hard "a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside."

4) On p.44 they say not to let the child's crying while being hit to "cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking." On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is "totally broken."

5) On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.

6) On p.46 the Pearls say that if a child does obey before being whipped, whip them anyway. And "if you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher." "Defeat him totally." On p.80 they recommend giving a child having a tantrum "a swift *forceful* spanking." On the same page they say to whip small children on their bare skin until they stop screaming. "Don't be bullied. Give him more of the same." They say to continue whipping until their crying turns into a "wounded, submissive whimper."

7) On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including "a belt or larger tree branch" to hit children.

8) The Pearls recommend pulling a nursing infant's hair (p.7), and describe tripping their non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67). They recommend ignoring an infant's bumped head when he falls to the floor, and ignoring skinned knees (p.86). They also say "if your child is roughed-up by peers, rejoice." (p.81) And on p.103 the Pearls say if children lose their shoes, "let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more."
(From www.womanuncensored.blogspot.com)

Doesn't this just make your hair curl? Much of the stuff on their website is just as bad. There are seeds of wisdom in the fact that they are advocating disciplining your child. I'm not against spanking, but I like Dr. Dobson's approach much better that there are certain times and offenses that require spanking, but they are grave and serious offenses, not piddly little things that are just part of your child learning boundaries.

If you have this book read with caution!!!!!

Fear

Ok, I'm just gonna come right out and say it. I'm afraid. Maybe I should start at the beginning....

One of my besties who actually lives in the same state as me (few and far between these days) is pregnant with their second child. Their first is a month younger than Derek. I am SOOOOO stinking happy for them!!! Her DH asked Nathan about a week after they found out when we were thinking of having another baby. Nathan very wisely answered "not for a while." Now since my friend and I were pregnant together the first time her being pregnant without me got me thinking about why I don't feel ready to have another baby. I've come up with all sorts of good reasons.

Derek is only 14 months. I mean come on! I don't want them THAT close together.
Life is just starting to get REALLY good with Derek, I'm not sure I want to bring a newborn in yet.
I hated the newborn stage. Not in a hurry to do that again.

But the main reason is this: I'm afraid. I'm afraid to lose this awesome stage that I am at with Derek. I'm afraid of losing my bond with him. I'm afraid I won't be able to love a new baby as much as I love Derek. If having Derek changed my life this much how much more will a new baby change stuff. I don't like change. There are times when I yearn for my pre-child life, and I hate those times because I know I would never trade in my sweet son for ANY of that old life... but still sometimes I remember how easy life used to be. Will I long for my one child days when I have two? Is that fair to my children???? I don't know. I have a tendency to fear the unknown. So there you have it folks; the real reason I am in no hurry to add to our little family of three. Now, please don't ask me about it! :)

Car Seat Safety

I posted last August about car seat safety, but I think I've garnered some new readers since then. I'm linking a few sites about car seat safety for those interested. Also, I cannot urge moms of older babies enough to consider Extending Rear Facing (ERF). Although the law (in most if not all states) says that you may turn your baby forward at one year and 20 pounds (must meet both requirements), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advises that you wait until 2 years old to turn the car seat around. The reason for this is that the bone structure of young toddlers is still soft and pliable and because they are still developing their skeletal systems many bones and joints have not fused together at one year. If a car accident was to occur with a one year old forward facing they are at great risk of severing the spinal cord or internal decapitation. Yes, internal decapitation!!! Yikes people!!!

The most common objection to ERF goes something like this, "where will my child's legs go? Won't they break in an accident?" In fact there have been no documented cases of broken legs, or hips in ERF children involved in a car crash. So, this argument is pointless. Your child's legs will not break, and even if they did, I'd rather have a child with two broken legs who's alive versus a child who was internally decapitated and is dead.

Also, remember that user error is also common in car seat usage. Many many parents do not tighten the straps tight enough. You should not be able to pinch the strap between two fingers at the child's shoulder. For rear facing the straps should be threaded into the seat slightly below the child's should height. For forward facing they should be threaded at or above the child's shoulder level. The chest clip should be exactly at armpit height, NEVER above or below this level. I recently discovered someone using their 5 point car seat harness as a 3 point harness. Not cool. If you don't use your car seat the way it was designed to be used it will not protect your child the way it was designed to protect him or her. Remember that if you use the LATCH system on your vehicle to anchor your car seat, don't use a seat belt as well. Again, your car seat was designed to be used EITHER with the LATCH system OR the seat belt. Using both will cause the car seat to malfunction in the event of an accident. If your child is old enough to be turned forward facing (at least 2 years old) make sure you tether the car seat. Also keep in mind that most LATCH systems were only designed to be used with children up to 40 pounds. If your child is over 40 pounds switch from using the LATCH to a seat belt.

Ok, anything else I'm sure you can get from these links!!


prayerofhannah.blogspot.com/2009/06/rewind-to-car-seat-safety.html


www.cpssafety.com
www.nhtsa.gov
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cps/cpsfitting/index.cfm (To find a safety seat installation inspector near you!)
www.aap.org/family/carseatguide.htm

Dear Drivers,

Dear Drivers in the small town I live in,
I just want to clear the air so that you all can stop giving me dirty looks while we are driving. I am a city driver. This means that when the light turns green, and I am turning left, I will inch into the intersection. I am not cutting you off. I am ensureing that I will be able to turn on this light just in case you are slow. I do not stop at yield signs unless there is a reason to. If I have a yield sign and there is a car coming, fair enough I need to stop. But if there is no traffic, I will not be stopping. So there's no use honking at me from behind and gesturing wildly at the sign. It is not a stop sign and I haven't done anything wrong. You shouldn't stop either unless there is traffic to yield to. Just because I am from the city does not mean I come equipped with x-ray vision. A blind intersection is still a blind intersection to me. When I come up to the intersection I will stop a little back or creep just a little forward to see around the obstacle. Again, there is no need to honk at me from behind if I stop a little back. I'd like to see any oncoming traffic so as not to endanger my life or the life of my child. Thanks. There's no need to honk at me if my nose creeps out a little either. I am not stupid. I will not just pull out into an intersection when I can't see. And if perchance I don't see you and start to go, and then I do see you and stop suddenly, there's no need to slow down in 10 mph just so you can be sure to give the dirtiest look possible. I saw you, I stopped. Keep going. Nothing to get upset about. And finally, when I'm backing out of a parking space and you come around the corner and I see you and stop, then PLEASE don't honk at me. YOu weren't there, then you were and I stopped. It just makes you a jerk to honk at me after I'm already stopped and waiting for you.
Thanks for your understanding,
Sarah

Joy

Nathan mentioned to me this morning that he read on a friend's facebook status a quote that sid something along the lines of "people who are only living for adventure and thrill in life need to realize that following Jesus is the greatest adventure of all." or something like that. You know basically what I'm talking about. Anyone who has been a Christian for any amount of time has heard something like that before. The thing I hate about sayings like this is that they imply that life is all about thrill and adventure seeking. I tend to be a person that lives for thrills. Not the skydiving, bungee jumping, extreme hiking thrill; but the thrill of something to look forward to in a day. Going out to dinner or going to the park. I love being able to look forward to hanging out with friends, or a big event that's not too far away. There's nothing I hate more than waking up in the morning to discover that I have nothing on my calendar. Days spent cooped up at home with a 13 month old are less than enjoyable for me. Plus, when I spend the day at home that means I have no excuse not to do the dreaded house work. Days spent at home are a drudgery for me. This shouldn't be!!!! Proverbs 31 describes the house wife as a woman who does the work cheerfully. And the housework really isn't bad at all compared to the days I spent woring at the hotel. (Ugh!) So, where is my joy? Why am I only looking for joy in the here and now and not in the eternal. Parenting my son is eternal, being a good wife to my husband is eteranl. Going out to dinner isn't.

"Oh Lord, focus my mind and heart on You so that I may be eternally minded. Help me to find joy in the everyday life I live, and let my heart be cheerful and pleasing to You!"

Sick?? (A bit of a vent)

I just had to add this, I know I already posted today, but this is my blog and there's no law that says you can't post twice in one day right? :)

On another blog I frequent (I won't say which one and no it's not listed on the side of my page) the writer posed the question: "How do you react when your kid tells you they are sick?" I was SHOCKED by the majority of parents saying that they would have very little sympathy on a sick kid. One parent responded with this little gem:

"I tell them to get going or they will miss the bus. But I am sick. You can be sick at school. Hookey is for when you are well."

WHAT????? Seriously parents??? When my Derek is sick we spend the day in our pajamas drinking juice and watching Baby Signing Time. It's one thing if your school age kid is faking because they have a test or something, but if you are a parent worth your weight in salt you will know if your kid is faking it. I simply cannot imagine EVER telling my kid to suck it up. If your kid is sick, he is SICK! Let him stay home! If for no other reason than not to infect MY kid!!!!!

What is up with parents expecting more out of our kids than we expect out of ourselves??????

Thinking ahead... A lot

Seeing as how I don't have children who are at the age where I can assign them chores, this post may seem a bit irrelevant for me, but it's not. The issue crops up in children's books and in conversations with other parents, and even in movies. I'm talking about chores and allowance. More specifically what is an allowance for and why should or shouldn't children receive it.

There seems to be two primary arguments for not giving children allowance. The first is that they should do their chores simply because they are part of the family. They should not be paid for doing them. The second is the parents saying "my child has what he needs and he does not need any money." They cite several reasons that I've heard for not giving the child an allowance in this second argument. I've heard parents say, "It's my money and my child doesn't need it," "I don't want my child to learn to value money. It's not that important," "My child doesn't need to learn how manage money until he's older," things of that nature.

There are a couple reasons I don't understand either argument. For the first one my question is simply this, why wouldn't you pay your child a small allowance as a reward for doing his required chores? Ok, I get it, chores are a part of life. But so is work. You go to work to earn money. I mean, how well would it fly with you if your boss said to you "you should do your work and do it perfectly simply because you're part of the company. We shouldn't have to pay you to do it." It wouldn't fly with me that's for sure. Neither does it fly with me that I should expect my child to do his chores with little to no motivation other than "you're part of this family." If my dad had said that to me my response would have been something along the lines of "yippee freakin' skippee." For sure children should be taught to help cheerfully and out of the goodness of their hearts on top of their listed chores, but there's nothing wrong at all with paying or rewarding a child for completing their required chores on time (provided they are done well).

The second argument just sounds ridiculous to me. There is no reason your child shouldn't start learning about the value of money at a young age. And if you as a parent just provide whatever they want or need for them without them having to learn to work for it is just a bad idea. That's how you get spoiled children who don't know the value of a dollar. In my opinion anyway.

What do you think about allowances?