The Nature of Love
7 Jun
I have always been an individual who has sought after knowledge and truth (qualities that may often, unfortunately, conflict). That quest has brought me down some roads that might be labeled as “interesting”. Many times, however, it has led me down the path of righteousness. Well, as those who know me are aware of, I have a new-born daughter (she is six months old already)! So, as all parents should do, my wife and I have been attempting to learn to train our daughter in the ways of the Lord. This is not a trivial task, and any who attempt to make it such have already failed. This quest has led us to many books, but none have even come close to being the great resource that is in “To Train Up A Child” by Michael and Debi Pearl.
The following is an excerpt that I have found especially encouraging and helpful in my training and leading of Autumn-
Understanding the nature of love
You may have strong feelings that prevent you from spanking your child, but it is ignorance to claim that love is your motive. The God who made little children, and therefore knows what is best for them, has provided them parents to employ the rod in training up their children. To refrain from doing so, based on a claim of love, is an indictment against God himself. Your actions declare that either God does not desire what is best for your child, or you know better than He.Parent, you must recognize the difference between true love and sentiment. Natural human sentiment- often taken to be love- can be harmful if not submitted to wisdom. Love is not sentiment. That is, love is not simply the deep feelings we have in association with those close to us. Such feelings can be, and often are, self-serving.
Love is not an emotion at all. Love, in the purest sense, is goodwill toward and good doing for your fellow man. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” True love is disinterested. That is, there is no thought of personal gain or of personal loss in the act of loving.
The Pearls, throught great, and articulate argument continue to debunk the theories that our societies have so frequently entitled “Love”. I highly recommend this book, and upon reading it, I believe that you will as well.
I’ll ignore the arrogant and patronizing statements, and the ill-formed non-arguments presented here. Instead I’ll just focus on one particular point. You endorse a book claiming that God via the Bible is the only proper authority on child rearing. Specifically on the subject of punishment. Since the Bible is the word of God, then there is no part of it that can be ignored. Surely you agree that all parts of the Bible are necessary and important?
How about a little excerpt from the book of Kings:
“2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
2:25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria. ”
Exactly what part of this punishment embodies the loving and just spirit of God? Is it the pettiness of the offense? The sheer brutality of the punishment? Perhaps worst of all, the fact that such a punishment can teach nothing to the offender, since they are quite dead afterwards.
If part of Gods allegedly superior definition of love includes murdering children for being rude, then I assume you’ll be keeping a bear on the premises just in case your kid talks back?
I do appreciate the response, misguided as it may be. At this point in time I don’t have time to discuss the passage dealing with Elisha, but I promise a thorough investigation and response to that argument.
The one issue that I do want to respond to is your remark of “arrogant and patronizing statements, and the ill-formed non-arguments presented here.” I am not sure where you are getting that from, as the only “argument” that I stated in this post is that training up a child is not to be taken lightly. I am not sure how one could consider that statement to be either arrogant or patronizing.