My wife and I have had a unique opportunity lately, taking classes in order to become foster parents. In the classes, we have seen and heard the modern secular humanist ideas of what “discipline” is. This is the model used by the public school system. It’s a mockery that they call it discipline, because it’s anything but. The basic premise comes from your friend Abraham Maslow, who made a hierarchy of needs. His basic premise, however, is totally flawed. It begins with humans who are “good” and if they have their needs met, they will achieve more and be better. This this flawed foundation, we approach destructive and evil behavior as being simply a break in the hierarchy, and the person needs to be helped to learn to trust and be safe and secure, ultimately building self-esteem to the individual can move upwards.
Now I believe that it’s important for people to learn to trust, and many have broken trust. I believe that it’s important for people to feel safe, and I think encouragement and support is important. I work with people on all those things, but here is the fundamental difference. I don’t think people are good. The Bible teaches EXACTLY the opposite, that all have fallen short, none are righteous. If you take a sinful person and increase his self-esteem, he is a sinful person with a healthy self-esteem who still does evil.
The problem comes when this philosophy begins to seep into the church. Now I am a firm believer that discipline should be handled by parents, not teachers. When a student becomes unruly, the best option is to have the parent intervene. That is not always practical. Sometimes it’s good to just redirect or often even ignore, but we cannot reinforce negative behavior with rewards. We must also be careful that we don’t punish those who are behaving well with consequences of those who are acting out. Children learn though conditioning. It’s basic, a kid touches something hot, gets burned and learns an important lesson. In church, kids come to Sunday School and sometimes get burned. If a kid is acting up and is removed from the class, looses a privilege or has a negative consequence, that’s important. We cannot reinforce negative behavior, yet so often we punish the entire class. This teaches the children that justice is ignorant and your behavior doesn’t matter. If you are good, but everyone else is acting out, you still get punished. Children learn through conditioning.
In your church, in your classroom, in your ministry, remember simple rules. Seek Justice, Love Mercy and walk Humbly with God. If we seek to make things just with a spirit of mercy, we will correct behaviors for the benefit of the student. We want the behavior to improve so they learn and do not repeat the same behavior in a context with someone who does not seek justice and love mercy. Our discipline should be for the benefit of the child. I am not sure the school districts and secular humanists quite understand that concept. What do you think?
Agreed. Wish we could do a detailed study like the so called humanist claim they did to come up with their child rearing philosophy. I’m sure their results were more favorable than the principles of God’s word. (eye roll)
I commend you for your desire to be a foster parent. It has to be a God-call because some of us would have a difficult time creating a relationship and having to say good-by.
Good post.
The foster situation we are looking at will probably be more permanent. In the future may be more traditional foster.
I have been researching something about your topic through the works of James Dobson and the writings of Michael and Debbi Pearl.
I had no idea how popular this kind of discipline was among Southern Baptists until I read some posts by blogger Denny Burk.
I’ve also spoken with my brother, a pediatrician, concerning his opinion of corporal punishment, particularly the spanking of babies and very small little ones, who disagrees with that practice.
For someone brought up without that kind of discipline, it’s been an education to learn about all of this. I expect the people that discipline their children this way do see it positively. Most of the people that I know and am around do not see it positively.
While you are writing to advance the notion that humanists give us motivation theory (and they do give us some insight into human behavior), such as need theory, for example, Maslow and Alderfer (note that the latter conceptualization, although flawed, enjoys more empirical support than the former), need theory is also embraced by one that posits a religious view of man (i.e., Herzberg). Interestingly, the theory advocated in the post, operant conditioning, was developed by a humanist, Skinner.
It is not that operant conditioning does not work, it may, but in the end the one that takes responsibility for behavior is the one that shapes the environment, and when the desired behavior does not result, it is not the fault of the one that is being shaped, but rather the one that has not found the proper environmental factors and schedule of rewards. With operant conditioning, learning is more externally-based than some are comfortable, thus most people in psychology have moved on to approaches that are cognitive in nature (process theories), and in the area of motivation, one perceives this in expectancy theory, goal setting theory, and equity theory.
As a set of process theories they are quite diverse and competing assumptions exist among them. Our knowledge of human behavior is still developing; nonetheless, there is utility in these theories for explaining some behaviors and can be quite useful in explaining some behaviors found in scripture. Moreover, these theories are the basis of research for humanists, Christians, and likely all descriptive categories of humanity. As was once said by Lewin, nothing is so practical as a good theory.
Dan Barnes,
There will be days and some long nights when you may question your decision to become a foster parent. You will not win every battle. Yet, the ones you do win will humble you before Jesus and you shall praise Him for using you in this ministry even as you cry over the ones you “feel” you have lost.
God bless you my brother. I hope to meet you some day.
“We cannot reinforce negative behavior, yet so often we punish the entire class. This teaches the children that justice is ignorant and your behavior doesn’t matter. If you are good, but everyone else is acting out, you still get punished. Children learn through conditioning.”
So very true! This kills the concept of justice but is used all the time to “manage” large groups of children (even used with employees). It usually happens by taking freedoms away from the group because of the behavior of one person.
As to Maslow….I can remember reading the stories of adults who grew up in concentration camps as children and survived and then went on to imigrate to Israel or America. They were civilized functioning adults in society. Really blew Maslow all to pieces in my mind.
I worked with a group home for troubled kids when I was in college… I have a thought on the following comment, ““We cannot reinforce negative behavior, yet so often we punish the entire class. This teaches the children that justice is ignorant and your behavior doesn’t matter.”
I used this quite often with the idea, peer pressure works better than paddle pressure. It worked too. When a new kid come into the home, a group of the kids got with the new comer and told them… these guys are fair and they care about us… don’t mess things up for everyone… and it worked for US.
When kids see that you genuinely care about them, they respond. If you do not care, then nothing you do will work.
><>”
“Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it [spring] the issues of life.” Proverbs 4:23
The problem with the humanistic approach to discipline is that it tries to “condition” what springs out of the heart which is “human behavior”. Humanist focus on “symptoms” (behavior) and know nothing about the heart. “Foolishness [is] bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him.” Proverbs 22:15. The heart is the issue in discipline. We are not animals with instinct, we are humans who have a heart that is pliable. Scientist want to use the same methods on humans as is used to train animals. Unfortunately, that will only breed animal behavior like we see in the world today.
” This is the model used by the Public School System ” . Oh, really . Everywhere in the USA and invented by a Jew that died about 50 years ago . Amazing ! Good Luck in parenting .
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is not a ‘discipline’ system, no.
And, for the years I taught in public school, discipline was to firmly put in place a set of boundaries as to what was accepted behavior AS A SCHOOL, and then for teams of teachers to work on any needed additions to expectations at a certain grade level AS A TEAM, and then for teachers to ‘teach’ the rules to the children so that they understood what was expected of them. Providing ‘boundaries’ for behavior is a part of providing security to children . . . they actually do want and need boundaries and limits that are reasonable and responsible in order to feel secure at school. Parents are also provided with the school’s behavioral expectations and usually are asked to sign that they have read and understood these expectations.
Problems with ‘discipline’?
Parents are notified immediately. By note sent with child, or mailed home, or phone call from teacher, or administrator, or school counselor. The parent is considered a part of the ‘team’ and is the child’s first teacher and first disciplinarian. Public schools respect that.
If behavior continues, there are consequences in place that follow according to what is appropriate.
‘Maslow’? studied at univiersity, yes . . .
but I have never heard of direct application of his theories as a discipline system in public schools, no
Christiane: “…children . . . want and need boundaries and limits that are reasonable and responsible in order to feel secure at school.”
bapticus hereticus: Yes, and as an educator you are surely in a position to see this on a day-to-day basis. And you are correct that Maslow’s theory is not a disciplinary theory, rather it is one that posits a rationale for what may enact certain behaviors. Given his theory, the absence of safety would impede a student’s ability to learn and adapt, at least in a manner that is often expected in formal environments, thus it would not be unexpected that some students may act out, which can be a cry for help and a protest of one’s felt and perceived insecurity.
Maslow’s need theory, while still presented in colleges, is largely without sufficient validation, but its intuitive appeal cannot be denied, and absent the prepotency component, even more intuitively appealing. Miner suugests that if one would invest the time in measurement issues related to the five (major) needs, Maslow’s theory might be found to be more than simply appealing. One such person that re-conceptualized Maslow, Alderfer, has generated support for need theory, but not completely in the manner thought. Nonetheless, even if we don’t completely understand the dynamics of needs, we know that they can be powerful inducements of behavior.
Christiane,
I’m sure discipline policies differ from school system to school system. My children have either been homeschooled or lately attended a small private school. I know things have changed much since I was a student in the public schools, so I’m going to speculate and ask you to correct or enhance my comments if you would.
It seems to me that discipline policies in public schools (and to some degree in private schools) are informed more by the threat of legal action than by a genuine concern for the students. Teachers may individually care for the students, but policies seem to be legal tug-of-wars. If so, then it seems like the policies are determined by a balance between 1) legislation; 2) court precedents; 3) parents of victim kids who want perp kids taken care of; 4) parents of perp kids who don’t think their kids need taken care of; 5) school leaders and DOE bureaucrats on various levels who feel the need to push certain policies in certain ways. So nailing down a specific culprit for poor discipline in the schools seems elusive. Since many of these sources would import the popular philosophy of the day, that would be the transcendent reigning discipline ideal which is, as Dan has rightly pointed out, the false idea of man’s basic goodness
Is my perception here okay or would you say I’m way off in left field somewhere?
Jim, and others,
The problem with discussing discipline in regard to the public schools is that the Bible never sanctions the surrendering of the parents’ responsibility to educate their own children.
Therefore, it will be impossible to conclusively evaluate the discipline (or lack thereof) in regard to government forced education.
It is a well known fact that chaining up a dog increases aggression. Putting children in a totally arbitrary environment isolated from normal patterns of behavior will exaserbate discipline problems, regardless of, or in cases because of, discipline problems at home.
We experience this same problem in our private, Christian school. We recognize that God did not intend this for the education of children, either, though there seems to be some Scriptural argument that can be made for “community assisted learning.”
Therefore, we call our school, the “second-best way to educate your child.” We use a tri-fold model in regard to education, including discipline: the home, the church, and the school in this order of importance.
We try to balance expectations with freedom of expression in a highly individualized, modular method of education. As I think Dan has expressed, as well as others, we try to put the emphasis on “parental responsibility” with the church and school coming alongside for support.
All our parents sign an agreement that says they will respond to the school within an hour should the school have a discipline issue that we cannot deal with. I’ve never had to call a parent twice.
JIM, could you give an example (for instance, a specific case where the ‘values’ of parents might conflict with the ‘popular culture’)? Or any example you think you would want to exchange ideas about? Thanks.
Sorry, Christiane, no particular examples. Just piecing together an understanding of the complexities of bureaucratic policy-making with regard to discipline in schools in general and hoping for a view from under the belly of the beast to refine my thinking.
“Now I believe that it’s important for people to learn to trust, and many have broken trust. I believe that it’s important for people to feel safe, and I think encouragement and support is important. I work with people on all those things, but here is the fundamental difference. I don’t think people are good. The Bible teaches EXACTLY the opposite, that all have fallen short, none are righteous. If you take a sinful person and increase his self-esteem, he is a sinful person with a healthy self-esteem who still does evil.”
Right. This is the problem I have with a lot of the attachment parenting philosophy that has gotten so popular. Of course I want to meet my children’s needs and provide a safe, secure, loving environment for them, but as I read a lot of the attachment parenting gurus, it seems the philosphy is predicated on the assumption that children are naturally good. Now yes, if my 18 month old is determined to go play with the lamp, she’s not deliberately trying to drive me crazy–she’s being an 18 month old. But I can’t discipline my children based on the assumption that they are essentially good and just haven’t learned how to do what is right. They, like all of us, are essentially sinners in need of redemption and I need to parent in such a way that helps them at the right time recognize their need of Christ. That should also be reflected in how we handle discipline issues in the church–something that has been a hot button topic for our congregation recently.
Leigh,
Children are around their mother most of the time during their formidable years (0-7 years old). Whoever you are all the time is the pattern that is etched in their minds. I struggle with reading a how-to book and trying to apply something that is not part of my makeup. The child sees this new response or activity as a “blip” in their newly forming paradigm. Usually, if it is not part of your natural pattern of living it will die off and not continue to be part of yours or the child’s behavior. I have learned that we just need to be who we are and keep our personal focus on Christ as He conforms us to His image. The children are watching and the development ensues. Keep in mind that you were formed in the womb by God and given the parentage you had to make you who you are today. That was the stepping stone for the next generation you will be raising. I do think how-to books can give information that will assist in helping to avoid problem areas. I just think it will ultimately be who we are and who we are in Christ that influences and guides our children.
I was shocked when I had been on my own for a while and was drying my wash. As I was folding my towels I set a crease with the side of my hand so it would fold there and the flash-picture of my mother doing the same thing made me realize I was doing everything just like she did. I believe in this phrase, “More is caught than taught.”
Bruce H. – ” More is Caught Than Just Taught ” . I like that. Basically that is what an apprentice co-pilot , carpenter or bricklayer does . Maybe even a new intern at a hospital who needs monitoring .
Jack Wolford,
That is the essence of the pastors roll for the church. As we witness and new believers come into the body of Christ, being “babes in Christ”, we disciple them in God’s truth and they see other examples around the church, but mainly the leadership. The greater the example the stronger, confident and more mature the body will be.
“nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being EXAMPLES to the flock;” 1 Peter 5:3
Referring back to bapticus hereticus’s comments:
1. If you interpret Maslow’s “needs theory” from a very simple perspective, I think it’s a helpful construct. That simple perspective is this: “a person will get stuck in personal growth if they experience fear over basic needs not being consistently provided.” Now when we say basic needs in that sentence, that COULD include a broad range of things including peer acceptance and love and guidance of parents. But the key insight is THAT a person will put their shields up–their coping mechanisms–if they feel that a need they are used to having fulfilled is being threatened.
2. Skinner’s operative conditioning is essentially the thought process that you can computer program a person. It’s dehumanizing in every sense of the word, even if it is possible. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, only a Nazi would think it’s appropriate. And similarly, parents that believe they can fully control their children through discipline to produce perfect products also should be included in Godwin’s Law. 😉
Now where does the essential sinfulness of people really factor into parental discipline, then? Well, might I argue that teaching your children to recognize sin and not trying to reduce their sinfulness to zero is a good starting point? Admitting your own sin–continually, authentically, faithfully–is extraordinarily helpful. Noticing that churches TEND to specialize in suppressing the external evidence of sin which is unhealthy is also a good thing to do for your kids in my opinion.
But the state can only teach a foster parent to use techniques that are socially acceptable. That they would base it on existing psychology is hardly surprising. Self esteem is critical to self awareness. Are you saying your children should not be self aware, Dan? Don’t you want them not only being self aware but self controlling? And isn’t self awareness a prerequisite for self control? And isn’t self esteem a positive, central element of self control? Rejecting Skinner’s behaviorism means accepting that we’re not programmer’s of children.
I think Bruce H’s comment is quite apropos in that light. If we manage our own behavior in a positive and God-respecting way in front of our children, then we have the hope that God will honor US in return by helping our children see the wisdom of that behavior. Doing that without threats is obviously the most positive and most helpful outcome.
But I’ll note that I have spanked my children when they grab the bit in their teeth and rebel against wisdom. Including a spanking for a 5-month old son who insisted on repeatedly playing with electric sockets. I feared for his life if he continued that behavior. I will note his is now 19 and still alive. 😉
Dan, this is good analysis of the problem I think. Starting with the wrong presupposition–man is basically good–will not end in a good place. Man, as we know, is “deceitfully wicked” inheriting the sinful nature of Adam.
However, there is a glitch in this presupposition also. A few months back Dr. Steve Lemke (sp) dealt with it. That glitch is what we commonly refer to as the age of accountability.
We must make sure that our discipline, based upon the understanding of original sin, is age appropriate.
I was shocked, and somewhat saddened, to see a prominent SBC Voices poster advocate the spanking of infants. I have not read through of late to see if he was challenged on this, but knowing who he is, I doubt anybody will say much.
I want to go on record as saying, I think your analysis is right on the money in regard to the basic nature of man as a sinful, lost creature.
I want to also go on record as saying, I absolutely do not condone the spanking of infants.
People who spank infants should be in jail.
Let me qualify my statement:
People who spank infants should be in jail or in a mental hospital.
Any time you decide to base your discipline on anything other than the personality of the child and the situation, you are setting yourself up to do something inappropriate.
A child has to know that when you say, “Stop,” that there is no negotiation. The child must stop immediately. The reason for this is that the child may be heading toward a serious danger. What ever you need to do to get this across is likely to be appropriate. If you say, “Stop,” and the child looks at you and goes ahead–well, a swat may be in order. There must be action on your part that communicates clearly (and quickly) that this was not the thing to do. This is not acceptable behavior on the part of the child on many levels–but it does not have anything to do with the “sin nature of man.”
I get very uncomfortable when anyone starts talking about the “sinful nature of man” when they are talking about the behavior of a child. This sort of talk is what you read in the paper or her on the news when the demented parent has poured hot water onto the child and burned them, etc.
“hear” not “her” on the news. Need to read these for spelling as well as emotion before submitting them. 🙂
[submitted after reading Dave’s post on comments]
For our daughters, sometimes they just pushed me further than I wanted to be pushed. When they did this, they had to go to their room and count to some number–it increased as they got faster at it. This gave us both time (and a distraction) from what ever they were doing that was causing the problem. You need to have a quick way to deal with temporarily stressful situations that gives all a chance to “cool off.” I think if I had had son(s) that he would have to do push ups. It does the same thing and there is nothing wrong with a boy being able to do 50 push ups by the time he is 12 or so. 🙂
I had to apologize a few times when I over reacted. It is not easy to apologize to your child, but it is likely to be good for you both. You are modeling proper behavior. I never felt that this undermined my authority and responsibilities as a parent–it was just the thing that needed to be done because I had over reacted to some situation. It also decreases your tendency to over react.
*Now I am a firm believer that discipline should be handled by parents, not teachers. When a student becomes unruly, the best option is to have the parent intervene.* *I don’t think people are good. The Bible teaches EXACTLY the opposite, that all have fallen short, none are righteous.*
This does not sound like you have been parents before. Based on my experiences, it is a serious error to ever communicate to your child that other adults do not have the responsibility to correct them. You can’t be everywhere. You need to make it completely clear that your children (real or foster) are responsible people themselves and they are accountable to their teachers and other adults for their actions.
It seems to me that you have confused the “natural state” of mankind with motivation. If you treat people, children for example, as if they are depraved–you increase the likelyhood that you will get depraved behavior.
My first wife liked to teach grades 6-9. She treated her students like they were in training to be adults–but clearly were not there yet. This worked very well and we used much the same approach with our children–even when they were much younger.
As a foster parent (if you parent older children) you will be exposed to many difficult situations from a discipline point of view. The approach of a “benevolent dictator” is often a good one. Treating them as if they have “fallen short” is a truly bad idea–even when they have fallen short.
Why do you want to foster parent? When I read your posting, I become concerned that you may not be ready.
Bennett,
I was in school from 1960-73 and I recall that we had to bring home a paddling permission slip for our parent’s signature. Our parents would read it, sign it and we would return it to the teacher for the office files. The school would know what to do from that point. My parents gave the school permission to spank me and requested to be informed afterward so they could deal with me when I got home. I was made aware of that and warned ahead of time. I never had a discipline problem at school. Times were different then and respect was the main thing our parents wanted from us.
Dan,
I think you’re spot on.
That said, my wife seems to be a natural with discipline and I just watch her with the kids in awe. But really, I watch my kids in awe of the amazing things God is doing in them.
I hear people talk about how difficult teens are and I have yet to see it in mine. My oldest son is staunchly against breaking the speed limit. My daughter is 13 and I have yet to see this hateful rolling her eyes attitude that people tell me about. Just today they sang a duet together in a talent show, a popular praise song. They put it all together themselves. My youngest son, 9, has been trying to evangelize his friends who haven’t expressed faith in Christ yet. He’s already prayed with one that I know of who wants to know Christ based on his testimony and gospel presentation and he only accepted Christ a few months ago.
The only major things that I’ve done with them are read the Bible with them, help them memorize verses, help them with homework, involve them in some family ministry endeavors, and try to pass on the little smattering of wisdom I’ve gathered in my time here – let them know what’s important. So I guess there’s something to be said for all that. My oldest son noticed that if we had used the money we spend on missions we’d be well-off, but that he also noted that there are many priorities in life much greater than just trying to accumulate wealth.
I know all this is perfectly anecdotal. I guess what I have to note from watching my kids is that a little positive discipleship assuages the need for much negative discipline.
You may make it through the teen years with no issues, but if you do, you will be a rare bird. 🙂
Based on my personal experience (as a long ago teen) and my children, I think that you can tell them things until they are about 9-10. You can talk about things (that was a bad deal, that did not turn out well, this happened as a result of …) until they are 12-13.
At that point, you cross your fingers and off they go.
After that point, you mostly explain what the choices are and what the results of those choices are–and then you make absolutely sure that the results follow the choices.
I had one daughter whose life we could operate on the “if there is a reason to do it, you can probably do it.” The other one was “unless there is a good reason NOT to do it, we are going to DO it.”
There is nothing quite like moving your 16 year old into an apartment (with a college roommate) in the Montrose section of Houston because she is going to to her last two years of High School at HSPVA. She made it just fine, but she never really moved back home.