There’s actually a lot in Tedd Tripp’s book I agree with. The chapters on communication were the strongest parts of the book. I completely agree that communication with your kids is a “dialogue,” not a “monologue,” and it’s “not only the ability to talk, but also to listen.” Amen!
But there is also a great deal in his book I take issue with. None more than Tripp’s allegation that “our culture’s interest in the equality and dignity of individuals is not rooted in Scripture.” I re-read that sentence about 10-15 times to make sure I wasn’t misreading it. I wasn’t. However you interpret that sentence, it’s troubling. Very troubling.
More generally, Tripp takes too narrow a view of what it means to pursue “man’s chief end,” which is to “glorify God and enjoy him forever.” For Tripp, to glorify God means to obey God and to obey authority—and little else. In reality, while obedience is one component of glorifying God, God’s glory goes far beyond, and is much richer, deeper, and more meaningful than mere obedience itself. By over-emphasizing obedience above all else, Tripp leaves no room for other crucial values that kids need, namely the ability to think critically, to reason, to understand the why behind behaviors and choices, and ultimately to make choices for themselves.
For instance, in Tripp’s view, if a parent gives a child oatmeal for breakfast, the child is to eat that oatmeal “without challenge, excuse or delay.” The way of the wicked is to say, “You don’t want the oatmeal I have prepared; would you like something else?” Such a question undermines the authority of the parent.
This is a false and unnecessary choice between two extremes. There is another way. When I feed Audrey breakfast, I usually ask her in advance, “Audrey, do you want oatmeal or cereal for breakfast today?” She gets to pick between those two options. Notice, she can’t eat candy for breakfast. And if she chooses cereal and I make it for her, she can’t then change her mind. But at the same time, she’s empowered to make a decision and live with the consequences of that decision. As she gets older, she’ll eventually learn how to make her own breakfast. If she rejects my choices and wants scrambled eggs instead, she can make it for herself. But she would still not be allowed to choose candy. Eventually, the goal is for her to understand that candy shouldn’t be eaten for breakfast—not because it’s “not allowed,”—but because it’s not good for her. As a parent, I’m equipping her to become healthy in a self-sufficient way.
I’m pretty sure Tripp would reject my breakfast approach out of hand. He may even call it wicked. But what Tripp doesn’t understand is that obedience and empowerment aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s healthy to nurture both obedience and critical thinking in a child. It’s unhealthy not to.
Tripp also has a severely misguided view of self-esteem. In short, Tripp doesn’t believe in self-esteem or self-worth. He equates self-esteem with “pop psychology” and “manipulation” of others. He asks rhetorically, “How can you teach your children to function in God’s kingdom, where it is the servant who leads, if you teach them how to make the people in their world serve them?” and “Are there any passages that make the development of self-worth a biblically mandated goal?” [Answer: Yes!]
Tripp’s disregard for self-worth simply isn’t biblical. God actually calls us to a very high sense of worth, of ourselves and others. Rooted NOT in our own achievements or egos, but in our identity as beloved sons and daughters of the most high God. Christ values us so highly, that he died for our salvation. This knowledge should build UP our self-esteem, not knock it down.
Tripp wrongly assumes by having a lower self-worth, we will esteem others more. In reality, the opposite is true. Those who think lowly of themselves tend to have low esteem for other people, while those who have a healthy self-worth tend to have higher esteem for others. Tripp’s approach is not only misguided but dangerous. It could lead to devastating insecurity and shame within a child.
Finally, Tripp has too dogmatic of a view of spanking. For the record I’m actually not—NOT—against spanking, if done appropriately. And to his credit, Tripp lays out a sensible and well thought out approach to how parents should spank their kids. The problem is, Tripp over-reaches by suggesting that parents must spank their kids and that spanking is the only way to practice biblical discipline.
Proverbs says “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.” (22:15) On the one hand, Tripp doesn’t interpret this verse literally—he doesn’t suggest parents need to go find an iron rod to do their business. He is conceding the verse should be read metaphorically. But he never goes on to explain why spanking—a technique used on children only starting in the 1800s in Victorian Europe—must be the ONLY way to interpret this metaphorical instruction.
Instead, Tripp concludes, “You do not have the right to substitute what God has commanded with the popular ideas of the culture. God calls parents to spank their children.” No! Wrong! God doesn’t “call” parents to spank their children, at least not in the Bible. Rather, spanking IS a “popular idea of the culture”!
Overall, Tripp seems to have the right intentions, and the central theme of his book—that parents have a duty to shepherd their child’s heart—is absolutely right on. But becayse if his dogmatic and often unbiblical assumptions, he comes to a very narrow view of what shepherding a child’s heart actually means. If he were just to broaden his understanding of God’s glory and our role as parents, he wouldn’t as be as dogmatic. I come away from the book wishing to tell him: “Loosen up! God will still love you!”
