A fascinating, challenging, and dare-I-say slightly horrifying article about the superiority of Chinese Mothers in The Wall Street Journal, doubling as a critique of today’s self-esteem-obsessed culture. Enough to make one feel like a dyed-in-the-wool Occidental. The unapologetic emphasis on achievement, while clearly exaggerated here, is congruent with some of the first-generation kids that I grew up with, begging a few questions:
1. Since parental demand/Law is going to be articulated whether we/they like it or not, is such a blunt approach actually preferable to the Western doublespeak that leaves so many of us psychologically deformed? 2. While love is clearly not the issue here, grace does seem to be a particularly foreign concept, pun intended. Does the Chinese Mother model allow for any relationship with one’s parents that isn’t overwhelmingly based on fear and judgment? That seems like a mighty high price to pay for college acceptance… Then again, perhaps it’s the reason the Presbyterians have had so much success with this demographic (zing?). 3. Is there an unspoken imputational dynamic at work here? That is, does unwavering confidence in a child’s ability to achieve actually create that ability? Or the opposite? 4. What long term effect does this apparent complete disregard for questions of motivation have on the internal life of the child? Mere suppression? Why doesn’t it produce more rebellion? (Or does it?) Is there a point when duty/obligation takes a backseat to desire as the motivating factor in one’s life? Does passion ever play a role or is it simply irrelevant? Or is the author’s take simply insane? What are we missing here?! I’d be curious to hear your thoughts, especially those of you with first-hand experience. I know you’re out there… A few excerpts (ht RT):
Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that “stressing academic success is not good for children” or that “parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun.” By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be “the best” students, that “academic achievement reflects successful parenting,” and that if children did not excel at school then there was “a problem” and parents “were not doing their job.” Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.
What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences.
The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, “Hey fatty—lose some weight.” By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of “health” and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. (I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her “beautiful and incredibly competent.” She later told me that made her feel like garbage.)
Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best. Chinese parents can say, “You’re lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you.” By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they’re not disappointed about how their kids turned out.
I’ve thought long and hard about how Chinese parents can get away with what they do… I’ve noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children’s self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children’s psyches. Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.
Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough. That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (And when Chinese kids do excel, there is plenty of ego-inflating parental praise lavished in the privacy of the home.)
There are all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids’ true interests. For their part, many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their children turn out badly. I think it’s a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what’s best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.
COMMENTS
51 responses to “Demand, Achievement and Chinese Mothers”
Leave a Reply
What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences.
I think this is kind of …. true.
The only question, really, is whether or not the things one becomes good at are worth one's while; that is, whether or not what parents choose for their children – and that's what's going to be happening – is what the children will actually view as valuable themselves, and will want to be good at.
If not – well, I'd think that would give birth to a pretty cynical view of life. Actually, this sounds more like an excuse for the behavior than anything else.
And BTW: I think Western parents can order their kids to get good grades; why not? The kids either will or won't, the end.
Is Mockingbird seriously entertaining the sublimated ragings of a PROFESSOR OF LAW?!?!
I hand back my ticket.
Of course, I don't really hand back my ticket….but this mother is cracked, on so many levels. Calling her kids "garbage," for whatever reason…suggesting that the archetypal Chinese parent values sacrifice for their kids in a way that the archetypal Other Kind Of Parent does not…believing that her kids are more confident because they played at Carnegie Hall, and on and on and on ad nauseam.
The one way in which she doesn't present as a true nutcase is in the way that she's selling her book on the waves of mutual recognition (and, largely, repulsion) provoked by this zany piece.
Is she more honest about her motivations that doublespeaking American parents? In general, I think that Americans use doublespeak because they actually are ambivalent. This ambivalence allows rebellion to flower…hence the teenager. There may be no teenagers in Amy Chua's house…but the real question is whether there are any children at all–children being those who can approach Jesus with confidence in his love not vying for his affection with parlor tricks.
The comments at the WSJ site are very, very telling. High performance and radical despair and curdling bitterness and generational repetition are peas in a pod. Color me singularly unimpressed.
Forever mercy is what we cry.
-c.
One related question in whether a parent's concern for his/her child's self-esteem manifests itself as another sort of law, such that the child feels that being "happy" or having high self-esteem is required of him? To the extent that many parents place this demand on the child, it seems like the "Chinese" method is better than Western doublespeak.
It seems as if grace is excluded from the relationship in the Chinese mother model. I think one reason for this is that the parent begins to see the child's success as parental merit, so there is little room for the parent to show grace in the child's failures because the parent will interpret these as parental failures and, in accordance with the model, will just try harder.
Westerners, in contrast, are more likely to try and excuse the child and theirselves for filial failures, which also leaves little room for grace because it fails to acknowledge sin–for example, it's the teacher's fault.
I think there is an imputational dynamic, so the children of Chinese mothers probably do have stronger work ethics because it is expected of them. But this probably serves only to increase self-confidence, so there's still no consciousness of sin.
Maybe a combination is good–"you're miserable at math but I love you anyway?" But this may not produce the desire to do well in school in an immediate enough way to gratify parents.
Will writes:
"One related question in whether a parent's concern for his/her child's self-esteem manifests itself as another sort of law, such that the child feels that being "happy" or having high self-esteem is required of him?"
Very penetrating observation!
There's a lovely moment in the movie HOUSEKEEPING, where a teenage girl Ruthie (who's lost her mother) and is being taken care of her truly awesome aunt Sylvie. The women of the town express all kinds of worry and concern because she "seems so sad". And Sylvie basically tells them Of Course She's Sad — and that basically Ruthie's fine. (Who wouldn't be sad?, she asks.)
From a MB perspective, I think this ironically demonstrates that the law of self esteem applies to both Chinese and western parenting. Her argument is that her method of parenting best achieves a child's self worth because a child that can do everything has high self worth. While her methods are foreign, the results are the the same. So while Americans try to fulfill the law of self-esteem through lowering the standard, she fulfills the law through satisfying its demands.
That said, I wonder if there is a immigrant dynamic here in terms of cultural assimilation through achievement. Why do they learn to play piano? Why not a traditional Chinese instrument life a Guqin? As a biographical testimony, this article is a piece of work – a screaming self justification of her parenting methods in the face of criticism by her neighbors and spouse. Perhaps her children have high self esteem, but this quality seems to have eluded herself…
Cross-cultural reads are notoriously difficult. I would love to hear from someone who has personal experience of this.
I read the article aloud at breakfast a few days ago. I had to read it to Alex because it was really eye opening to me. So very different from me. After reading all the things they don't allow in the house, I thought she might be joking. No play dates. No sleep overs. No fun!?!
I'm as western as can be. That's the only way I know. As a mother, there is no way I could be so strict with my children. I just don't have that drive in me.
I kept asking myself, why does she want a concert musician? The specific successes seemed to mean so much to her. I wondered, what do Chinese mothers do when their children fail, end up in jail, or go crazy and do the unthinkable? Unfortunately these things happen.
I don't care if my child is the top of the class or the finest violinist. I want my children to know they are loved and to love God and to love other people. Those are my priorities. So that is where I emphasize my child rearing. And then I pray for them like crazy because after all, God has a lot more power over them than I do. (No 4 year olds reading yet in this house. 🙂
After that, I figure everything else will fall in place. (Does that mean failing a science exam is okay… of course not.. I hope you get my point though…)
I don't know what that means in terms of the Law or imputation or anything else. My brain is too zapped for that right now. That was just my initial Western/Christian take on the article.
-Emily
Oh my. I just realized my mom must have been…no that can't be.
This is anecdotal but my brother and his wife took in dozens of vietnamese in 1974 after our troops left Vietnam. I think this is an Asian culture. Every single one was bound and determined to succeed. This meant education, finding work, proving oneself as to becoming independent.
What Todd said I think is insightful. Either way we are hoping that our style of manipulation will produce our desired results.
We either lower the standard or we think we are actually fulfilling it.
Or we look to outside help.
Really interesting discussion.
My two cents:)
Although this article is certainly harsh and probably overstated to make the point, I do think that there is something beautiful–even Gospel centric—about the hope (one that many in the West have lost, it seems) intrinsic to many an "immigrant culture" that actually takes advantage of the opportunities available in the "Western world" for self-improvement, advancement and cultural achievement.
In all but the most cynical of historical readings, this is the same hope that created the current possibilities in the first place. That the good can become something oppressive is clear, but that does not devalue it as good. Hard work, patience, perseverance, self-control, these are all fruit of the Spirit and, as such, are those things that should be desired. No good friend, parent or spouse would want anything but those qualities for their loved ones.
However, from a theological perspective, this whole issue is a perfect illustration of the living dynamic within every relationship between law and gospel, one that does not lower the expectations (demand) of the goal, but can only be lovingly communicated (Gospel) when the expectations have lost their power to condemn or control the one so communicating. It is no more self-evidently "Gospel" to operate under a "law of Love/Acceptance/Affirmation" than it is to operate under the "law of success." The law, in whatever manifestation, is a curse under which we can do nothing but labor until it has been silenced by Faith, until we believe that "it is (truly) finished."
When we actually hear "neither do I condemn you," particularly when we are fully aware of those things for which we should be condemned, then we are given the courage to face those very areas of bondage–to both the "good" and the bad–without pretense or self-justification and come clean about who we really are.
Although it is tempting to try and ascertain people's true motivation, the fact remains that, this side of heaven, we will certainly be a mixed bag of selfishness and self-denial, but the Gospel can bring about a new person who has been given "ears to hear" anew, if ever so faint, something that was once threatening. Like the two ways of hearing "I am coming to get you:)," the same life can be a fruit or slavery, gospel or law.
This does not mean, by the way, that the Law somehow loses its bite in some sort of 16th Century French Lawyer way;-), but that the law, as law, ends and is fulfilled by faith.
Needless to say, the majority of Christian preaching has an over appreciation of the amount to which our "hearing has been restored."
I'm Chinese and raised in a Chinese family though went to an English-speaking highschool and have subsequently received western education, so it's been fascinating to see the kinds of responses this article has elicited from my non-Asian friends.
It has also been fascinating (and often hilarious) to see the discussion it has spurred among my Asian friends. (One funny comment from a friend on FB: "My butt still hurts from the C I got on a science test in fourth grade.")
One question that seems to come up is "WHY would you even WANT to raise your child this way??" Jady's comment shed light on this a little: if you have given up everything to get out of poverty (as many, though not all) Chinese people do, you would of course want your children to not have to reinvent the wheel. That is, you would want them NOT to have to toil in the fields, NOT to have to escape harsh governments, NOT to have to face the fear of hunger or cold. The best way to do this in a rapidly modernising world is: education and a really good work ethic. Essentially you would hope that your kids don't have to struggle the way you (or maybe your parents) did. So yeah, my grandparents grew up in the war, never went to college, were earning pennies sewing 12 hours a day, and were very poor. My parents put themselves through college and graduate school. Heck, they were going to do everything to make sure their kids were in the best position to get everything they needed in life. Most Asian parents perceive the route to this is via education and subsequently a becoming a successful professional of some kind. I think it is subconsciously motivated by a _survival_ need so all this stuff about self-esteem and self-worth just doesn't even enter the equation. No one was talking about self-esteem when you were in rice paddy fields and worrying if you were going to get through the winter.
As all articles go, the author has of course grossly overgeneralized "Asian parenting". There is huge variation in parenting. I played the piano to a very high standard; and though I don't play much now, I'm still grateful to my mother for the gruelling hours she put in MAKING me practice. I definitely have that memory of being told that I wasn't allowed in the house if I didn't practice. (Of course I relented, walked back into the house and bargained. Day after day.) I hated it then, I'm super grateful for it now – without that, I wouldn't appreciate music the way I do now. I didn't really play sports (no time). I did a lot of theatre (that was allowed) and I watched TV, but that might've been because my dad was an advertising executive and my parents appreciated pop culture. So, individual variations may make all the difference.
The other assumption that the author makes is that all Asian children are the same. Of course they are not. So the same method could produce Carnegie Hall performers or it could produce overly-stressed suicidal teenagers. I remember growing up how the social services in HK would get on high alert mode during exam periods because students were getting so stressed. Stress-related suicides in high school kid are not unheard of.
A few years ago my dad wrote a book (a series of essays) on parenting that was published in Hong Kong. Because he and my mother produced two relatively well-behaved and respectful children who both went to Ivy League schools and who had relatively good relationships with them, people thought my dad was a parenting guru. It's sort of hilarious because my dad is a pretty smart guy and a systematic thinker but I don't think he had a parenting "plan"; in fact, mom did most of the parenting (since dad worked) and if you asked HER what she did right, she'd shrug and said she got lucky. And my mom is NOTHING LIKE the author of that article.
That's about all I have to offer. It's a little too close to home for me to have a clear analysis of the whole thing 🙂
Bonnie makes an important point, I think, about survival; I'd agree this can be a huge motivator.
Bonnie–Thank you so much for your contribution to this. Of course there is a down side to all parental stress on performance, but it doesn't seem that you feel anger, resentment, rebellion, etc. ageist your parents for their discipline. Maybe it's because you were one of the ones who could and did meet their expectations, but it seems that there is also an implicit understanding that the "demand" coming from the parents is coming from a deep love for the child and a desire to protect the child from the harsh realities of life/survival with which the parents are still very much in touch. I was also glad to see you point out that we can't and shouldn't lump all Asians, parents and children, into some stereotypical "Asian" model of parenting.
Hello Bonnie! What a thoughtful post. I agree with MC that we really needed someone like you to shed light on this — especially to the extent that the article touches the particular question of cultural styles. The poignant details about your grandparents were so touching. What a great sentence: "No one was talking about self-esteem when you were in rice paddy fields and worrying if you were going to get through the winter."
There is one thing you said that I found especially striking — and I have heard many Americans from non-Asian backgrounds say this too. And I'd love to hear more about it from you and from others. And that was this:
You described being forced to play the piano as a child. You describe the experience as something you hated, it was grueling, and so on. You use vivid uncompromising language to describe it. You also mention that you play the piano rarely now as an adult. And yet you tell us how extremely grateful you are that your parents made you do this.
I am 47 and for the last 20-30 years I have heard people (almost none of them Asians) tell me variations of this story. I was forced to do X as a child, I absolutely hated it, and I haven't done X for many years, now that I am an adult (this last fact sometimes you have to ask about). But I am soooo grateful now they did that to me!
As I say, I have heard this in many forms. Sometimes it is math (I was forced to take all kinds of math classes, I hated them, they were agonizing and humiliating, and in practice today I only use the kind of math you need to operate an elevator: but I really am glad my parents made me take those classes). Sometimes it is Shakespeare. Sometimes it is Little League. Sometimes, intriguingly, it is a person telling me about being beaten as a child. And it always ends with the same coda: I am so grateful.
I just find this hard to believe. There just feels like something strange is going on. Something different from, but maybe akin somehow to Stockholm Syndrome. Or perhaps this: to say "Yep, I was forced to do a thing, and about all I can say is that a big chunk of my childhood was spent as a pure waste, not to mention in active anger and resentment" — that is too hard to bear. We need to believe it was all in service of some greater good, particularly when it was Mom and Dad. So we triply underline how grateful we are for the hours we spent miserably practicing a skill we now no longer use.
I know you have a psych background. What do you think about this?
I think one of the problems that some seem to be having with "processing" this within a "law/gospel" systematic scheme is that there is no room given in such an abstract system for "discipline" as in any way "positive" and that we absolutely MUST, according to the system, feel condemned by any application of "demand", feel resentment and resistance to it, and that the only answer to this is "unconditional love." If we deny "feeling condemned" by demand, or if we see some long term positive benefit to it, then we are, of course, just kidding ourselves, or, worse yet, listening to some 16th Century French lawyer 😉
John,
That's a great question. My case might be a bit different to the math example you cited though 😛 So, I was classically trained as a pianist and a clarinetist, having accomplished one level shy of a performance diploma from the Royal School of Music on both instruments. Not to brag, just so you get a sense of the degree of technicality and investment (both time and money!) that went into it.
I remember the particularly grueling years were around age 8-12. I don't know if it was a function of the particular skill level I was at, or my age, that made that period so hard. Maybe there was some sort of tipping point that had to be reached but there finally came a point when I was actually good enough and I could appreciate the music itself. At that point practising difficult pieces became a challenge (the good kind) rather than a chore. Maybe other musicians also have similar experiences.
The second thing that all of this grueling practising was that it gave me the skills I needed to do something I got some real pure joy out of, which is to make music with other people. In high school I went to a really selective music camp which brought me to perform in Italy and England, and then in college I was part of the university orchestra which gave me the opportunity to PRODUCE Beethoven's 7th, Mahler's 5th, Brahm's 3rd, and many other absolutely SUBLIME pieces of music.
As someone who is not a professional musician it would be hard for me now to have opportunities like those to gather with 10-100+ other really skilled musicians to make really good music.
Even though I don't play music much now (no piano here and no time), it's not because I don't WANT to play music now – if I had more time, and a piano, I would! 🙂 But more importantly, the reason I'm grateful for those grueling hours is because they provided me with sublime experiences that I would not have had without that training.
With regards to the other examples that you mentioned (math, little league, Shakespeare), I would want to know whether the person considered those childhood experiences to be somehow meaningful or have enhanced their happiness or well-being at _some_ point in their lives before jumping to Stockholm Syndrome as the explanation. I also would expect that for *some* people, there is an element of dealing with some unpleasant past experience by justifying it.
MC — You and Jady need to go to the soft corner. You can deal with your French lawyer issues there.
In fairness, I think you should note that I was talking about people who SELF-identify that they were forced to do a thing, and that they hated it. (Bonnie used capital letters for emphasis, for example.) It's not something I am reading into their experience that didn't exist.
I was interested (and remain so) in the psychology of people who report great unhappiness, threat, and coercion for some aspect of their childhood, also report that the thing they were being coerced into doing they have abandoned as adults — and then express deep gratitude for being made to the thing that caused them to be so unhappy.
That, MC, is always (at least initially) a puzzle to me.
Remember too that I have established pretty good blog cred in defending the Law's first use — I probably go overboard there. I am certainly in favor of laws, courts, prisons, tanks, missles, and the other sadly effective controls on human behavior, and have exhibited an allergy to any suggestion that we just give everyone grace-space and they'll naturally be good.
That said, it is true that in child rearing and education I am opposed to pretty much all coercion as it touches learning, arts, sports, hobbies, reading, etc. By coercion I am talking about the kind where kids are expressly miserable and you are having to resort to harsh measures to get them to do it. In other spheres of course, coercion of that sort is necessary: when Bobby hits Sally, or refuses to do his chores, etc. he is at some point going to feel the left hand of the Law on him.
That was interesting, Bonnie! Had no idea you were so talented at piano and clarinet. And it is way hot when you brag, so don't stop! 🙂
I agree that people's stories have to be listened to individually. Yours may be a great example of that. Even still, though, I admit to being struck by (a) The intensity of the parental demand (as you say vast amounts of money and time went into this, and 4 years of extreme coercion and resistance) and (b) You don't do it any more (now that you are an adult). I know of nothing comparable in my life.
I do know of a lot of things which appear comparable in the lives of other people who have undergone coercion in the arts or some other sphere of learning. I know a LOT of people who claim to be very happy they were forced to read Shakespeare — but in fact they don't read or see any as adults.
But I can certainly see how it might have been lovely to perform Beethoven's 7th (one of the many great things about ZARDOZ!).
Thanks again, for your thoughts…
Stampdawg writes that others have told him:"I was forced to do X as a child, I absolutely hated it, and I haven't done X for many years, now that I am an adult (this last fact sometimes you have to ask about). But I am soooo grateful now they did that to me!"
Here's another for you,SD (And may I say I enjoy your comments when I actually read comments!)–
From age 11 until age 37, I suffered from monthly female pain, often severe. My mother made me go to school regardless, and this was before the days of wonder pain killers. Aspirin was about it. And you know? I am exceedingly grateful that I learned what my capabilities were. I lived through those days. Today, 22 years post-hysterectomy, I know that when the going gets tough, as it often does, I am one of the tough who keep going. Neither of my kids has had any experience like this, and they are the weaker for it.
Hey CA! Fascinating and touching story.
I'm an idiot and a guy with zero clues about women, so I'll admit to not knowing much about what you mention or what the alternatives could have been.
I'm guessing that your mother felt like there was no real alternative? No painkillers, state law requiring you to go to school, etc?
On the other hand, maybe the alternative was to let you stay at home a few days a month? Again, maybe that wouldn't worked out with the school board. (Also before the days of widespread home schooling, maybe?)
Anyway, it's great to know that we have readers closer to my own age (and MC's), as opposed to these crazy Mockingbird kids who are always writing about rock bands I have never heard of.
Fondly… SD
Amen, Stampdawg, as to company for us more "mature" folks…mature as in old, not as in wise ;). And as for my earlier comment, I did not mean for it to be directed at your comment, but rather to the weakness that I see in a rigid application of "law/gospel" that absolutely refuses to see any love in "demand" or "discipline" because then we are somehow mixing law and gospel and that's a systematic no-no of the highest order.
This discussion is a good illustration of the limits of sociological discussions of law and gospel. The Gospel qua Gospel is initially foreign (pun intended) to all relationships, and that of a parent and child is no exception; we may call maternal instinct love, but it is not the Gospel.
Based on this essay, it is easy from the perspective of the law to analyze these two extremes and make our judgments about whether we want to applaud submission or rejection, Chinese mothers or "Western" mothers respectively. Both of them have their merits, but both of them are sharing a common referent: the law of parenting, in this case.
What would be most interesting for our purposes (maybe we should get a copy of Bonnie's book!) is how Chinese Christian mothers, mothers who are knowingly operating under a conception of the "Gospel," translate the cultural pressures of their society/family/etc to their children as those raised "in fear and admonition of the Lord."
Needless to say, this probably varies greatly, but, one hopes, there would be a tinge of mercy or freedom from the full weight of cultural/family expectation(at least) that is woefully absent from the depiction of this woman from the WSJ.
While the law/gospel dynamic can be observed operating in a general way in the world, it is only for the Christian who has had his/her knee-jerk acceptance of the "good,"—critically subjected to the critique of the cross—where this wrestling between "goods" becomes most clear, because things are revalued in the light of Christ. . . "I count it all loss, etc. . . "
SD – A thought on your observation: what you're referring to seems similar to statements such as "I wouldn't change a thing" or "I have no regrets." It seems difficult to reflect objectively on our early experiences, as we're often proud of the character traits (i.e., work ethic, perseverance, positive outlook) we see ourselves to have gained from the grueling experience, they become part of our self-perception and "story," and we believe those traits useful to us today would not exist otherwise. The experience is what actually happened to us, we took lessons from it, and retrospectively consider it positive regardless of the difficult-to-conceive alternative universe that would have formed absent the obligation.
Jady–Interesting comment. What you seem to be suggesting as a hoped for possibility for Chinese Christian mothers– that they might apply the "law of piano practice" in a "gentler" way that is not meant to condemn their child, and not used as a precondition to love, but as an encouragement to act in a way that is ultimately beneficial to the child who knows it is loved without performance– sounds remarkably like "3rd use" although I hate those categories almost as much as I hate the word "paradigm" 😉
I think forcing people to do things that provide more gratification long-term can be an act of grace, since it comes from outside the child and allows the child to get more gratification than he would normally get. Children have limits, one of the main ones being a lack of long-term perspective, so parents can provide this perspective. With Bonnie, it sounds like the music experiences were pretty amazing. For me, it was always football–hated every moment of practices, but it was ultimately far more gratifying that my parents pushed me to continue doing it and thereby compensated for my lack of long-term perspective. To the degree that this makes my life better and comes from a stance of unconditional love from my parents, it is an act of grace.
Additionally, this teaches the child that many experiences require work before gratification. But of course there are some kids that just don't like violin and probably never will. And some parents will want to teach their children about music and long-term gratification while others will just want high performers. To complicate things, not only are parents' motives the determining factor, but these motives are filtered through the children's perceptions.
High demands from parents can be an act of love, but they almost certainly form the spine of our internal voice of sinfulness and self-condemnation. For some people, too much love in the form of law for guidance makes this voice strong and unendurable. Forcing someone to play music can lead to appreciation of music later in life, but forcing someone to be a good kid would lead to despair. I think how the child interprets these demands varies case-to-case.
Hey Ron… great observation. I think it is a richer and deeper variation on what I suggested earlier: which is that almost everyone has a need to justify their past, including and especially those parts of it that felt terrible.
As I said, it's pretty tough for anybody to say that a chunk of their life was a pointless waste at best and miserable to boot.
But of course I know exactly what you mean and do it myself. You add a helpful dimension by observing that this happens in part as a result of a cognitive/existential limitation: we find the alternative universe in which we grew up differently difficult or even impossible to conceive.
To the extent that it is human nature to need to do that, I have no objection. How else can we muddle through? (Though the Christian virtue of Hope is perhaps the real solution.)
But there is a real danger in it that we have to watch out for, which is to mistake our own need to make some sense out of our past as a legitimate guide for how to raise our own children.
I.e. because I need to believe that me suffering through X was good in some way, therefore there's nothing wrong with parents imposing X on a new generation of children.
That's what worries me greatly and which frankly I saw all the time in my earlier days as a teacher of young children.
I have noticed a curious pattern in which upper middle-class young people resent high expectations being placed on them by authority figures, including parents, while young folks from very poor backgrounds practically worship some teacher/coach/parent who had high expectations of them and pushed them very hard to achieve. The kid from the poor background sees it as someone believing in and caring about them enough to kick their butt, while the rich kid sees the same thing as unbearable expectation and soul-crushing demand. This is of course a gross generalization, but it is to some degree true, and very odd.
Good point, SD. For people who believe in God, that most people can turn negative experiences into positive ones is certainly evidence of His existence—a common grace, one could say, but this does not actually replace the hours of lost childhood. You were inside (or outside in my baseball obsessed childhood) practicing , after all, during your Prom (or whatever).
On the other hand, in a culture without any shared sense of what it looks like to be an adult, without an end goal, then violence against the supposed "innocence of childhood" is intolerable.
Michael,
Good point. I think that the whole argument around a "3rd Use" of the law, or any use, really, rests on the presupposition that there is an agreed upon "good" or "law" to which we all are striving, but we differ in our motivations. Under this conception, the "law" is anything that I really know to be good, but because of sin or whatever, don't want to do it. Then, when I become a Christian, my eyes are opened and I see the error of my ways and put down the bong.
Well, I think that most of the time, in this construal, the "law" is, in fact, usually just the baptized status quo. For example, who says that it is the "law" to go to college? Or to be thin? Or to be successful? It is not clear that this "law" comes from God, but, nevertheless, how many people labor under the idea that when they are studying hard for the GRE, they are somehow "closer to the kingdom" than others?
Now, this pressure is certainly real, and can, perhaps be a positive goal, but, the law (perverted, as it is, by sin) is actually the source of the pressure, not its manifestation.
The law is the false promise of the ability to legitimate our own existence, to self-justify, which enslaves us by the "goods" of our cultur, e.g.,piano perfection, good grades, family name, money, etc. This is the same trap, by the way, that the Israelites fell into time after time in the OT, and the same one from which they,and we, are now saved by Christ–"the end of the law of righteousness"(Rm. 10:4).
The law, as law, is meant to constrain and convict, Paul says as much in Romans, but Jesus came for freedom. This freedom can not be to "do" the law, because it was never meant to be done, it was meant to " h[o]ld [us]captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed."(Gal.3:23)
This is why, I think, the Gospel has always been turned so quickly into a law, because who can argue that we wouldn't want the "good"? The problem is, of course, that even Jesus said, "why do you call me good?" and his murder was at the hands of all of us "good, honest, hard-working, law abiding citizens."
Anyway, there is more to be said on all of this, but I would say that mothers have all the right in the world to tell their children to do or not do what they think best, but that death to the law–not a changed relationship to it–can provide a space for something that might look like freedom for the mother to address and even critique her own ideas of the "good," and act accordingly.
Kierkergaaaaaaaaaard was right, there is a Christian place beyond the either/or where most people live, either in reaction or submission to the "laws" of their society/culture/family/lives. Nietzsche realized this too, but he tried to push upward "beyond good and evil" by a tour de force –but only faith in the Gospel brings this sort of death.
This, I would argue, is what is meant by the proper distinction between the Law and Gospel. We can put the law in its proper place and not invest it with a soteriological function it was never intended to have. Sometimes we have to just do things that we don't want to do, but when these things are put in their proper place as law (like flossing), then we don't confuse them with the Gospel–like "if you don't floss, you won't be handsome/pretty, and then you won't get married and make your mother and me proud of you, which is something the bible tells you to do, so, really, God is telling you to floss)
Jesus didn't die for piano playing or flossing, but probably doesn't mind if you do either:)
Jady, I totally agree that the gospel can free us from false "demand" and from the prison of the world's expectations. This false "demand" is the real source of most "exhortation" that we are subjected to–"floss your teeth"–and it is made much much worse when it is twisted into and "sold" as something that is our "Christian duty." But what I cannot get around is the fact that St. Paul did not shy away from very heavy-handed exhortation TO CHRISTIANS over an extended period of time, from Thessalonians to Romans. He clearly does not see the Holy Spirit and the Gospel as making exhortation unnecessary or harmful. He clearly does not give these exhortations to condemn, but to encourage them. These are passages that no one doubts are from St. Paul, who is supposedly the source of this "end of the law" , "no exhortation" gospel we proclaim:
1 Thessalonians 4: 1-6
"1Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified."
Romans 12:1-2
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."
Michael,
We are nearing the kingdom now:) I really appreciate this discussion, because, like you, I'm not completely settled on the whole issue. So, here is another shot:)
It is precisely at this diagnostic point when we realize that This false "demand" is the real source of most "exhortation" that we are subjected to–"floss your teeth"–and it is made much much worse when it is twisted into and "sold" as something that is our "Christian duty." that we are getting to the heart of the "proper distinction."
The key here is to recognize the relationship between the law and sin. The Law was added to "increase the trespass," so, as you've pointed out in particular, the exhortations against lust/adultery/fornication are not merely things that we should not do, but things that stir up our "flesh" (to use a Pauline term) in ways that will bring us back to repentance. The Christian relationship to these laws, precisely because he/she can view them as law, and therefore temporal restraints that will someday pass away, can fully appreciate them as just that.
The problem, as it always is, is "sin, taking the opportunity" will try and get us to invest the law back with a power that Christ has taken from it (i.e., saving power) OR try and deny its efficacy on our sinful lives, thus, ironically (and tragically) enslaving us all the more. Take the classic "I'm so free from my parents that I'm going to spend my entire life proving how free I am," as illustrative of this point.
The problem with the (so-called) "3rd Use of the Law" is not that there is a change within Christians, but that they don't conceive of the change radically enough. To use the analogy of marriage, proponents of the "3rd Use" think that when a person gets married and promises to "forsake all others," that what they really mean is that they will "try and forsake all others," and probably will, but it will be a struggle. But what if when you get married, you actually have died to the prospect of all others? Then the exhortation to "stay away" would be as useless as "law" as the exhortation to me to "start eating pizza"—um. Ok. If you really say so:)
Nevertheless, (forgive the cheesy analogy!) this side of heaven, we do not always want to eat pizza, so the law, as law, is necessary, but then it is doing its "proper" work on us by bringing us back to the cross and our only hope for redemption from the incessant, ever-present demand to eat pizza.
The problem in all of this, is that the law is much more vague (and free flowing) than people want it to be, so we try and pin it down unnecessarily and turn it into a new Gospel. Hence, we have the "clear-cut" biblical injunction against women wearing pants to the exclusion of actual clear cut injunctions to "be perfect"!
This false Gospel of no-pants-righteousness is opposed to preaching the real weight of things–"there is NO health in us"–and allowing the Gospel to bring people to life.
Throughout it all, we can't forget, that although the entire world has been given over to their own devices, it is still asking and finding pharmaceutical-grade answers to the age-old question, "what must I do to be saved?"
We do not have a market on what needs to be done, only a message about what God did in Christ. Constantly hearing this message is the only "renewing of the mind," that can begin to handle and recognize law as law--even confessing that it is "holy, right and good" that we are justly condemned and mercifully saved–and not as a new "man made" Gospel.
Jady, I agree with everything you have said, but I am not sure how it relates to St. Paul's exhortations in Thessalonians and Romans to Christians. If "the gospel" makes such exhortations unnecessary, then why are they so much a part of Paul's writings? That is my basic question, and I just have not been able to convince myself that reading them either as merely "descriptive" or as "condemning law" is true to Paul's intent. He seems to be trying to encourage them to do good,and to warn them about ignoring his instruction, but with the encouragement and warning always seen "in light of God's mercy" of which he has made them keenly aware.
As for proponents of "3rd use" I agree with you, and reject, any conception of "3rd use" which teaches that simply proclaiming the law and exhorting "saved" people to obey it is faithful to Paul's teaching or to the gospel. The law ends up swallowing the gospel, and the Holy Spirit is reduced to this spiritual rocket fuel that makes us able to keep the law, rather than the Third Person who points us always back to the fact that we are dead men brought to life that we might "in repentance and true faith turn unto him."
But there does seem to be a proper place for exhortation as encouragement to do good, in a way that is not condemning, but that also does not deny the continuing vital need to repent and receive the free gift of forgiveness and grace. That free gift of forgiveness and imputed righteousness is the source of all Christian "good works" and that is the very thing that sadly many very sincere Christians forget.
Hey MC –
I've thought a lot about your basic question, and the best answer I can come up with is that Paul was somehow given the ability, as a specifically called apostle, to exhort in a non-deadly way. In my preaching, I always reverse his order. Law first, Gospel to finish. Paul seems to want to hammer home the truth of the Gospel, and then to follow it up with the exhortations. I do think that TO US, the descriptions of holy life serve as second use laws, merely driving us back to our need for a savior, but in the same way that we need to avoid using Jesus as an example ("but JESUS got mad and destroyed the money-changers…why can't I show MY righteous indignation?") Jesus is in a category of one. I feel like Paul, as a preacher and communicator of God's message (and as a pastor, hoping his flock will do better), is sort of in a category of one, too. Just because he did it doesn't mean we can.
Wonderful!
This is a very helpful, fruitful and clarifying discussion.
Much appreciated.
Maybe so, Nick, but Paul does tell folks "do what you see me doing" in several passages, so I'm not so sure we can make him a unique case regarding exhortation. I agree that it is certainly a dangerous thing to do, and that it is very, very easy to fall into "law" preaching when it is done. I think it is only possible if the preacher really "feels" as well as understands the gospel, and really loves, and deeply, concretely loves, his flock as Paul clearly did, and as Jesus did when he exhorted Peter to "feed may sheep." I just don't think that some absolute "rule" against exhortation is warranted by Scripture, not to mention the massive irony of such a "rule" 😉
Shoot. I really thought I had nailed it with my Pizza analogy:)
When Paul says in Romans 5:13: for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
When there is no sin, there is no law, so whatever is going on with the exhortations, if you are aware of a constraint, then it is not the fault of the law, but sin (c.f., Romans 7). Where sin exists, then the law continues to condemn/expose and convict.
Back to the Chinese mothers, the opportunities available in the "West," can be heard either as law–you must do this because it is your duty—OR, you CAN do this because you have opportunities that we did not have.
Theologically, I see the exhortations in Paul in much the same way. He is assuming that, to the extent that "you have died to sin" (as he says in Chapter 6), you will hear whatever he says as an opportunity. Since we have this "body of death," however, we will constantly be in danger of hearing the CAN as an ought, because we always forget that we died to all "oughts" with Christ, and were resurected w/him by faith to the world of "can."
The danger here, with preaching, is that the confusion of the two is so pernicious, so tempting, that unless we are completely clear that "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"(Romans 8:1) then we are guilty of "taking with the left what we gave with the right." Or, to use Jesus' words, "giving a snake to someone who is asking for bread."
Paul assumes that people will want bread. He assumes that people are going to want to be faithful to their wives, to "work out their salvation," to "grow in grace," but the answer to this is not by participation in greater degrees of self-denial and discipline, but by dying to that idea all together, and allowing the exhortations to convict where necessary, and be thankful for the areas where that terrifying voice has been silenced. There, in the silence, we very well may hear the voice of God speaking to us about who we are and who we might become, but that is not the law.
For most of us, we will be able to see this, as Paul does in 1.Cor:13: in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
Jady, I hear what you are saying in terms of trying to make a distinction between an "opportunity" and an "ought",( which is a variation of "descriptive not prescriptive") but the language of Paul's exhortations doesn't really lend itself to seeing these things as "opportunities" to do such and such any more than they can be seen as merely "descriptive." For example, he states in 1 Thessalonians 4:
"…the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you."
Paul seems to give them the law, then give them the gospel, then exhort them to do certain things, warn them of the consequences, but then finally remind them that GOD HAS GIVEN THEM HIS HOLY SPIRIT! Maybe this is "Law,Gospel,Exhortation,Gospel" ??? Anyway, the tone seems to be far from merely offering the "opportunity" to do good. So I don't see that all "oughts" disappear with Christ,since much of Paul's own NT writings to the churches concern "oughts." We may try to interpret the ambiguity out of "telos" in Romans 10 in order to have Paul say that there is no "ought" whatsoever after Christ, but this just does not account for Paul's many exhortations to believers in many other passages, even in Romans beginning with 12:1. We can throw out James and Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter and half of what Jesus said and we are still left with this problem out of Paul's own mouth. As I see it, there is just no getting around the fact that if we look at the entire NT, in some way the "ought" stands, but the "ought" is fulfilled in Christ, His imputed righteousness given freely to us, and His continuing work of grace and forgiveness that brings forth the life that looks a little like the "ought." But this life is created by His forgiveness and unmerited love for us sinners, not by or in response to the "ought." Anyhow, I just love to use that word "ought" because it has such a funky Middle English sound to it 😉
Now, I'm tempted to think that you're just being contrarian, because I am convinced that I have explained how all of these passages–not just from Paul, but from whomever else we want to examine–can be understood as non law exhortations.
Let's take an example from the TSA. There is an argument that "if you don't have anything to hide, then you should not be afraid of submitting yourself to any sort of screening." Now, whether I think that it is overkill (which I do) to confiscate toothpaste, there is some truth in the basic premise: if you don't have anything to hide,then there should be no fear.
This is how the non-law, Gospel-centric reading of the New Testament can commence. You say "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" Great. I've got that. You say, "Don't fear the one who can destroy the body, but the soul?" Check. You say, "Be holy as I am holy?" Bing again (to throw a shout out to one of the best Bill Murray movies of all time).
What I am saying is that there is no fear, no compulsion, no condemnation in the Gospel. If someone wants to question their "committment," then they should take a page from Luther's letter to Melanchthon and "sin boldly, and know that Christ's meriting atonement is greater than your sin." Or, as John (not Paul) writes in his 1st Epistle: 1 John 3:
19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, [4] and God [5] in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
SO, we who "believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ" have "kept his commandment" and can stand before our hearts (which may condemn us, when we contemplate who we are "in view of God's mercies" when we have, or have not, presented ourselves as a living sacrifice (Rom. 13)) and hold onto the words of Jesus: "neither do I condemn you."
Clearly, neither these words nor the fear of condemnation from God concern everyone–this is the "foolishness to the Greeks and stumbling block to the Jews"—but to "those of us being saved, it is the power of God."
Nobody is trying to get around any verses here.
I am not trying to be "contrarian" but I am being stupid, because I honestly don't understand the explanation. Sorry.
Well, I knew it had to be one or the other:) Ha! Just kidding.
Seriously though, I'm interested in figuring out where I'm losing you, so let me try again.
With respect to the question of how the law is to now be understood, we really have to stick with Paul as he describes it. Unless we want to pit James and Peter against Paul, which I do not, then we have to stick with the age old hermeneutical principle of "read what is less clear through what is clear."
This means, that when we run up against less fully developed discussions of the law in Peter and elsewhere, then we have to assume (unless we are going to go with those who think that the bible is not consistent) that these writers have been similarly influenced by Paul.Especially since his writing and preaching was the earliest, and constitutes the entirety of what most of the early Christian people would grown up hearing as "the Gospel."
Not incidentally, it is a testimony to how "clearly" Paul preaches a Law-Free Gospel, that it had to be addressed by Tertullian and the other (so-called) "Church Fathers" when they confronted the move to get rid of the law–in this respect, the entire O.T–wholesale, which was a move that was being defended by appeals to Paul!
I know, you might be saying, "not much has changed:)", but my point, is that not much HAS changed in the sense that Paul can be read either simplistically as completely rejecting the Law (which he did not) OR obtusely and say that he is "confusing" (which is what Peter (2 Peter 3:15-17) seems to have thought, but he WAS a fisherman:)–no offense to fishermen)
Wit the former, we have the classic situation described by Neibuhr's 1938 assessment of mainline liberal theology:
A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross. So, that's to be avoided!
With the latter–no less a perversion of the Gospel— the clear proclamation of the Gospel that Paul fought so hard to articulate is muddled with a more "nuanced" baptized Aristotelianism (in the case of the RCC) where, "sure man, you're saved by Grace through Faith alone, but let's not get too carried away." This is, by the way, how I sum up the entirety of the Council of Trent:)
So, this was just a long way of saying, we should look to Paul when developing not ALL Christian doctrine, but certainly follow his lead when it comes to what change the cross brought about w/respect to the law. .
sheesh, that was a long intro. There's more, if you've read this far, hold on goose. . .
Ok, so, in Galatians, we see Paul describing the situation of humanity before and after "faith" has come, he writes:
.23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave [7] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
So, we have here the description of the law as that under which we are held until freed by faith. Here, he talks of the law as being the "tutor" or "guardian" (Gk:παιδαγωγόν) which HAS to be read along side his previous description of it as a curse (Gk:κατάρα). I only mention this because here is precisely where the interpretative mistake is made, not to mention translation errors. Paul says that the law was a tutor that held us captive and instructs us to lead us to Christ. This is the "old fashioned" way of reading that which was thought to be (correctly) implicit in the noun "tutor" because that is what they were hired for, to educate one into the way they should live.
NOW, here is where the shell game gets tricky. When we think that being "led to Christ," is an exalted place, or when we think that it constitutes a place where we have escaped the "lusts of the eyes, flesh and pride of life" (1 John 2:16) AS OPPOSED TO a place of forgiveness and mercy in recognition of these things, then we have missed the "point"(however reluctantly I use that word) of the cross.
In other words, if we are supposed to be "getting better," as opposed to being brought to life, then the law will always be seen as the yellow brick road as opposed to those ropes binding old Yeller (at the end) down.
This is why we, like Paul, will never disparage the law, but only its inability to save–not to constrain and convict and condemn (rightly). So, when we hear the exhortations to perfection and holy living throughout the Old and New Testaments, we can hear them as those who have, by faith, come to see their fulfillment/end/consumation (every nuance of the word telos in Romans 10 you want to use) in Christ, so we hear differently, even when we "see in [our] members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."(Romans 7:23).
This is not a decision that one makes, but one that is imposed on you–like the "decision" to be born!–but it comes by hearing, from a preacher, the Gospel message that "Christ Jesus came to save you."
Were we not afraid, constrained or condemned, then the message of "you are released" wouldn't be such a big deal. In other words, implicit in the proclamation of forgiveness is a statement of condemnation, "you need to be forgiven."
But, we can't gin up this sort of conviction by painting the horrors of hell or holiness of god (stick and carrot) to people, because, as Jesus often said, "he who has ears, let them hear." Not everyone "hears" either the law or the gospel (as such), and therefore, people will continue to pervert the message of Paul's law-free Gospel into license or law, just the way Peter (and Jude, for that matter) feared (c.f.,2 Peter 3:14-18)
In conclusion, counselor, that is why my client deserves 100 million in compensatory damages. ha.
No, really, I'm almost done:)
In answer to your previous question about Romans 12:1, about what the "renewing of your mind" means, this means that we have seen the "end of the law," that there is no compulsion or coercion in Jesus, that he himself has invited us to "lay our burden's down." That we can't conceive of a law-free existence but by faith is part of the deal, we walk by such and not by sight (or feel!) (Hebrews 11:1).
But, this side of heaven, the law will never cease its relentless, intended condemnation and constraint of unbelief manifesting through sin, until we are finally "delivered from this body of death."
Jady, Thanks for your continuing efforts to lead a horse (or perhaps an ass,in this case) to water 😉 I do appreciate your explanations, and they are helpful. I particularly appreciate your view of the Biblical record as a non-contradictory "whole." The major, unavoidable, problem with these discussions is the inherent ambiguity of the words that are used,such as "law", "demand" ,"grace", "fear", and the list goes on. It is very difficult to sort out what are real differences and what are merely semantic differences in the various views of Paul's "exhortations." I think more often than not the real differences are not as great as the debates might reflect, but maybe I am being overly optimistic (not a dominant gene in the Cooper family 😉 ) Anyway, I will read carefully everything that you have written because there is a lot to consider. Thanks again!
Michael,
It is always a pleasure! Please don't "read" (hear) my comments as anything other than someone who, like you, is trying to hold "God's justification of the ungodly" together with the hope that I have not been left alone to fend for myself in the miasma of despair that would be behavioral/psychological determinism.
In other words, I think that this is both as "good as it gets," and "we ain't seen nothin yet."
You, my friend, have been as helpful over the past few years in working this out as anyone!
See you in April?
Much love,
Jady
Thanks guys for the helpful debate.
There seems to have been quite a backlash to the WSJ article. Chua retreats (somewhat) from the positions described in the article in this interview: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-12/nese-mom-amy-chua-talks-about-her-controversial-new-parenting-book/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC1
"I wish I’d paid a little more attention to the personalities of my daughters,” she says. “I wish I hadn’t lost my temper so much. I wish I hadn’t been so harsh at times. Maybe I should have had Lulu choose what activities she wanted to do.”
I am printing this out…is there a book in the works here??? Thanks for the discussion and time spent putting it on here!
Bonnie earlier articulated a number of the points I wanted to make, so here's a few more –
As a 4th generation Chinese-American, I actually had to go back a little bit in history, as I think my parents were a little "too" westernized.
I believe that Asian culture, in general, places greater value in a hard work ethic than in innate talent. Someone who is a plugger that doesn't quit, will, in the long run, outperform the talented but undisciplined individual. Mental discipline and toughness is a key component to success, and immigrant cultures in a feudal society having no shot at upward mobility except through civil service exams (as instituted in China) would naturally bring this with them. This is a principle that is borne out in countless examples in all cultures. Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" goes into this in great detail.
I have found that the self discipline from learning kung-fu at an early age has kep paying dividends for me in all my subsequent undertakings throughout life.
Mark, I agree there is a lot of stuff running through the comments on this article. Here are some observations I have after reading. I'll speak as a dad.
I have told my kids that one of the main reasons God has given them a Dad is to teach them to love Him more.
When I reflect the grace of God in their lives, or the Fatherly discipline of God in their lives, I am positively showing them a little picture of God. A picture that brings life.
Life, by the way, and spiritual health, comes in part by confining our behavior to certain norms or limits. Ideally such confinement arises out of a heart of Gospel gratitude, but in my experience, sometimes such a heart follows, rather than leads, the way.
Limits help me hear God, help me love God, help me suffer well, help me keep a kingdom mindset. They also help children.
Limits like going to bed at a certain time, being given a challenge to make a certain grade on a test, being urged to work as hard as I can on a project, or whatever.
Parents love their children when they give them such limits.
But it would be strange if I told my child to go to bed and found out that such a limit scarred him or her for life because he thought that was the "Good News."
No: confusion of that sort comes about (and it is all too common) over a wider range of spiritually abusive and sinful parenting and leadership of kids by well-meaning parents.
May God have mercy on me.
Speaking of sinful parenting, when I fail to reflect God's grace and degenerate in my parenting to that kind of manipulative and self-centered oppression that makes them into my image (one way or another) they suffer a test of their faith and (I believe) helped by God to see that I am not God, and that He loves them in spite of me.
I'm reminded of the New Yorker cartoon: woman comes home from work, briefcase in hand, and shouts at her dog: "sit down! roll over! make up for everything that's wrong in my life!"
In such sad/negative times, the limits I impose say more about my own idolatry than their positive "best interests."
Most parents can't figure this out on the way. My dad told me, "There aren't any classes you can take that will save you from making mistakes as a parent. And by the time you figure it out, its too late."
As parents, we only know in hindsight how much we have failed to help our kids (as the author of the article apparently has felt: I wish I had been more affirming, etc.)
Yet, God's sense of humor is such that we, none of us, are ultimately scarred; all our trials at the hands of our parents become the stuff of our salvation.
He ordains our parents to perfectly match what we need in order to cry out to him in our utter weakness, that in our weakness, He might be strong.