Came across a Los Angeles Times article criticizing a Tea Party coloring book for kids. Fair enough. More interesting are the comments. Most take issue with the criticisms. Only a few take issue with the Tea Party movement and/or the coloring book.

One of the persons who takes issue with the Tea Party movement comments:

The Tea Party “claims” to be for small government, yet many of the candidates that are currently running for office think nothing of promoting ideas in which the government has jurisdiction over our private affairs and sex lives. That isn’t smaller government to me.

This is a point others have made. “You conservatives claim you believe in freedom and smaller government. And yet you have no problem supporting laws against same-sex marriage or elective abortion. These are private matters. In a way you want an even more intrusive government”.

It is not a bad argument. There are a few responses.

Really? Which Tea Party candidates – and how many are there really? – are promoting such laws? It is true that many social conservatives are part of the Tea Party movement. But for the most part it seems that the Tea Party movement and Tea Party candidates are being careful to focus on a broader consensus regarding smaller government and less government spending.

The person quoted above surely exaggerates. Although there is at least one example. Joe Miller running for United States Senator from Alaska.

A stronger response is to point out that smaller government means smaller government. It does not mean less government on every single issue. Let me put it this way. A statist might want the government to control 50% of everything we say do and spend. A classic liberal might want the government to control 10% of everything we say do and spend.

But it is entirely possible for a classic liberal to believe the government should control some things that the statist thinks the government should not control. That does not mean the classic liberal contradicts herself when she advocates more liberty and less government. As long as overall there is a net increase in liberty and a net decrease in the size and scope of government. Ten percent of our lives is still much less than fifty percent of our lives. It is entirely possible for someone to say “the government should intervene in how we define marriage or family relationships or at what stage a human being deserves legal protection – but it should not intervene in how much money we make or where we go to school or what kind of health care we receive or what legal contracts we honor or what political and religious opinions we hold or express and so on and so on”.

Smaller government means exactly that. Small-er government.

This is why when some Christians err when they invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics against the(?) theory of evolution.

Basically the argument goes like this.

Evolutionary theory states that things are becoming more organized and complex as organisms evolve naturally over time. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the amount of order in a system decreases over time. There is no way that organisms could evolve without divine intervention.

There is a colossal problem with this common argument against evolutionary theory. It misunderstands and misapplies the Second law of Thermodynamics also known as the Law of Entropy.

So long as there is a net overall decrease in energy and order in the universe – it is entirely possible for there to be local instances of increased energy and order. Or as Professor Alan McNeil said to those of us studying biology at Cornell University “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we have to eat lunch”. Yes human beings are examples of order and organization. But we have to eat lunch. Something that is ordered and organized – food – must be destroyed in order for us to continue.

Not to mention the fact that we grow old and die. Even lunch cannot stave off the long term effects of the Law of Entropy.

Automobiles are examples of order and organization. But they use up large amounts of fuel. There is a net decrease in order in order to maintain a local instance of organization.

And yes this opens up a whole list of theological questions which will be raised in a future post.

Partly because pastors need to eat as well as feed and partly because I was sick of listening to the Jim Engster Show (which often is on NPR when I drive) I made an effort to find and download sermons which I would listen to in my car.

I chose Paul Zahl now rector or All Saints Episcopal(?!?) Church in Chevy Chase, Maryland and before that dean of Trinity Episcopal(?!?) School for Ministry near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Zahl enjoys science fiction and old movies and rock music. I think (more on this in a moment) I like his theology which centers largely around the idea of grace. He often critiques the Christian church for (according to him) becoming largely centered around law and judgment.

He has a short series of sermons/talks on parenting by grace. Rather than by law and judgment. Law and judgment are “do this or else” and “you disobeyed me what is your problem I am going to let you have it!” Zahl makes much of the Pauline argument that (1) human beings are naturally sinful/messed-up and (2) while law judges sin it does not improve behavior or increase love in fact it does the opposite – it sparks rebellion disobedience and anger. He gives a few examples of what parenting by grace might look like (such as when a son wants to move to live with a girlfriend the parents do not approve of, or when the teenage daughter in a devout evangelical family chews out her mother with vile language at the dinner table).

But still – while it is a great idea how exactly does one parent by grace? List the examples and the situations. Then tell me what exactly you say or do when your child (especially a teenager) speaks and behaves in certain ways?

For about the last two weeks I have been sharing this with my wife and trying it out even if imperfectly. Feeling my way clumsily through a principle that is long on power but short on specifics.

One daughter “cops an attitude” all day and is blatantly disrespectful to her parents at the dinner table. “Go to your room”. No – I won’t.

(Wow. It is one thing when a child does something wrong. It is quite another when they will not even accept discipline for what they do wrong.)

We tried something along the lines of “your mother has spent a lot of time with you today, bought you some things, and that is why it is difficult when you treat her this way” and “we would like you to spend some time in your room so you can have some peace and quiet”. And although we threatened to make her stay in there all evening and not attend a major school function later that week… after about an hour we said “we would like to enjoy spending the rest of the evening with you” and “if you still want to go to this event you can find some ways to show that”.

Rather than you are a disrespectful disobedient and ungrateful wretch and your punishment is… blah blah blah.

I thought that was roughly what “parenting by grace” might look like in this situation.

Last night our two children were fighting/arguing. Over something to do with the computer (often that or something to do with television). “We would like you to go to your rooms so that you can have a peaceful and quiet evening” and even “yeah that is frustrating that she got twice as many points on that website than you”.

They go to their rooms and start getting ready for bed.

I head back there to check on them and sure enough one child is in the other’s bedroom looking for and demanding something (a frequent problem and source of contention). I get that child into her room and try the “grace” approach. “Yes that is frustrating” and “How about you get ready for bed so that you can get enough rest for tomorrow?”

But she would not shut up. Kept beating the issue. She has and I don’t and she has and I don’t and that’s not fair and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…. interrupting me and not stopping and not responding positively to my several minutes of trying to be non-law and non-judgment with her.

And that is when I lost it. Big time. Did and said things no father (let alone a Christian or a pastor) should say and do.

I don’t know.

Either Zahl is brilliantly correct or stupefyingly wrong about all this. And frankly I cannot figure out what grace-ful parenting specifically looks like in these situations. “Don’t judge. Don’t throw the law at them. Forgive. Love. And always pray for them”. Sounds great in theory but exactly what does one do and say in various situations?

Frankly I am ready to give up on the whole enterprise. But law/judgment does not seem to work much better – all that seems to get is more disrespect back-talking and disobedience and certainly more contention in the home.

Is grace-ful parenting truly possible?