Proverbs 13:24: Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are careful to discipline them.

Proverbs 19:18: Discipline your children, for in that there is hope; do not be a willing party to their death.

Proverbs 22:15: Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.

Proverbs 23:13: Do not withhold discipline from children; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die.

Proverbs 23:14: Punish them with the rod and save them from death.

Certainly one could make an argument that "discipline" is vague word that justifies a morally accepted form, but it preposterous that spanking is excluded from that form. "Punishing them with the rod," the "rod of discipline," and "sparing of the rod" all imply a corporal form of discipline that is mandated to drive away "folly" and even save from death! It would seem that the principle that they are trying to teach is that the pain inflicted by corporal discipline disabuses one of more extensive pain down the road.

If this kind of discipline is nothing short of child abuse and a violation of the simplest ethics that protect human life it would seem that God has inspired a word that is completely false and manifestly hateful. That is, of course, it is, in fact, inspired. If it is not why should we see the pacifistic teachings of Jesus as authoritative? Could they not be the work of a biased scribe, not unlike those that penned the passages in Proverbs?

I can respect someone who makes the decision to refrain from corporal punishment, but it seems to be a bit judgmental to condemn those who do as engaging in a practice that is akin to spousal abuse (as if there were no qualified distinctions of maturity and authority innate to the parent/child relationship, quite unlike the marriage relationship [yes, I am an evangelical feminist]). It is true that many studies have shown negative effects on people from spanking, but I'm not sure how convincing they are. Certainly one could do a survey of families where it has a positive effect. Many of the commenters (including myself) have not reaped any ill effects from a loving form of corporal punishment. Evidence in this case only serves ideology, and it seems to me that the biblical record (which I find trustworthy) is far from condemning the practice and does not contain any trajectory hermeneutic that overrides it.

And it may surprise you, but I do inflict pain upon my child. We make her get shots. She has to go to bed at night. Sit in a carseat… What I don't do it hit her in order to make her fear me and obey me out of fear.

Why would it be okay to do that to a child, but it isn't to do it to an adult. If a man hits his child to discipline her and make her fear him it is defended as his right. Substitute the word "wife" for child there and it is abuse that he could be jailed for. I find that sad.

Given that pacifism is not the standard reading of the scripture, the onus is on you to prove that we must be pacifistic in our analysis of the issue. Of course, your argument would inherently apply also to the use of force by law enforcement (certainly including the use of handcuffs, which invariably inflict pain).

If you believe I am taking pacifist argumentation to unnecessary extremes, you are also charged with explaining why your opposition to spanking on pacifistic grounds is different.

If you argue that police may not use force, then you must argue just as fervently against any police action during an arrest.

And since "effectiveness" is not really one of my criterion regarding the morality of spanking, it doesn't really matter whether I can prove that spanking isn't effective. I happen to think that it usually isn't, but that is totally irrelevant. Even if it were completely effective, I would still think that it is wrong.

Whether or not it is the sum of it, you could at least address it without being petty. Your counterargument seems to boil down to the fact that you can't imagine a situation in which spanking would be the only option. That, and "Walter Wink says 'no'", which is hardly pursuasive.

If it is observed that spanking is effective (as it has been in Michael's case) then the onus is on you to prove that it cannot be effective, especially if you want to ban the practice.

But I'm still unclear on why you think spanking, as a form of discipline, should be practiced. From what I can gather your argument is basically that it sometimes "works". Is that right?

And yes, you're right, I don't think there is such a thing as "redemptive violence". (Redemptive discipline, of course; but redemptive violence, no.) I'm with Walter Wink on this one. I think the whole idea of redemptive violence is a myth. At best it can only ever the be the lesser of evils, and only used as a last resort. And I can't imagine too many situations as a parent where I would have no other resort than violence. It seems like there would always be some other way.

And just to clarify my question: I'm not expecting you to convince me to spank. I just want to know what reasons have convinced you to spank? Again, the only reason I could discern from your post was that "reason just doesn’t work all the time" and that "when… other approaches don’t work, a spanking has been the thing that has gotten her attention." Is that the sum of it?