Spanking Continued…
Okay perhaps I am really really stupid to create a separate post for this, but I wanted to address a few of the common objections raised in my recent post on spanking. I've addressed the issue in general before (here, here, and here), so here I just want to address three common rationales others give for why they spank. I started to put this in the comments, but it got too long, so it gets a post (although I may regret it). It is interesting that all the comments so far have been from the pro-spanking crowd, but this is a mostly Christian blog so that isn't very surprising. And in case you are thinking that this is an odd topic to kick off the holiday weekend with, let me say that the first time I questioned the justness of spanking was on Christmas Day when I was around 8 or 9. My youngest brother had done something wrong and my mom went for the wooden spoon to spank him. My other brother and I were so appalled at the idea of spanking on Christmas Day, that my brother grabbed the spoon from my mom, threw it across the room and shattered it. I don't recall what happened next, just how utterly wrong we both found spanking on Christmas to be. So here goes, my response to common rationales for spanking (on Christmas or otherwise). Enjoy or ignore as you wish.
Rationale #1 – Parents have authority over children so therefore they can hit them.
This argument is generally given to support why it is okay to hit children when it is not okay for a man to hit his wife. It would appear though that it would then only be in feminist egalitarian households where the husband isn't assumed to have authority over the wife where such logic could be applied. If one sees the wife as being under the authority of a husband then does it become okay for him to hit her? Similarly such logic would allow masters to hit slaves (or employers to hit employees?). If one takes the Bible seriously about fathers not exasperating children, husbands and wives submitting to each other, and masters not threatening slaves but treating them fairly, the hierarchical right to hit seems a bit out of place.
Rationale #2 – Biblical passages advising parents not to "spare the rod."
As mentioned in the thread passages like -
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.
There are two responses I could give to this rationale. The first would be to question the validity of those OT passages in light of NT exhortations to love and care for others. One could quote any number of other OT passages that we question today and wonder why these ones are still followed. I mean we eat pigs, wear clothing of mixed fabric, don't insist women marry the man who raped them, don't stone our children (which I think the death references above refer to – discipline children so you don't have to stone them for disobeying you, a whole different issue), and don't encourage poor people to drown their troubles in alcohol (Proverbs 31 if you were wondering). Times change, cultures change. yadda, yadda, yadda…
Or one could question the literal interpretation of "rod" in those verses. The use of the term "rod" in those verses (preceded by the article "the", not "a") is the Hebrew word "shebet" which could also be translated "authority." In many cases in the scripture the rod is used as a metaphor for authority. There are a few places when the rod referred to is literal. Shepherds carried staffs and rods (thy rod and thy staff they comfort me). The staff was used to guide sheep, but the rod was used against predators. The rod would never ever be used on the sheep – the precious livelihood of the shepherd, he guides them but does not beat them.
Then in Exodus 21:20 we are told, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished." If "a rod" could kill a grown slave, why would God then promise in Proverbs 23:13 that “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.” The first is I think referring to physically beating a person, the second is a call to discipline with "the rod" – a metaphor for authority. Disciplining with authority does not necessarily mean hitting a person. Of course, many then say that this just means we shouldn't hit our children with physical objects, only with our hands. I disagree, but I don't see ability to beat a person as a symbol of authority.
But even if someone insists on a literal interpretation of rod as physical object and pushes the idea "spare the rod spoil the child" there are still other issues to deal with. BTW, that phrase is not biblical. It echoes Biblical passages but derives from a satirical epic poem by Samuel Butler called Hudibras which is about the Puritans and their separation from the king. The line originally had to do with sex (I'll leave it up to you to figure it out). But I digress. If "shebet" is to be interpreted as a literal rod, then "na'ar" generally translated in English as child, should be literally translated as well. In Hebrew the term does not imply generic child, but males (specifically male slaves) over the age of 12 and under the age of 20. So if anyone is to be hit with a rod it should only be the males (possibly just the male slaves) over the age of 12 – the age by which even spanking advocates like Dobson say spanking should end by (he says it should start at 18 months). A consistent interpretation, would question many present spanking practices.
Rationale #3 – Spanking is effective.
I have to ask – effective at what? From what I know spanking is sometimes effective at getting children to avoid certain behaviors out of fear of getting punished if they get caught. Statistics actually show that children who are spanked are likely to misbehave more if spanking is used regularly. If raising a child who avoids doing bad things or avoids getting caught is the goal of your parenting then spanking might be called effective (to which I once again ask the pragmatists if the ends justify the means). What spanking doesn't do is teach a child to choose to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Big difference there. Sure some kids gain such intrinsic motivation to be a good person in spite of spanking but not because they were spanked.
Yes, I see the need for discipline and guidance for children. I recognize the Biblical call to discipline, I just don't think it mandates hitting. And the household codes of the NT call into question any assumptions of violence or harsh authority as well. Loving our children involves discipline, but not fear and violence. I John 4.18 "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Just a few thoughts from a mom of 3 kids under 6 yrs: I think that how we view the role of parenting is going to greatly affect the way we view discipline. One of my favourite quotes (source escapes me right now) is "we are not raising up children but future adults." I view my job as parent as moulding my children vs. one of controlling their behaviour. The job of moulding takes time, creativity and a lot of critical thinking. It also requires me to be very relational as I deal with each of my children just a little bit differently to recognize the different personalities they possess. Natural consequences are a huge part of the discipline at our house for both the right and wrong choices.
My personal experiences with spanking (raised in a house where there was a "special" spoon for such occasions) were so negative and disrespectful that it's just not even an option here. Watching other parents and their approach to spanking, I have yet to see it used as a well thought out approach to parenting. I have only ever seen it used as a reaction to undesirable behaviour. I have also found that children in those situations (as I have not seen every parent who spanks in action) are just really good at being "sneaky" and figuring out how to do certain things without getting "caught".
Not in any way saying I am a perfect parent, just joining the conversation….
I think the heart of this issue is about the way that we approach parenting. For us, the need to discipline was based on respect. We have always tried – even when frustrated – to explain things clearly and coherently to our daughter (now almost 15). Has it been effective? We like to think so, but the real test is how she behaves when we're not around.
Would it have been more difficult with more than one child? Probably! Would spanking then be appropriate? Not for us.
One final thought – the absence of spanking is not the absence of discipline. Perhaps the church has a role to play here in providing support and guidance for couples before and after they become parents – after all, there is no dress rehearsal for having children!
Your critique of rationale #3 is the main reason my wife and I decided not to spank our children. It makes no logical sense. Take the example of my child hitting another child. Should I spank him? Should I hit him to teach him not to hit others.
I don't think spanking done within certain parameters is abusive, but I also don't think it's effective.
Now how can I save this so I can find it easily when the discussion comes up?
I spanked my son. I really regret it … and I have told him so. He doesn't spank his son. And at 11, he's a really great kid.
In Sweden, where I live with my family spanking is illegal since the early eighties. So I don´t spank. But I wouldn´t have anyway.
Being a parent, now that my kids are in their teens, has much more to it than imposing "respect" (whatever that means?) or "discipline" (Yet another ambigous word…)
A disciplined human being takes leadership over himself (herself) regardless of the situation, but somewhat in tune with the situation pf course. This involves reflecting upon values and experience, compassion, wisdom and more. My firm belief is that niether of these kan be spanked into my kids minds or hearts. And my goal as a parent is for them to take leadership over their lives. By earning their respect through demonstrating discipline in my own life I hope to enjoy a lifetime of admiring their life choises.
They are already the pride of my life and I rest assure that they will continue to be just that.
/Magnus
To be accurate, your initial post had to do with you equating parents who give their child an occasional swat on the bottom with some lowlife who beat a kid to death for irritating him. The principal objection from nearly everyone that I saw had nothing to do with the rationale for spanking. That didn't come up until later in the discussion when Mike finally asked us to offer reasons. Our point was that you were tragically oversimplifying the issue and losing perspective.
As I said in my one comment, I'm not going to defend the rare instances when I have spanked my kids because I don't feel the need. None of the arguments that you have offered (for example, it's discipline out of fear) matches in any way the reasons why we have decided to do so, and none of the results you have described matches what we have seen in our family life. Clearly, we're just talking right past each other.
On the other hand, neither I nor any of the other previous commenters attempted to persuade you or anyone else to start spanking your kids. If your conscience tells you its wrong, then obey your conscience. I sincerely applaud your intentions. In the meantime, however, perhaps you could avoid calling the rest of us child-abusers.
I feel like the way you have characterized others' rationales is fallacious. I wouldn't say my rationale for spanking is any of those, except to say that I do believe that spanking is biblical. Of course, that alone doesn't mean that it is called for as the means for discipline in all cases. Discipline is to teach, not to punish, and we would do well to remember that always. However, I do not believe that spanking and loving are mutually exclusive and it is there where you and I may disagree.
The real problem with spanking, as with most things we do, is not the spanking itself. It is the attitude with which we do it. Most parents do not discipline lovingly; instead, they punish in anger. Often, it is because they haven't disciplined early enough, lovingly enough, and when the behaviors reach the high point, anger boils over and rash spanking begins. That is the problem that more than likely creates this debate.
Thanks for the comments. As I mentioned these were just three common reason people give for spanking not a complete list. (read my other posts on the topic to hear what I think about parents who believe their children won't be saved eternally unless they are spanked…).
I very much agree with those who want to make it know that just because I don't spank doesn't mean I don't discipline. I think that's what most people hear and then start defending spanking as the only form of discipline ever to exist. that and I get a lot of very guilty yelling at me about how if I had their horrible kids I would spank too. It gets scary sometimes.
This has been a process that I have thought through and researched. I remember as late as high school debating on the pro-spanking side. And interestingly enough, although I've read the Hebrew interpretation of those words in numerous places, I often find them on pro-spanking sites. Generally used in those contexts to show that Christians aren't all freaks that insist on beating children with rods.
Actually, I never said I was or wasn't pro spanking, you just assumed it, just as you assumed that all spanking leads to child abuse! There are lots of parents who NEVER spank their kids, but are more abusive than most parents who spank would ever be.
Are these rationales for banning the practice of spanking? This is what your original post was about. I'll assume this to be the case.
Your response to rationale #1 makes no sense. I may not spank my wife (at least not in any context befitting description on a Christian blog). Neither may I keep her in the house, order her to take time-out, or generally discipline her in anyway at all.
All of these things would result in jail time, were I to continue to insist on my power to enforce their adherence.
You offer three response to rationale #2. You first argument, that NT exhortations to love each other, assumes that one cannot spank out of love. In other words, one must cede your larger argument in order to accept you smaller argument.
Proverbs does not delineate between disciplining a child and loving them, so I don't see why the NT would trump any Proverb commanding the use of the rod (however you choose to define it). Your insinuation (that spanking is an act of hate) would be very insulting to a number of people.
The second is the usual response I hear whenever anyone encounters any scripture in the old testament with which they are uncomfortable. I call it the shellfish fallacy. "If x is wrong, then we can't eat shellfish either".
It is effective in casual conversation, because why and how Jesus fulfilled the law is a lengthy discussion. For now I'll simply say that the argument has the potential to render null the Old Testament in it's entirety, which in turn calls into question the veracity of the New Testament.
The third is the most common response, which is that the rod may not refer to a physical rod. Incidentally, this is invariably accompanied by the trivia about the "spare the rod, spoil the child" line. There must be a talking-points pamphlet somewhere.
However, by your concession, the word does refer to a literal rod elsewhere. You ask why we would want to use an item with which we could beat our kids to death. That is a fair question.
Perhaps God trusts parents with the discernment (even if you don't) to figure out that they shouldn't hit their kids hard enough to kill them. I know dozens of parents who have possess such discernment. It is surprisingly common.
Either way, you are left with the fact that the only Biblical reference to discipline of any kind consistently uses the rod language. If this would cause parents to sin by being unloving or murderous, why use the language over and over?
I would be interested in hearing more about the reference to adolescents. If this is the case, then why have so many Bible translators come up with such similar translations? Are they all applying inconsistent translation? Why would a word that means older adolescent be used in reference to parental authority in OT times?
Your response to rationale #3 is to suggest that children only behave out of fear of getting spanked. This is an argument against discipline as the end of parenting, not an argument against spanking.
You conclude with an irrelevant reference to fear and violence.
You discipline in hopes of correcting a behavior, yes? How does discipline correct a behavior if not to instill a fear of more discipline should the behavior continue?
As for violence, you are perfectly capable of striking a difference between vaccinations and violent acts. But that is purely a judgment call on your part, based upon your knowledge of the beneficial effects of vaccines.
If we are to take a literal "all hitting equals unloving fear-inducing violence" tact, then we should certainly apply it to the act of thrusting needles into our children.
Alternately, we can apply common sense to the situation. Honestly, if spanking were illegal, what would you want the punishment to be? What would consitute spanking vs. arm grabbing?
Is arm grabbing okay to enforce timeout-related discipline, or is it only okay with respect to the interference with horseplay and/or the occassional breakout of tackle football (itself the progeny of a violence-obsessed culture?).
Or, we can just let people raise their own children within our existing framework of laws.
After reading an article about the horrifying murder of a child, why not simply lament that state of a fallen world instead of applying it as a case study in support of a pet issue?
At minimum, the latter impulse detracts from your advocacy on this issue, if not your ministry entire.
This went on longer than I intended, but I thought it would be condescending to simply write " COMMON SENSE LADY! COMMON SENSE! ". And it would have been a bit violent as well.
Julie, as JMM notes in comment 6 your replies don't seem to incorporate what's been written here. They seem to be aimed at caricatures you have about those who believe spanking is one, of many, proper forms of discipline.
I know I am glad that God has dealt with me in ways that are analogous to spankings. The Lord chastens those He loves. Praise God! He has delivered me often through loving discipline.
Hey sister! Merry Christmas to you guys in that cold-cold-cold Chi-town season of winter. Aleta and I are soaking up our first Arizona Christmas since the move… nice change fer sher.
So here's my question, how do you suggest parents discipline kids between the ages of 2 and 4?
I am a pretty conservative person and would classify myself as a strict parent. With that being said, my husband and I choose not to spank. Neither of us consider ourselves victims of child abuse, but we both experienced our own parents taking "spanking a little too far" when we were kids. I think there needs to be a distinction between "spanking" and "hitting." One of my parents spanked and I don't think it was ineffective discipline. We actually got a choice between being spanked or a fifteen minute time out (I think this was pre-school or early elementary years). However one of my parents hit out of anger on a few occassions. This was not effective. I daresay it made me feel like a horrible child at times and effected my self esteem. My husband (who experienced similar things from one parent) said it made him afraid of that parent. This kept him from having a positive relationship with that parent.
So we choose not to spank because we feel like we would be taking it too far and doing it out of anger. I feel the strong temptation to repeat the pattern this same parent did to me when my two year old gets under my skin.
As for discipling children between the ages of 2 and 4. I am no expert and I am still learning as I go. But I do think consistency is key. Establish rules and boundaries and stick to them. Kids need routine. For instance our two year old knows she has to pick up her toys before she gets ready for bed every night. I have also learned I have to stay calm and speak in a firm voice at her level. We always give her a warning and then do a two and half minute time out. This really works for her. It may not work for every child especially a stronger willed child (she is very laid back–would not classify her as strong willed). I think sometimes you need to have a sense of humor and not be so serious about everything. For instance if she doesn't go down for her nap right away, she likes to trash her room and empty out all her drawers. It used to drive me crazy. Now I just make her clean it all up before she goes to bed and not get so uptight about it.
I have three daughters. 19, 15, and 11. We never spanked and never had ANY trouble coming up with various consequences to enforce the boundaries we set. All three of mine were very well-behaved kids and our whole family is very close. If hitting a child is the only way you have of exercising your power, you're already in trouble. Even if spanking does work, it's definitely not the best option we found.
"Are these rationales for banning the practice of spanking?"
It's pretty clear that this was not the point of this post. Julie specifically said:
She also didn't say that all spanking advocates would give these rationales. If some of you wouldn't use these reasons, then fine, she wasn't addressing you – but that doesn't make them "caricatures". These are rationales that others have given and which she is responding to. If you have a better rationale, then please, give that instead. So far I haven't heard any that would convince me that spanking is a better option than not spanking.
Mike wrote: "So far I haven’t heard any that would convince me that spanking is a better option than not spanking."
And that's cool. However, here's the tone I've been hearing on both sides of this debate: I do (or don't) spank, here's my rationale. My rationale is superior to the rationale of those in the other camp, therefore they should not (or should begin) spank.
My children are (4 days shy of) 14 and 10. We spanked for a while when they were little. We had some good reasons for it, which I am not going to share here because they are our reasons which are pertinent to our family. Every family is different and has different needs and goals in life. So does each child within that family. What works for one family may not work for others. What works for one child within a family may not work for other children in that family. So I find that making blanket statements like spanking works or doesn't. Or, spanking is or isn't humane. Or whatever are really along the lines of poking at the logs in each others eyes. None of us know all of the particulars that go into the decisions that parents make. But we might all assume that parents love their children and are attempting to do so to the best of their abilities. And leave it at that.
"It’s pretty clear that this was not the point of this post."
But this post is a follow up to her previous post, which called for a ban on spanking. Is she abandoning that position? If so, then all she is really saying is that she is not going to spank her kids, which is not controversial.
To claify.
I don't spank and I think spanking should be banned.
I am not giving a complete justification for my beliefs here. I have a handful of posts that focus on different aspects of this issue. I responded to a few issues that I saw to be common and which intrigued me. and no I never made any attempt to respond to everything.
I stated my opinion on my blog. This is an issue I have thought a lot about and have changed my mind on as I studied it more. I do think it is a moral issue and a serious question as one looks at respecting the image of God in others. I know that most of the Christian world disagrees with me.
I was unsure if this could be a conversation as it appears most comments are expecting stuff from me that wasn't my intention to give. I know this doesn't address most questions, but my point is to clarify my interaction at the moment.
If I author an inflammatory argument, then I usually make an effort to bolster that position with evidence and make my case. Insinuating a link between spanking and murder comes across as irrational. Given that this is how most people regard those who would ban spanking, I wonder how that benefits your cause, but it's your blog.
kevin speak with some love man……. love is patient — love is kind it does not envy –love does not brag and is not proud…….
we are all imperfect creatures……saved by grace….. where is the grace??? lets pray for one another and our society as to how we should approach these discussions……
so um, Julie, I am just curious since you want to enact laws to ban spanking and equate it with abuse. Since you are in ministry, you would be a mandated reporter. Are you prepared to turn most of your church over to the hands of the law to be fined, punished, jailed, whatever you think their penalty should be for having a difference of opinion with you? How would you handle it if spanking was made illegal and now you know a lot of your congregants, otherwise loving parents, are engaging in child abuse? I know that the law mandates one to turn in suspected abuse (and so it should be if we are talking real abuse) so then, logically speaking, you would feel obligated to rat out all of these people who have put their trust in you and your husband.
Liz, maybe she is hoping that those parents would at least try some of the proven alternatives to spanking in at least an attempt to remain law-abiding citizens. Also, since she obviously feels that hitting children should be a crime, like hitting just about anyone else against their will is a crime, then she might believe that breaking the law would justify a fine. Also, she would only have to report if she saw evidence, which means that either they do it in public (when you rebuke, do it in private or else he may think you his enemy), there are marks, which often is abuse under the current law, or they are bragging about it, which is kinda sickening in itself. I guess I don't know exactly what her answer would be, but there are some logical and poignant ones out there.
Asking a advice : I am a hispanic mother , and i would wish to know when the use of the rod of correction may be stop ?
When the children are 15 years old , more than that age limit or before of it ?
In our home my husband use the rod for punish our two guirls 11 and 13 years old , for it i need know when the rod must finish his work .
Please contact me in this email account : generosa47@yahoo.es