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.”
Yesterday we took Emma to a local children’s museum. She calls the place the “museum house” and begs to go there. Basically it’s a place where the kids get to “play” with all sorts of educational installations that supposedly teach them about gravity, light, sound, wind… Mike had never been, so we braved a museum on a Saturday in winter (if it feels like winter, it’s still winter – the picture’s from last summer btw). To clarify, Mike braved the masses and interacted with Emma and I sorta waddled around and claimed whatever chair/bench I could find.
I was noticing this strange habit to shield children from death and violence the other day as I was watching Veggie Tales with Emma. Now I’ve been a fan of Veggie Tales for years (I did live in Wheaton during it’s heyday). On Friday nights when we weren’t studying, my friends and I would get together to watch Veggie Tale videos (aren’t you wishing you went to a Christian college too…). Anyway, what I noticed recently was the transformation over the years of the costumes for the Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything. In the original silly song by that name, Pa Grape sports a pirate hat complete with traditional skull and crossbones. 
But by the time those Pirates host the Silly Song countdown, the skull and crossbones have been replaced by a smiley face with an eyepatch (both can be observed in the video