A Biblical Perspective on Spanking, Part 1

Thanks for that, Aaron.

This caught my eye (no doubt because of the post right before yours):

The primary test of what kind of pain/negative consequence (a.k.a. “rod”) a parent uses is effectiveness.

May I conclude then, that you have no problem with my non-spanking discipline methods since I can assure you that they are effective?

[Aaron Blumer]

5. I can’t find any basis in Scripture or experience for the idea that physical pain is worse than other kinds of pain. (Experience suggest the opposite is true!)

This is obviously only anecdotal, but my experience certainly bears out this observation. When I was very young, I couldn’t imagine a worse punishment than a spanking. As I got older, I quickly started to realize that the spanking was the *best* punishment from my point of view. The consequences were much more temporary than even having my mouth washed out with soap (which usually lasted well into the next day), or loss of privileges, which could last weeks or more, and also resulted in shaming in front of anyone who found out, whereas a spanking from my parents could be kept completely private.

By the time I was a teen, spanking was almost completely ineffective, since it was pretty easy to bear (remember, unlike caning, spanking doesn’t really have lasting consequences, and doesn’t cause permanent injury), and as a result, my parents used it much less frequently. It was much more effective (for me) when I was a small child. I certainly agree that physical pain (not referring to God’s variety that will be used in eternal punishment) was NOT the worst type of pain I could experience when I was punished.

I actually printed out this list and have been thinking about it. I have some comments and questions.

First I wanted to say that discipline is essentially a positive thing, though it is not at times or even usually pleasant. I mean that discipline, broadly, is the whole scope of what we impart to the disciplined one. Learning to brush your teeth every day is a form of discipline, for example. Learning to obey habitually is a discipline. I, as a mother, am asking God to teach me the discipline of speaking in kind, respectful tones of voice to my children, for example. This is a really hard experience for me, painful in the sense of having to humble my fleshly responses to become submitted to let Christ’s thoughts and mindset come through me. I am also being disciplined by the responsibilties of having the care of home and children—the tasks of constantly cooking and cleaning, for example, don’t come naturally and require discipline on my part, self-control, giving up what I would much rather be doing and hopefully finding the joy of being with Christ in the denial of self for the sake of serving others.

I mean to say that discipline is a lot more than mainly pain infliction and negativity.

[Aaron Blumer] Parental discipline involves, at minimum, the intentional use of negative consequences for wrong behavior.

What makes a consequence “negative” from the child’s point of view is the pain of it.

Pain takes many forms from disappointment, to loss, to grief, to sorrow, to temporarily sore backside.

I will leave most of this for now, but I will point out that pain is also just the struggle with the flesh, making myself do what I don’t really want to do at the moment in order to gain a greater good goal. To use Paul’s analogy, athletes do a lot of painful (in a healthy way) things to their bodies to make them fit for winning. It’s discipline, it’s most of what discipline is about.

[Aaron Blumer] Pain and “harm” (or “injury”) are not the same thing and must be distinguished (the way many lump them together is intellectually dishonest).

I can agree with that strictly, but it also should be said that, just as you pointed out that pain can take many forms, inflicting pain in a non-injuring way can be tricky—what if you’re not physically causing deformity or breaking bones or causing kidney failure, but causing real harm in a different form that you cannot see?

[Aaron Blumer] I can’t find any basis in Scripture or experience for the idea that physical pain is worse than other kinds of pain. (Experience suggest the opposite is true!)

I don’t know that Scripture directly addresses this either, but this is what the issue of physical-intentional-pain-infliction-of-small-children came down to for me Scripturally: I did a study of all the times in Scripture that small children are mentioned and how God portrays small children to us, and what His own communicated-to-us thoughts are about small children… . That is how I came to my personal conviction of finding non-striking, non-adversarial, non-promoting-my-own-power ways of guiding my children into good disciplines. (I am sadly far from perfect at denying myself those things, but it’s how I am trying to have God’s heart toward young children.)

[Aaron Blumer] The primary test of what kind of pain/negative consequence (a.k.a. “rod”) a parent uses is effectiveness.

Pragmatically, I agree with this. Theoretically, I am not sure I do, and I’m not sure you do either, if you think about it. If the method seems to work, then it’s OK?

For example, I used to say all day long, “S, if you don’t do X, then I will spank you.” S would immediately comply. This threat worked effectively. But it was a dark, negative time of mothering for me. It worked, but it wasn’t good.

[Aaron Blumer] Small children readily understand pain as an immediate consequence in situations where other kinds of correction are confusing (because of the level of thinking required to connect act to consequence).

I really disagree with this from my day-to-day experience. For example, our little 3yo nephew lives with us, has lived with us for over a month now. I’m teaching him to obey me. So yesterday, he throws this Christmas tree ornament on the floor, and starts to just crawl away. I say, “K, please pick up the ornament and bring it to me.” He refuses. So I scoop him up and set him on the couch and say, “when you are ready to pick up the ornament, then you can get down and go play.” He understands perfectly. He sulks a bit and lays there. I can’t remember if he cried. Then after a few moments, he gets the ornament, gives it to me, and goes to play.

Now, I didn’t cause him any type of physical pain. I’m just trying to gently but firmly teach him that mommy’s words need to be obeyed. Also, I have noticed that many times, my children are trying to communicate something else when they refuse to obey. And I can usually tell it now, what’s going on. So obedience is still necessary, but I also try to meet the real need that is being communicated by the disobedience.

[Aaron Blumer] Kids need to begin developing moral perspective (to think in terms of right vs. wrong) long before they are old enough to understand the gospel (the gospel is predicated on “wrong” and “sin” being terms that carry real meaning).

I’m not sure this is true. By the time a child can grasp the “moral” reason they are obeying or not, they can also grasp the gospel, that Jesus died for the bad things I do.

[Aaron Blumer] The use of real discipline (a.k.a., negative consequences, etc.) is not compatible incompatible with teaching the gospel. There is no disjunction between the two.

Maybe it depends on what one is really emphasizing in the gospel. What is the gospel? That Christ lived a sinless life for my account; He died bearing the punishment for my sinful life; now I follow in His steps by living a servant-life of love to God and others (which includes obedience).

[Aaron Blumer] Finally, even in a soteriologically-driven approach to parenting, it’s evident that sinners must learn law before they can learn grace. Good parenting begins with law, and teaches grace in that context.

But really, to me this seems to put one on a hopeles circle. The law shows us that we can never ever measure up. The law is to teach my kids their hopelessness of ever being able to obey it fully. So I would be punishing them for not achieving something they can never achieve … . Grace is that Christ obeyed the law on our behalf; that we are free from that heavy burden and free to obey for love of Christ, though the obedience is always imperfect.

Two other issues that should be addressed in this are 1) using fear (of pain/punishment) as a primary discipline tool is problematic, I think, Scripturally. 2) understanding the importance of my completed sanctification (in Christ) and how God accepts me based on that and not on my progressive sanctification is something that has changed me a lot internally, too, and changed how I view parenting. I will have to think about why exactly, and how to express it.

[Anne Sokol] I mean to say that discipline is a lot more than mainly pain infliction and negativity.

Yes, this is why I said “at a minimum.” We do use the word “discipline” in more than one sense, though they are related. The positive part is really the outcome. The process is inherently painful, even if the “pain” is that of getting up earlier than you want, practicing longer than you want, etc. So, whether it’s self-discipline or parental discipline it involves “enduring hardship” (2Tim.2:3-7 is helpful).

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Pain and “harm” (or “injury”) are not the same thing and must be distinguished (the way many lump them together is intellectually dishonest).

I can agree with that strictly, but it also should be said that, just as you pointed out that pain can take many forms, inflicting pain in a non-injuring way can be tricky—what if you’re not physically causing deformity or breaking bones or causing kidney failure, but causing real harm in a different form that you cannot see?

Yes. But this goes back to a point I emphasized in another thread— there is no substitute for virtuous parents. On this particular point, it isn’t even virtue that’s required: just a little bit of sense. There is no need to go beyond what is obviously safe (and I don’t mean “safe from prosecution;” I mean safe for the child).

If you give yourself a couple whacks on the hand to calibrate, you even know how much pain is involved as well as whether injury is occurring.

It really isn’t rocket science.

Where parents get into trouble with this is if they’ve bought into some notion that a particular response from the child is necessary and they have to keep hitting until they get it. It would be hard to overstate how wrongheaded I believe that is.

But we also get into trouble when we try to develop a parenting strategy/method that we hope will compensate for a bad parent. There is no such method. God’s design is for children to be disciplined by good parents, not disciplined with a good method by bad parents, know what I mean?

There is no safe method where foolish moms and dads are involved.

[Anne] I don’t know that Scripture directly addresses this either, but this is what the issue of physical-intentional-pain-infliction-of-small-children came down to for me Scripturally: I did a study of all the times in Scripture that small children are mentioned and how God portrays small children to us, and what His own communicated-to-us thoughts are about small children… . That is how I came to my personal conviction of finding non-striking, non-adversarial, non-promoting-my-own-power ways of guiding my children into good disciplines.

I’d be interested in what passages led you to this conclusion.

Question: what’s wrong with power?

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] The primary test of what kind of pain/negative consequence (a.k.a. “rod”) a parent uses is effectiveness.

Pragmatically, I agree with this. Theoretically, I am not sure I do, and I’m not sure you do either, if you think about it. If the method seems to work, then it’s OK?

No, my point is that we already know the method is good, the particular form is chosen based on effectiveness. To use an analogy, we know from Scripture that teaching children is good. What sort of method we use (pictures, songs, stories, tactile practice, etc.) depends largely on what works.

[Anne] For example, I used to say all day long, “S, if you don’t do X, then I will spank you.” S would immediately comply. This threat worked effectively. But it was a dark, negative time of mothering for me. It worked, but it wasn’t good.

There’s a difference between “bad idea” and “poor execution of a good idea.” This is one of those cases. I always say that the best disciplinary tool is the one you hardly ever use. If you have to use it often, it’s not working.

I’ve found that it’s very effective to deliver a very small negative consequence along with some communication that more of that is likely if there isn’t a change. This approach gets rid of a whole lot of threatening, which tends to be meaningless until the parent actually does something.

But again, anti-spanking advocates often seem to get the impression that pro-spanking advocates think spanking is something you do early and often. I’m not of that persuasion. My view is simply that pain is pain and there is no reason to take the judicious use of physical pain off the list of available resources.

(One of my kids was never responsive at all to spanking. So the “rod” meant non-physical methods in that case. For the other one, even a token spanking is quite meaningful…. so far. But again, anything you use a lot is no longer working.)

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Small children readily understand pain as an immediate consequence in situations where other kinds of correction are confusing (because of the level of thinking required to connect act to consequence).

I really disagree with this from my day-to-day experience. For example, our little 3yo nephew lives with us, has lived with us for over a month now. I’m teaching him to obey me. So yesterday, he throws this Christmas tree ornament on the floor, and starts to just crawl away. I say, “K, please pick up the ornament and bring it to me.” He refuses. So I scoop him up and set him on the couch and say, “when you are ready to pick up the ornament, then you can get down and go play.” He understands perfectly. He sulks a bit and lays there. I can’t remember if he cried. Then after a few moments, he gets the ornament, gives it to me, and goes to play.

Now, I didn’t cause him any type of physical pain.

I don’t disagree with any of that. It sounds pretty effective. My view is that pain is pain and if K is not responsive to the pain of having to sit and do nothing for a while, a parent should not be shy about a slap on the wrist or whack on the behind. Sometimes parents unduly exhaust themselves trying to avoid simpler ways of communicating. But I’m not against a time out if it works.

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Kids need to begin developing moral perspective (to think in terms of right vs. wrong) long before they are old enough to understand the gospel (the gospel is predicated on “wrong” and “sin” being terms that carry real meaning).

I’m not sure this is true. By the time a child can grasp the “moral” reason they are obeying or not, they can also grasp the gospel, that Jesus died for the bad things I do.

I may not have been clear. I’m not talking about grasping reasons. Kids have to learn the basic concept of right and wrong before they learn why anything is right or wrong. When we’re little, we take these things on authority—on our confidence in whoever is telling us. So long before junior can understand “I’m a sinner who deserves the wrath of God” he needs to understand “right and wrong are two different things” and hopefully also “I am not the judge of the difference between them.”

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] The use of real discipline (a.k.a., negative consequences, etc.) is not compatible incompatible with teaching the gospel. There is no disjunction between the two.

Maybe it depends on what one is really emphasizing in the gospel. What is the gospel? That Christ lived a sinless life for my account; He died bearing the punishment for my sinful life; now I follow in His steps by living a servant-life of love to God and others (which includes obedience).

I don’t see how that is incompatible with the kind of discipline I’ve been describing.

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Finally, even in a soteriologically-driven approach to parenting, it’s evident that sinners must learn law before they can learn grace. Good parenting begins with law, and teaches grace in that context.

But really, to me this seems to put one on a hopeles circle. The law shows us that we can never ever measure up. The law is to teach my kids their hopelessness of ever being able to obey it fully. So I would be punishing them for not achieving something they can never achieve … . Grace is that Christ obeyed the law on our behalf; that we are free from that heavy burden and free to obey for love of Christ, though the obedience is always imperfect.

Yes. Agree with all of that. But you’re making my point, rather than defeating it. A huge part of the dynamic for kids in Christian homes should be exactly the kind of hopelessness you’ve described. You have to abandon self-hope before you can put your hope exclusively in Christ.

[Anne] Two other issues that should be addressed in this are 1) using fear (of pain/punishment) as a primary discipline tool is problematic, I think, Scripturally. 2) understanding the importance of my completed sanctification (in Christ) and how God accepts me based on that and not on my progressive sanctification is something that has changed me a lot internally, too, and changed how I view parenting. I will have to think about why exactly, and how to express it.

Fear… that’s really a whole different topic and not what I’ve been talking about. It’s not really fear when you know exactly what is going to happen. I mean, do I avoid putting my hand on the stove because I’m afraid? I guess in a way, but I’m not conscious of feeling any fear. I just know what will happen if I do that.

But I really don’t know why we should see fear as a bad thing. If something is evil and harmful we ought to fear it. If something is awesomely powerful, we ought to fear it. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fear is good.

Dread… now that’s something else. I’m not talking about raising kids full of dread. They don’t experience that if the boundaries are clear and the consequences are predictable.

As for completed sanctification in Christ… (1) I’m not entirely sure what you mean. My sanctification is not complete yet… and I have responsibilities to participate in the process until it is (Phil. 2:12 for example). (2) Either way, our approach to parenting should not be to take Scriptures that are not specifically about parenting, extrapolate a parenting method we think ought to be good in light of those passages, then reinterpret the passages that are actually about parenting to fit our extrapolated method. This is what I think much of the recent thought and writing on this does. God has spoken very plainly about how parenting should work. We should assume He has not given us methods that are inconsistent with the gospel… and as I think I’ve shown, there is no inconsistency w/the gospel in traditional Christian parenting.

I’m not sure how to dialogue understandably and still try to cut down all the long quoting, but here we go:

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne Sokol] I mean to say that discipline is a lot more than mainly pain infliction and negativity.

Yes, this is why I said “at a minimum.” We do use the word “discipline” in more than one sense, though they are related. The positive part is really the outcome. The process is inherently painful, even if the “pain” is that of getting up earlier than you want, practicing longer than you want, etc. So, whether it’s self-discipline or parental discipline it involves “enduring hardship” (2Tim.2:3-7 is helpful).

I think about use of the concept of discipline, I also need to clarify, that I really don’t see correction of wrong behavior as always requiring punishment/negativity. This is where some of us differ, and this is where the theory or philosophy or theology talk comes into play. My child does something wrong, and I don’t have to have a punishment response. I may use something my child doesn’t enjoy or find happy, or I may use a stop to hold and talk and give some affection, but I don’t feed myself internally with a punishment mindset in my correction and restoration and guidance of my kids when they do wrong.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Pain and “harm” (or “injury”) are not the same thing and must be distinguished (the way many lump them together is intellectually dishonest).

I can agree with that strictly, but it also should be said that, just as you pointed out that pain can take many forms, inflicting pain in a non-injuring way can be tricky—what if you’re not physically causing deformity or breaking bones or causing kidney failure, but causing real harm in a different form that you cannot see?

Yes. But this goes back to a point I emphasized in another thread— there is no substitute for virtuous parents. On this particular point, it isn’t even virtue that’s required: just a little bit of sense. There is no need to go beyond what is obviously safe (and I don’t mean “safe from prosecution;” I mean safe for the child).

If you give yourself a couple whacks on the hand to calibrate, you even know how much pain is involved as well as whether injury is occurring.

It really isn’t rocket science.

I just mean to say that when parents are not taught, as they mostly are not taught in fundamentalism today, to see parenting through the lens of, say, building strong relationships, when it becomes rather about attaining “first-time obedience” and other spiritually-sounding ideas like that (because, of course, how your child obey his parents is how he will obey God, parents are told), then punishment or use of negativity can have spiritually harmful effects on the child.

[Aaron Blumer] There is no safe method where foolish moms and dads are involved.

That is why most discussions of parenting should not be focused on punishment of wrong behavior.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne] I don’t know that Scripture directly addresses this either, but this is what the issue of physical-intentional-pain-infliction-of-small-children came down to for me Scripturally: I did a study of all the times in Scripture that small children are mentioned and how God portrays small children to us, and what His own communicated-to-us thoughts are about small children… . That is how I came to my personal conviction of finding non-striking, non-adversarial, non-promoting-my-own-power ways of guiding my children into good disciplines.

I’d be interested in what passages led you to this conclusion.

Question: what’s wrong with power?

I will go back and look in my journals for this, some of the passages that I remember are: Ez 16:21, Mtt 21:15-16, and strangely missed in pretty much every parenting book I have ever read, Mtt 18:1-14.

About power, I think it is problematical when people are taught to assert and emphasize power in relationships like in the husband/wife relationship and the parent/child relationship. Maybe parenting books did this as a reaction to the hippie movement/cast-off-all-authority. I think that authority/power is best just assumed as a premise in life, it’s not something that needs to be highlighted, fought for, asserted, etc. I mean that to say, for example, I am my kids’ mom. I have to be comfortable with the authority and power that position gives me. As a Christian, I understand it is the power/position to serve and be the least. But in teaching obedience esp, asserting my personal power over my kids is not what I’m feeding myself with.

[Aaron Blumer] No, my point is that we already know the method is good, the particular form is chosen based on effectiveness. To use an analogy, we know from Scripture that teaching children is good. What sort of method we use (pictures, songs, stories, tactile practice, etc.) depends largely on what works.

So you’re saying, we already know the method of spanking is good b/c look that it worked for me, and for several others? It’s “traditional”?

[Aaron Blumer] But again, anti-spanking advocates often seem to get the impression that pro-spanking advocates think spanking is something you do early and often. I’m not of that persuasion. My view is simply that pain is pain and there is no reason to take the judicious use of physical pain off the list of available resources.

You really need to read/be aware of Tedd Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart, probably the most popular parenting book in fundamental circles today. It’s spank early, spank often, spank only (and talk).

[Aaron Blumer] My view is that pain is pain and if K is not responsive to the pain of having to sit and do nothing for a while, a parent should not be shy about a slap on the wrist or whack on the behind. Sometimes parents unduly exhaust themselves trying to avoid simpler ways of communicating. But I’m not against a time out if it works.

First, I don’t like “time outs.” Particularly as punishment. Like, you need to be isolated and feel bad for X amount of time. What I did in that case with K, I look at it just more as a hemming in, gently limiting his choices until he’s ready to make the right one ;) About time outs, I think they are more useful in the positive sense of a child who’s in a bad mood going away and doing something restorative so he doesn’t plague the rest of the family with his moodiness—How I love doing this myself :D

If this didn’t work with K, and I have other kids it might not work for, I would probably choose a method that involved more of my actual presence, holding or something, rather than hitting. With K’s background of coming from an extremely abusive home, I probably would never consider physical striking with him. Or with my other kids—then they want to spank each other, their dolls, etc.

[Aaron Blumer] I may not have been clear. I’m not talking about grasping reasons. Kids have to learn the basic concept of right and wrong before they learn why anything is right or wrong. When we’re little, we take these things on authority—on our confidence in whoever is telling us. So long before junior can understand “I’m a sinner who deserves the wrath of God” he needs to understand “right and wrong are two different things” and hopefully also “I am not the judge of the difference between them.”

I don’t know if it’s this complicated. I think I am probably the main shape-r of my kids’ consciences, if that’s what you mean.

I was thinking of this very thing yesterday as I am re-reading E. Prentiss’s Stepping Heavenward. This is one of the best books about how God disciplines us. I may take the time to quote some passages from it later. But she’s having a talk with her FIL (who has a depressing view of God as the terrifying judge) about her little son, and FIL says, “I hope, my daughter, that you are faithful to your son. …I hope you teach him that he is a sinner and that he is in a state of condemnation.”

She replies, “No, Father, I don’t. … My poor child will learn that he is a sinner only too soon; and before that dreadful day arrives, I want to fortify his soul with the only antidote against the misery that knowledge will give him. I want him to see his Redeemer in all His love and beauty and to love Him with all his heart and soul and mind and strength. Dear Father, pray for him, and pray for me, too.”

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] The use of real discipline (a.k.a., negative consequences, etc.) is not compatible incompatible with teaching the gospel. There is no disjunction between the two.

Maybe it depends on what one is really emphasizing in the gospel. What is the gospel? That Christ lived a sinless life for my account; He died bearing the punishment for my sinful life; now I follow in His steps by living a servant-life of love to God and others (which includes obedience).

I don’t see how that is incompatible with the kind of discipline I’ve been describing.

This is how I see it: What is our response to disobedience/wrong behavior? In our human logic, it must be something negative and bad and painful. …

So stop for a minute and consider why, as a parent, I must inflict punishment/pain on my children when they do wrong? Do I think: They have sinned, broken God’s law, and they must be punished for it. Like God punishes me when I sin. They need to understand God will punish their sins…

If this is my train of thought, or something similar, then I am always under God’s black cloud of punishment as much as I can perceive my own sins. I mean, we all know we’re not talking about hell-punishment as Christians, but do we still see God as punishing us daily for our sins in this life? And is that a true perception of how God deals with us? (this gets into the sanctification part)

OK, what if ask a different question when my child sins/does wrong: For example, I could think: my child is struggling with their sin; how can I come along side and help him/her?

The actions these two parents take may even be similar, but the reasoning behind them and what is ultimately communicated is much different.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne]

[Aaron Blumer] Finally, even in a soteriologically-driven approach to parenting, it’s evident that sinners must learn law before they can learn grace. Good parenting begins with law, and teaches grace in that context.

But really, to me this seems to put one on a hopeles circle. The law shows us that we can never ever measure up. The law is to teach my kids their hopelessness of ever being able to obey it fully. So I would be punishing them for not achieving something they can never achieve … . Grace is that Christ obeyed the law on our behalf; that we are free from that heavy burden and free to obey for love of Christ, though the obedience is always imperfect.

Yes. Agree with all of that. But you’re making my point, rather than defeating it. A huge part of the dynamic for kids in Christian homes should be exactly the kind of hopelessness you’ve described. You have to abandon self-hope before you can put your hope exclusively in Christ.

But I think the opposite happens.

In one way, we set up somewhat keepable standards that a child can escape punishment from or bear the punishment of, for example, or standard of goodness that a child can somewhat keep. So even when we do punish, it’s not really for all a child’s sins or even most of them. So a lot of Christian kids don’t see themselves as really bad, like those really bad kids who smoke or something. They don’t see their own coveting or impatience, for example, because we don’t have a rule/consequence for that.

Or we communicate half the gospel, that Christ died for your sins, now you accept Him as saving you from hell, but now you need to work on yourself, and grace becomes defined more as you being given the power to obey rather than what it really is, that One obeyed on your behalf.

[Aaron Blumer] Fear… that’s really a whole different topic and not what I’ve been talking about. It’s not really fear when you know exactly what is going to happen. I mean, do I avoid putting my hand on the stove because I’m afraid? I guess in a way, but I’m not conscious of feeling any fear. I just know what will happen if I do that.

But I really don’t know why we should see fear as a bad thing. If something is evil and harmful we ought to fear it. If something is awesomely powerful, we ought to fear it. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fear is good.

Dread… now that’s something else. I’m not talking about raising kids full of dread. They don’t experience that if the boundaries are clear and the consequences are predictable.

It’s First John I had in mind. I wish this were also a part of common Christian parenting discussions. If we are drawing kids to the love of God, trying to teach them to act in love, as is the first two main commandments, use of punishing and fear, and they do fear it of course, is probably not the best way to go theologically. I think it’s not really in our human nature to understand or accept God’s unconditional love or forgiveness or trusting Him, for example. How many “accept Christ” after hearing evangelists preaching about hell in detail? Having a sensible fear of consequences is common sensical.

[Aaron Blumer] As for completed sanctification in Christ… (1) I’m not entirely sure what you mean. My sanctification is not complete yet… and I have responsibilities to participate in the process until it is (Phil. 2:12 for example).

I will deal with this separately. I need time I don’t have at this moment. It’s Martin Luther, for one thing. And what Elyse F talks about in her interview.

I don’t think it is a good idea to explain to a 2 year old that they were spanked because they sinned by [disobeying, arguing, not esteeming others better than themselves, purposeful destruction of another’s property, whining, etc…]. I think it does set the wrong tone for their lives. God doesn’t inflict immediate, physical pain to Christians when we disobey him.

I look at spanking as a mere tool to, well, drive foolishness from them. They won’t always get spanked for disobeying/disrespecting authority, but at a young age, it is the most effective way to teach them the foolishness of doing so. As they get older, they’ll experience more complex results of that disobedience/disrespect, just as adult Christians experience the sin-results and God’s chastisement for perpetrating the same.

Perhaps we can convince Doctor Cone to do a series on God’s chastisement.

It might be helpful to point out here that [S] sometimes[/S] often God does indeed inflict immediate painful consequences when people sin. We just finished reading Exodus 32 & 33 in our Men’s Bible Study (Golden Calf thing… see Exod. 32:35)

Remember Ananias and Sapphira? Uzzah? Nadab and Abihu? Saul? David (Ok, not quite immediate, but severe and unmistakably linked to his offense). Manasseh (2 Chron 33:10–13). Jonah. Miriam (Num. 12:10). The list goes on and on.

Graciously and mercifully, He does not always deal with us that way. He models both grace and wisdom in choosing when to deal decisively with our wrongdoing and when to, as we say, cut us some slack. (Exod. 33:19)

We can reasonably surmise that our parenting should resemble God’s “parenting” of us, but the Scriptures don’t say “parents, handle your kids like God handles you.” That’s significant. What the Scriptures do provide is direct instruction on what parents need to do for kids.

[Anne] OK, what if ask a different question when my child sins/does wrong: For example, I could think: my child is struggling with their sin; how can I come along side and help him/her?

This, and ideas about teaching kids love, etc. are really another topic. Nobody is arguing that we should spank instead of teaching kids love or—if a kid is actually trying to do right, find ways to encourage him/her. (Actually trying/”struggling with” is quite often not at all what’s going on… but either way, I would ask, why wouldn’t discipline help them be successful? The argument in Hebrews is that God chastens those He loves—the implication is that this helps us. That has certainly been my experience. Why else would He do it? The sin has already been paid for. So the discipline is a way to help us change—not punitive.)

There is no disjunction between these practices and the wise use of real (pain-involved) discipline in training children.

[Aaron Blumer]… but either way, I would ask, why wouldn’t discipline help them be successful? The argument in Hebrews is that God chastens those He loves—the implication is that this helps us. That has certainly been my experience. Why else would He do it? The sin has already been paid for. So the discipline is a way to help us change—not punitive.)

There is no disjunction between these practices and the wise use of real (pain-involved) discipline in training children.

I’m still working on my sanctification things, but quick answer to this.

“Why wouldn’t discipline help them be successful?” It would. Just your and my definitions/applications/mindset-of-applying of that word discipine are probably somewhat different.

Actually, now that I’m typing, this all has a lot to do with how we understand sanctification and discipline. I need to just stick on that. Still need to sit and type it out.

I will say, adults can experience very heavy consequences for their sinful actions. God can allow them to sin to that extent. Sadly, it’s probably a lot of the result of not understanding our freedom (from works) in Christ and how we now live in love to all others (the place of works).

I also see that God can just use “pressing” circumstances to mature us, discipline us. Like giving us children, or causing us to live with someone it’s difficult to live with, for example. These things often provoke us to sin often and draw out our sinfulness to humble us, and show us how hopeless we are to sanctify ourselves and begin to look to Him for His own sufficient righteousness, which is not able to come from us at all. It is ours only by faith.

Anway …

[Aaron Blumer] It might be helpful to point out here that [S] sometimes[/S] often God does indeed inflict immediate painful consequences when people sin. We just finished reading Exodus 32 & 33 in our Men’s Bible Study (Golden Calf thing… see Exod. 32:35)

Remember Ananias and Sapphira? Uzzah? Nadab and Abihu? Saul? David (Ok, not quite immediate, but severe and unmistakably linked to his offense). Manasseh (2 Chron 33:10–13). Jonah. Miriam (Num. 12:10). The list goes on and on.

This is a reason why I’d like to hear a study on Divine Chastisement. All of the Bible examples of chastisement are outside of our dispensation. For example - when’s the last time we saw a person fall over dead because he participated in communion unworthily? The passage that deals with that concept was during the transitional period between OT law and our current, church age of grace. How many people have we seen “faithfully” come to church almost every Sunday morning, but never come to any other service and never serve in any ministry - and lead healthy, happy lives (which, of course, brings up another question of whether or not they are even saved, but we’ll assume they are)? I know I’m just tossing things out there that can be shot to death because of all of the holes in them, but I’m just trying to pose the question of the differences in 21st century Divine chastisement vs. Old Testament through Transitional. I believe the answer to that question may help shed light on our view of physical pain parenting.

Interesting question.. and yes, it could be quite a study on its own. I’m sure someone has already done it a few times by now, but I’m not aware of a title to reference.

As for dispensations, some random thoughts…

There is a lot of grace in the age of law. Witness the fact that instant death due to disobedience is rare enough to stand out. What about all the people who were not struck dead for breaking laws? Grace.

There is a lot of law in grace. God’s standard of righteousness remains and we are indeed held to it. The big difference is that the indwelling Spirit changes us so that we conform to the law, rather than our trying to accomplish this in our “flesh.” This is the argument of Romans 7-8.

The point of the chastisement section of Hebrews 12 is that God does still inflict suffering in response to sin. In may be more in response to sinful condition in general (which seems to be the case in Heb.12) rather than a particular sin. But you have intentional use of painful experiences to reshape and “train” (the word appears at the end of that section) us.

Ananias and Sapphira are a NT example of severe discipline in response to specific sin. (Another would be the reference in 1 Corinthians to many sick and dead due to their abuse of the Lord’s Table.)

It’s true that there is less of this in the NT era because of the different nature of the New Covenant. Specifically, the NC has an emphasis on newness of heart (Ezek.36.26 and context; Jer. 31.33 ff) where the Old focused more on conditions for blessing and cursing (see the last several chapters of Deut.).

But what sort of implications do these have for parenting? Clearly, the implications are not obvious. You can argue seven different ways from these very high-level changes in God’s relationship to His peoples. The fact is, the passages that reveal these realities to us are not about parenting, and we have many passages that are. We should let the latter say what they say rather than going to them with our prejudgments about what the higher level ideas require them to say… especially when the law, grace, sanctification and salvation ideas we’re talking about have such unclear implications for parenting technique.

…and we are talking about technique. There is really no substantial disagreement about the goal of Christian parenting. We want to see young adults who are disciples of Jesus Christ, who love Him and are committed to living obedient lives.

We should let the technique passages tell us what our technique ought to be rather than extrapolating (or just imagining) technique from matters that aren’t inherently related.

[Aaron Blumer] the passages that reveal these realities to us are not about parenting, and we have many passages that are….

We should let the technique passages tell us what our technique ought to be rather than extrapolating (or just imagining) technique from matters that aren’t inherently related.

I couldn’t agree more. Then I guess it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding our parenting technique by comparing how God “parents” his children, right?

[Aaron Blumer] Ananias and Sapphira are a NT example of severe discipline in response to specific sin. (Another would be the reference in 1 Corinthians to many sick and dead due to their abuse of the Lord’s Table.)

My issue with drawing any conclusion from these examples is that there are many things in the NT that no longer happen - I’m thinking specifically of sign gifts, of course. Lots of miraculous healings from the Apostles, tongues, etc. All of the “sign” type things were transitional for the purpose of validating the church (right?). So I see Ananias and Sapphira and the Communion commentary to simply be part of that transitioning into the fully fledged Church Age.

[Aaron Blumer] There is a lot of grace in the age of law. Witness the fact that instant death due to disobedience is rare enough to stand out. What about all the people who were not struck dead for breaking laws? Grace.

There is a lot of law in grace. God’s standard of righteousness remains and we are indeed held to it. The big difference is that the indwelling Spirit changes us so that we conform to the law, rather than our trying to accomplish this in our “flesh.” This is the argument of Romans 7-8.

Point well taken regarding the overflowing of Grace in the OT/Law. It is indeed far easier to see the mass/supernatural judgments of death, plague, snake bites, etc., and ignore how much grace God has always shown humanity.

This is an attempt to express what I’ve gleaned for my own life and for my parenting from Martin Luther’s tract “Concerning Christian Liberty.”

As this is a forum thread and not a dissertation, I will try to make this brief. In doing so, it will cut out a lot of the depth and thence the understanding, but so be it.

When we look at the whole of discipline in life (mine, my kids, etc.), our discipline (I don’t mean punishment for wrong, but habitual ordering of life) should mainly serve to express our love—our love to God and to others.

Luther goes to great lengths to prove how only faith and the word of God (the gospel of Christ), and not good works, can touch/save the soul.

The commands given in Scripture show us what is good, but give us no power to do them.

The promises of God now enter—we fulfill all the commands only by faith in Christ, as He fulfilled them and only He can fulfill them. [Skip Luther’s long section on the 3 virtues of faith.]

In conclusion, faith alone fulfills the law for us (b/c only Christ fulfills it). And a person must have fulfilled the commandments (by faith) prior to being able to do any good works. (Good works without this is just idolatry.)

So what’s the point of doing good works? (WHY AM I TEACHING MY KIDS TO OBEY ME, LOVE OTHERS, LIVE TOGETHER IN HARMONY, ETC.)

1. We must live in this body. 2. We must have relationships with people.

1. Being so filled with love for God and all He’s done for us, we now want our bodies to be subdued so they can express the love that fills our soul. We want our flesh to conform to our souls, which are rejoicing in God and desirous to serve Him for nothing other than freely-given love for what He’s done for us. No fear, no slavery … . just love.

2. Just as Christ became a man and laid aside His freedom (as sinless God) to serve us (by obeying the law for us, dying, etc), so we are to lay aside our freedom from needing to do good works (for salvation), and we become Christs to each other, serving one another in love.

Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.

End Martin Luther synthesis/My conclusions: It’s probably human nature to grow up thinking that our works are what God focuses on and what pleases Him. Really, He is only truly pleased with Christ’s work, which is applied to me by faith. My works will never, ever meet God’s standards. I am free of that obligation. I am accepted and always an object of God’s goodwill because I am in His Son.

The motives for my works now are very important. Important that I feed the love and faith in my heart (and love and faith are only fed by love and faith—not by deeds). And deeds come as an expression of that love and faith—deeds to subdue my body, deeds to love others as Christ loved me. In this way, deeds are very, very important.

So, this is why I, personally, try to steer away from punitive teaching measures—toward any believer, not just my kids. I don’t want to habitually motivate through fear, pain, shame, punishment, doubting of acceptance/standing, etc. I want to be very careful about the messages I send about what really pleases God. (Yes, my works can please Him, but only in the way that they are done in right faith.) And the more I learn to gaze on the righteousness, goodness, perfection of Christ, the more I stop measuring myself by my own or other human standards and can ask how Christ wants to be shown in a given situation.

Do my kids experience pain? Sure they do. So do I. Pain is very shaping and helpful. I have learned to kiss and hug the painful situations that God has put in my life because they are the shapers/discipliners that enable me to more and more express the love and faith that is growing in my soul towards Him. That’s how I really want pain to help and shape my kids—to help/enable them express their love.

Sort of an abrupt end, but that’s what I can express at this point.

Here are some excellent quotes from “Concerning Christian Liberty:”

In this we see clearly that the Apostle lays down this rule for a Christian life: that all our works should be directed to the advantage of others, since every Christian has such abundance through his faith that all his other works and his whole life remain over and above wherewith to serve and benefit his neighbour of spontaneous goodwill.

Lo! my God, without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given to me, an unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature all the riches of justification and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father, then, who has overwhelmed me with these inestimable riches of His, why should I not freely, cheerfully, and with my whole heart, and from voluntary zeal, do all that I know will be pleasing to Him and acceptable in His sight? I will therefore give myself as a sort of Christ, to my neighbour, as Christ has given Himself to me; and will do nothing in this life except what I see will be needful, advantageous, and wholesome for my neighbour, since by faith I abound in all good things in Christ.

Thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily, without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under obligations, nor does it distinguish between friends and enemies, or look to gratitude or ingratitude, but most freely and willingly spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude, or gains goodwill. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to all men abundantly and freely, making His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Thus, too, the child does and endures nothing except from the free joy with which it delights through Christ in God, the Giver of such great gifts.

You see, then, that, if we recognize those great and precious gifts, as Peter says, which have been given to us, love is quickly diffused in our hearts through the Spirit, and by love we are made free, joyful, all-powerful, active workers, victors over all our tribulations, servants to our neighbour, and nevertheless lords of all things. But, for those who do not recognise the good things given to them through Christ, Christ has been born in vain; such persons walk by works, and will never attain the taste and feeling of these great things. Therefore just as our neighbour is in want, and has need of our abundance, so we too in the sight of God were in want, and had need of His mercy. And as our heavenly Father has freely helped us in Christ, so ought we freely to help our neighbour by our body and works, and each should become to other a sort of Christ, so that we may be mutually Christs, and that the same Christ may be in all of us; that is, that we may be truly Christians.