When Father Doesn't Know Best, Part 2

Thanks for taking up this topic. Well articulated... and there is a great need for that these days.

Cone wrote:

We understand from these passages that discipline is a correction and pruning process that usually (if not always) requires at least some degree of pain, is always to be conducted in love, and is never intended to punish but always to instruct.

That last point is especially important and I'm not sure I had seen it clearly before.

Much of the evangelical discussion on parenting approaches in the last few years has employed a grace argument... that parenting should mirror God's grace to sinners, therefore traditional methods are not appropriate, etc.
But the instructive purpose of discipline really defeats that line of argument. There is no inconsistency at all between grace and the use of pain as a way of teaching. Nor is there any inconsistency between grace and firm boundaries.

The author seems to be equating painful discipline with PHYSICALLY painful discipline. Discipline can be painful without it being physically painful.

I've never NEEDED to spank my children. (I spanked the elder two a few times years ago, but in retrospect it was not necessary.) I do not spank my children, but I discipline them daily. I am being obedient to God and a loving parent with firm boundaries.

If spanking were declared illegal, I would be obeying both my heavenly Father and my civil authorities; it is not an either-or decision.

Rachel, it is important to pay attention to the scriptures. Discipline on the back of the fool requires physical discipline. Failure to spank equates to a failure to love. Your children have needed to be spanked, you just chose an alternate route. Obedience to God needs to reign over your cultural trappings.

When did they need to be spanked? How in the world can you know that they "needed" a spanking?

I do not argue that the disciplining of children (as Christopher wrote) "usually (if not always) requires at least some degree of pain." I might disagree somewhat and suggest that discipline always "requires at least some degree of pain" appropriate to the offence.

However, is the primary intent of the Solomonic proverbs or of it's instruction in the epistle to the Hebrews that discipline must necessarily be physically painful? Yes, painful; but physical pain?

Just to clarify, I have used - and believe strongly - in physical discipline as sometimes necessary. For example, if my children hit each other, I spanked them. Hitting automatically deserved spanking; that was non-negotiable (as was lying). Another time, they talked disrespectfully, however, instead of spanking, I applied some soap to their mouths, which did the trick. They, at least, thought twice how to respond to me.

However, there was at least one time in one situtaion where spanking was not working and I had to cease. Looking back, I regret having used that form of discipline at that time. There were other times another form of discipline would have sufficed. We forget, at times, that discipline is required when the intent is rebellion, an outright refusal to obey.

Like many other issues, the Bible does not thoroughly provide us with all the answers to discipline (wish it did); and many important issues are left out, e.g. how to specifically apply discipline and what, if anything, should be done before or after its administration.

The Bible does afford a general principle to follow when faced with the disobedience of children. Discipline them. How and in what form that discipline should take is left up to what loving creativity God implanted in our minds through grace...as long as, I believe, some manner of pain is involved.

However, as I write this, I would question, what other kind of pain is appropriate to discipline? Emotional? Mental? Spiritual? Are these types of pain appropriate and loving acts of discipline? Or, does such pain amount to child abuse?

Maybe the writers did intend to require the necessity of the pain to be physical if only because it, when properly administered, has no lasting affect as do the other forms mentioned. And, if "soap in the mouth" can be construed as resulting in physical pain, I guess I have not stepped outside the Scriptural requirement for correcting disobedience.

A question not discussed, at least, in length is when does discipline crosses the line into abuse? I think the Bible provides some general rules to avoid child abuse when disciplining but specific instructions are left out.

Just things presently in mind as I read the article. I'd appreciate knowing what others think.

(Just for the record, my children have grown to be beautiful Christian women of whom I am proud to be called their father and in joyful eagerness say they are my daughters.)

RachelL wrote:

The author seems to be equating painful discipline with PHYSICALLY painful discipline. Discipline can be painful without it being physically painful....
When did they need to be spanked? How in the world can you know that they "needed" a spanking?

Christopher has already answered this but a little different POV.
Rachel, your questions seem to assume that using physical pain is a drastic measure or even an inherently bad thing that has to be justified. You're certainly not alone in seeing it that way. But where does that idea come from?

We could as easily ask, why does the pain of discipline have to be non-physical? The Proverbs don't seem to be worried about that.

If we all look back on our experience growing up, what we find is that pain (physical and non physical, both) is one of the most powerful learning tools in life. We learn not to touch hot things. We learn to be careful with sharp things. We learn to walk slowly on ice. On it goes.
Eventually, many learn to be wiser in how they handle relationships, to be wiser with money, to finish what they start, to keep their commitments, etc.

So why the anxiety about physical pain administered by a parent? Well, we all know why. Because unloving and/or foolish parents/other adults have so often abused the trust and responsibility God has given them. But then, where is the real problem? Is it physical vs. non-physical or is it wise and loving parent vs. foolish and unloving parent? I think locating the problem in the latter best answers to all the biblical principles.

Quote:

Rachel, your questions seem to assume that using physical pain is a drastic measure or even an inherently bad thing that has to be justified.

This attitude is present in the language of everyone in this conversation. The only people who do not appear to have this attitude are those parent who spank for EVERY infraction . . . and no one here seems to be advocating that. Every SI discussion involving spanking generally has several people who say that they use many forms of discipline (loss of privileges, time outs, physical restraint, etc.) and that they reserve spanking for specific acts/sins. Why would spanking be "reserved" for specific acts if it is not considered "above and beyond" to use physical pain?

Quote:

Further, you focussed primarily on your experience in your comment, and we have to remember that experience doesn't set our theology - only God's word does.

I agree. My comment focused on my experience because when I apply God's word to my parenting -- when I diligently discipline and teach my children -- then I do not need to spank them. Are you suggesting that I should spank them occasionally just in case? If my children are learning well without spanking, why would I use it? If your answer is "because it's Biblical" then you also need to tell me exactly WHEN it's Biblical to spank them instead of teaching them. The problem with that is that I do not see any specific "Spanking is the proper response to these behaviors" statements in the Bible.

(3) Further, I wonder if you have considered that there are specific lessons intrinsic to physical discipline that might not be communicated in any other way. (Perhaps an example: If you have ever seen the rebellious spirit in a child melt away when the exertion of physical force [spanking on the bottom ] requires them to admit that he/she cannot win, and that he/she is not the authority in the situation -the resulting broken and gentle spirit is a beautiful thing to see...).

Christopher, I enjoyed your article--thank you so much! Your number 3 point really speaks to me at a very foundational level. As a mother with young children, at certain times, I find myself shying away from spanking for whatever reason (tiredness, laziness, busyness, etc.) and often resort to a different form that appears to be just as effective, forgetting that my privilege as a parent is to influence the heart and not just the behavior. I'm reminded through this that only God-breathed Words from the Creator can authoritatively speak to what influences the heart; trusting, ultimately that God is the One ultimately effecting it however He pleases. The pragmatic side of me wants to only go so far as to what seems/appears to be working making experience the trump card vs. God's Word. I Sam. 16:7 stuff.

I also wonder if the article could have addressed a part about forgiveness and reconciliation as part of the discipline process? I understand the main idea was to speak directly to physical discipline, as outlined in Scripture, but a part of me, as I was reading it, was convicted. Too often, I look to the discipline aspects of Scripture, but neglect the reconciliation process and how we have the opportunity to teach our children (throughout the entire discipline/teaching process), not just about the consequences of sin, but more importantly, the payment in full.

Just thinking out loud, really. I'm very thankful for the article!

Blessings, Kim

Wish you'd chime in here about the use of the Proverbs particularly. I don't agree with all of Mike's conclusions personally as I have stopped using corporal punishment in my parental relationship with my children, but he does make some very valid points about applying the rod Proverbs to equal 1) spanking 2) of children. I'll quote from his sermon here:

Mike Durning's sermon wrote:

The rod would be the absolute worst case scenario for the absolute worst case offense. And we don’t know that the rod in Proverbs is near as big and brutal as the one in Singapore.

Here’s the 2nd thing you need to know.

Most of the people who try to use the Bible to justify child abuse choose some rather unfortunate translations of these verses. Many of those who espouse things we call abuse are from the King James Version Only crowd. For example…

Look again at the verses in Proverbs [on screen ]

In each of these verses, the Hebrew word that the King James Version translates as child is a word that should almost always be translated “youth”, with reference to young folks typically from ages 16-24, roughly. There are some exceptions, like when referring to “Jewish royalty” – people like Moses, Samson – the word can be applied to infants. But generally speaking, it applies to older teens and young adults. So, the majority of the verses that refer to the rod are with reference to ages far above small children. I’m not saying that’s always the case, but it’s a pattern that’s strong enough that it should give us pause.

In fact, the Jewish rabbis of ancient times frequently admonished people not to apply any verses about the rod to children before the age of 10.

By the way, that Hebrew word that means “young adult” crops up in a variety of Bible stories in the King James Version that you’ve heard told a little off. Remember the children who got attacked by bears when they mocked the prophet Elisha? Young adults. Elisha was being accosted by an angry mob of teens and young adults. Not teased by 9 year olds.

Here’s another thing you need to know. Some of the verses that involve “the rod” have been terribly misunderstood, I suspect.

Take Proverbs 23:13-14.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

I know of one preacher who preaches that if you are not beating your child until that child has bruises, you are not following the Bible. Never once does he put the word “child” in the Hebrew word context of a young adult. Never once does he explain that “the rod” includes the whole range of disciplinary options for the parent.

And when he preaches it, he says something like this…

“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. [read mockingly ].

“See, parents, your child may scream like you’re killing them. But they’re not going to die. Let them scream. Let them cry.

“Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

“Parents, if you don’t beat the devil out of your children, they will end up in Hell.”

What is the result of preaching like that? Well, ask two men who are now in prison for years in Texas, after beating a child almost to death to get the devil out of him. It’s the result of the preaching they grew up with.

What is Proverbs 23:13-14 talking about? Well, first, let’s hear it in another translation.

Prov. 23
13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.
14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Note the change, almost certainly correct in this case, where the Hebrew word sheol is rendered “death” instead of “hell”. Read that way, he is saying if you punish your older teen or young adult with the rod, he won’t die – in fact, you’ll save his soul from death.

Here’s what I think is going on here.
In the Old Testament law, there was provision for an ultimately defiant young adult, wild, evil, drunken, violent, disrespectful. In extreme cases, the young adult might be executed.

So I’m reasonably certain that what’s in view here is quite literal: if you had a young adult who is so defiant and so wicked as to be in danger of that kind of penalty, you may have to take the matter very seriously, and provide serious punishment to correct that person before the town elders decided to execute him.

It’s important to remember it was a different culture. Many times the family patriarch was responsible for the sons well into what we would call adulthood.

Think of David’s son Amnon, who sexually assaulted his sister.
Think of David’s son Absalom, who stirred up a rebellion that cost thousands their lives.
Think of Jacob’s sons who murdered a whole village.
And not a sheriff in range for 1300 years.

Yes, the rod was appropriate in some extreme cases. And those guys still didn’t use it.

I say all that to say this: Do not let anyone tell you that the Bible says you should be beating your 9 year old.

There is a place for spanking, administered correctly, not in anger, with explanation, when necessary. Particularly, for defiance. Sure. But the Bible is not a Child Abuse manual, and Christ would not make you a child abuser.

That’s not to say that corporal punishment is not in your toolbox. It’s just to remind you that there are limits. Do not forget that God loves children, and promises judgment to those who do not care for them properly.

Anne

1. If you truly love your children, it isn't too late to adopt a biblical method of discipline for them. Failure to spank is a failure to love. Argue that point with God if you don't like it.

2. I appreciate your posts on this discussion because they so clearly contrast the explicit words of scripture. They provide a contrast that is helpful on so many levels. I have personally benefited from them.

3. Sadly for Mike's deplorable theology, he isn't limited to only one verse to wrench out of context. In fact, he is doing to Prov 23 exactly what he is telling others they shouldn't do to their children. That poor verse. Jack Bauer thinks that verse got tortured a lot by Mike.

Rachel, I'm not ganging up on you (sorry for my NY phraseology) but I just thought I'd like to share some onservations

Rachel L. wrote:

Why would spanking be "reserved" for specific acts if it is not considered "above and beyond" to use physical pain?

Personally, I don't think physical spanking ought to be used as the last measure or just in drastic cases. However, I do believe the punishment ought to fit the crime. Each parent needs to determine that for themselves. In my case, if one of my children hit another, that called for automatice spanking. If they lied, automatic spanking. However, if they stole gum from the kitchen drawer when I told them not to, there would be some form of discipline but not spanking. Then, again, if it was discerned that they took the gum out of purposeful disobedience, I believe spanking is appropriate, not as an equal measure of the infraction itself as to its intent.

Rachel L. wrote:

...tell me exactly WHEN it's Biblical to spank them instead of teaching them...

Spanking is teaching. The question may not be when we ought to spank them but does the infraction call or deserve spanking? It may be Biblical to spank but, unfortunately, the Bible doesn't necessarily list how, when, and for what - except in general terms - spanking is to be administered.

However, let's not make any mistake about it: spanking is a teaching tool.

Now I am not advocating that you ought to spank your children but I am suggesting that we should not discount spanking totally as though it were anathema; but leave room for it's profitable use as a tool to teach our children God's love.

Not that I'm an expert in parenting...

Re: Mike Durning's sermon.

That was an enlighteing and good word! In my opinion, it seemed well balanced in opposition to both polar extremes between child neglect and child abuse.

The idea that use of the rod is the worst case scenario is not apparent at all in the book of Proverbs, nor is it in Heb. 12.
Rather, we're encouraged to see pain as pain and not be afraid to use it. Personally, I think the "rod" is likely intended as a metaphor for pain in general and that Proverbs sees and makes no distinction regarding physical or nonphysical.
Speaking from my own experience: I'd prefer physical pain to emotional in most cases if I had a choice. So I think the assumption that literal use of the rod is more drastic than other kinds of pain is ... pretty questionable.

That said, there are multiple possibilities here:

1. physical is more severe than other kinds of pain
2. emotional and other kinds of pain are more severe than physical
3. physical and "other" kinds of pain are roughly equal in "severity" and we need to choose what seems wisest in a particular case

   I lean toward "c," though I think it's normal for a loving parent who has any empathy at all for his kids to feel more reluctant to use physical pain than other kinds of pain. And if two options appear to be equally suitable for instruction and correction, I do choose the one that hurts me less as the parent.
   But why do we (most of us--including me) feel instinctively more drawn to use of pain that is not physical? I'm not sure I know the answer to that. It may be in part because the fact that we are causing pain is less directly evident to us (our causing of pain is more subtle). It may be that children hide their nonphysical pain more. I don't know. But nonphysical pain is real pain and we shouldn't think that it doesn't count.

   Much appreciate sjknoble's reasoning on this...

   • Only God can really shape a child's heart
   • If we do what God instructs us to do as parents, we can trust that God will do as He deems wise and good
   • God instructs us to use pain in discipline, physical pain not excepted
   • Therefore, we should parent in this way as a method of reaching a child's heart

   Kim, did I break it down accurately? The reason this resonates with me so much is that corrective/instructive pain is so often represented as behavior modification and set against reaching the heart as though we have to either go for the heart or use pain.... and not both. So the debate is often framed incorrectly from the start.

   But I really want to go back to a point I made earlier: there is no substitute for virtuous parents. Much of the thought out there these days seems to be a search to find an approach to parenting that will prevent abuse as though an approach can solve the problem of lack of wisdom, love and courage in the parents. That's a vain dream. I really believe that wise, good, loving and courageous parents will be pretty effective using just about any method because--consciously or otherwise--they will use pain carefully, judiciously.

skjnoble wrote:

Christopher, I enjoyed your article--thank you so much! Your number 3 point really speaks to me at a very foundational level. As a mother with young children, at certain times, I find myself shying away from spanking for whatever reason (tiredness, laziness, busyness, etc.) and often resort to a different form that appears to be just as effective, forgetting that my privilege as a parent is to influence the heart and not just the behavior. I'm reminded through this that only God-breathed Words from the Creator can authoritatively speak to what influences the heart; trusting, ultimately that God is the One ultimately effecting it however He pleases. The pragmatic side of me wants to only go so far as to what seems/appears to be working making experience the trump card vs. God's Word. I Sam. 16:7 stuff.

I found the title to Kim's post interesting. In psychology, Behavior Modification is achieved through externally imposed pain/rewards. Most Christians I know shy away from the idea of Behavior Modification when discussing parenting because it focuses on externals (though Aaron's Rewards article yesterday did discuss the idea of it). There is the very real concern that children can/will become just BETTER AT HIDING THEIR SIN instead of showing it to us and thereby giving us the opportunity to help them address the sin in their lives. Disciplining through conversation, setting limits, making them comply with hand-over-hand help . . . all of these things do a much better job of showing us our children's hearts and allowing us to guide and direct. This is the heart of "You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up." It is teaching and leading by example in a constant, living-life manner.

Spanking encourages the child to sneak and lie IN ORDER TO AVOID PAIN. Spanking focuses on externals. Spanking does not have some mystical ability to make what happens to children's bottoms affect their hearts. Yes, I know you will quote Proverbs to me here. The Proverbs are not talking about spanking as we use the term. The Proverbs are talking about using a LARGE STICK to beat THE BACK of a YOUNG MAN. If you quote Proverbs, do so honestly. If you aren't comfortable using a large stick, ask yourself why you are willing to ignore scripture. If you choose to beat your child's bottom instead of his back, ask yourself why you are willing to ignore scripture. If you stop using spankings for discipline at the age that the Proverbs say to beat your son, ask yourself why you are willing to ignore scripture. If the answer is, "Everyone knows you aren't supposed to hit them on the back or use a stick that will give them bruises or spank past the age of 12!" then you are adhering to cultural understanding of spanking, not Biblical application of the Proverbs.

One can choose to spank without a Biblical basis to do so. As a matter of fact, one SHOULD choose to spank without claiming the Bible MANDATES it. It does not.

Rachel, to claim the Bible does not mandate spanking is to ignore so much of what it says about discipline. Instead of coming up with clever ways of getting around scripture, why not simply submit to God's revelation? God knows better than you and has informed us how he wants us to train up our children. Heb 12 helps us to know God's attitude toward spanking his children.

Failure to spank is a failure to love and it communicates a relationship less than parent and full child. Who are those who aren't spanked? Talk about opting for culture...

Quote:

Spanking encourages the child to sneak and lie IN ORDER TO AVOID PAIN. Spanking focuses on externals.

1. ANY discipline could do this. Spanking doesn't have some mystical ability to teach kids to sneak and lie.

2. Spanking only focuses on externals if it is not accompanied by verbal correction.

This last point might be what is causing so much confusion for you. You aren't to just spank and not teach. Discipline involves both, not either/or. Spanking for what is wrong and teaching and encouragement to do what is right. This communicates to the child the proper method of dealing with sin. This is in fact exactly what God did in Christ and continues to do in us.

James K ][quote wrote:

This last point might be what is causing so much confusion for you. You aren't to just spank and not teach. Discipline involves both, not either/or. Spanking for what is wrong and teaching and encouragement to do what is right. This communicates to the child the proper method of dealing with sin. This is in fact exactly what God did in Christ and continues to do in us.

[Bolding mine ]

But if I am able to teach without spanking (and I am), why are you insisting that I also spank? Why "must" discipline involve both?

Even in spanking families, discipline does not involve both every time; it is the very rare parent who spanks for every infraction. Why "must" spanking be involved sometimes for learning to take place?

Quote:

The idea that use of the rod is the worst case scenario is not apparent at all in the book of Proverbs, nor is it in Heb. 12.
Rather, we're encouraged to see pain as pain and not be afraid to use it. Personally, I think the "rod" is likely intended as a metaphor for pain in general and that Proverbs sees and makes no distinction regarding physical or nonphysical.
Speaking from my own experience: I'd prefer physical pain to emotional in most cases if I had a choice. So I think the assumption that literal use of the rod is more drastic than other kinds of pain is ... pretty questionable.

I don't think I've ever said that spanking is for a "worst case scenario." I'm saying, "I don't have to use it to teach my children." I have said that most families that use spanking seem to use it for SPECIFIC types of disobedience or sin. I do not know how they determine which sins are spank-worthy. I do not know if they would consider these sins more egregious than others, though certainly I hear language like "the punishment fitting the crime" which would lead one to believe that "bigger sins" result in "bigger punishments."

The behavior of most spanking parents leads me to believe that they consider spankings to be "more drastic than [non-physical ] pain." The spanking families I know will verbally correct a child who is using unacceptable language/tone. They do not spank them for the first infraction. They reserve spanking for continued disobedience or for infractions that are considered egregious based on the family's values (lying, defiance after clear instruction, etc.).

If you think that spanking should NOT be "reserved" for some specific acts, you should take that up with spanking families. It is a point that does not apply to my family.

Quote:

And if two options appear to be equally suitable for instruction and correction, I do choose the one that hurts me less as the parent.
But why do we (most of us--including me) feel instinctively more drawn to use of pain that is not physical?

I believe that this is because we are aware that:

1. Physical pain is something we as parents are IMPOSING and we are aware that our judgment is imperfect. Physical pain can also lead to abuse if we are not careful. Any action that can result in harm if care is not taken will naturally have its usage curbed rather than encouraged.

2. Emotional pain that comes from logical and natural consequences is much more productive for learning, otherwise we wouldn't transition to these methods as children reach the teen years.

3. Hurting others physically (in non-medical contexts) is considered wrong, so it is unnatural to MAKE yourself hurt someone who is small and defenseless.

Wow...these postings express alot of sensitivity and strong opinion on the subject. Much was said. Although, I'm rushed at the moment, I hope to gather some observations and share them.

Let me just say that to totally disregard corporeal punishment as a viable disiplinary teaching tool, irrespective if one chooses to use it or not, is throwing out the baby with the bath water (as the old addage goes).

We also ought to remember, corporeal punishment is not foolproof neither is any form of discipline a automatic guarantee that you will obtain the desired results, that is, a child who grows up to love Christ.

For an overall observation on discipline, Aaron caught it best when he says that "there is no substitute for virtuous parents."

But, more on all this later...hopefully.

Just to clarify, I was referring to the post with Mike Durning's view in it.... that was his term.
But "worst case scenario" is far better than "no case scenario."
To exclude spanking entirely, one has to make a case that the Bible excludes it. Anybody who wants to do that has a tough row to hoe and I don't envy him.

A few quick and random points...

• The argument that we should not use physical pain because it trains kids to hide sin better fails because that also describes non-physical pain--indeed any kind of discipline. (Just realized James already made this pt.)
• Consequences: when it's your policy in your home to handle certain kinds of offenses with spanking, the spanking is a consequence.
• If it is discipline in any meaningful sense, the non-physical kinds of pain are just as parent inflicted as physical pain. Unless we're talking about parents sitting back and just allowing whatever consequence naturally happens, the pain is an intentional result of what a parent does.
• Hebrews 12 and all the rod passages of Prov. cannot really make sense unless there is intentional use of unpleasant consequences by parents.

The argument of Heb. 12 is that parents do this and we respect it, how much more should we welcome the painful discipline of our Father--and it's life-giving results?

Getting the actual Scripture in front of us can really help cut through the fog that sometimes descends in these kinds of discussions.

Quote:

Heb 12:7–11 NKJV 7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

It's gotta be pretty hard to read that in a way that doesn't see a "painful discipline is what loving parents do" line of reasoning there.

Why do many non-spankers assume physical pain is worse than emotional pain?

I believe that parenting and discipline is the responsibility of each individual family and that we must apply the Scripture according to our firm persuasion in our minds, But the argument that spanking leads more quickly to abuse doesn't sit right with me (maybe I am not getting it). As a pastor I have seen young adults whose lives are messed up because their parents abused them emotionally and mentally, but never laid a hand on them.

My personal anecdote, when I was a child I would have rather received a spanking than any other form of discipline. I felt a closeness to my Father when I saw the tears in his eyes as he spanked me. When he wept with me after the spanking while we hugged and how that after the spanking, it was over; I felt our relationship was restored. But sometimes he didn't spank me and he glared at me, he gave me the silent treatment, he wouldn't speak to me. (I admit that was very rare and I don't regret how he raised me, no parent is perfect). The first with the physical pain had a beginning and an end and a restored relationship. The latter made him seem petty and angry at me. I interpreted anger more with emotional discipline than I did with physical discipline. Just my experience...maybe only useful to me.

and here I am. . .

Just a couple points: If anyone is really, honestly interested in thinking about something from various perspectives, you could skim through this webpage--it's an overview of punitive (punishment-focused) parenting and permissive parenting.

http://joanneaz_2.tripod.com/positivedisciplineresourcecenter/id25.html

The issue of spanking itself is simply the Christian crux of the punitive paradigm. That is why it often becomes the central focus in these types of discussions. But really, it is reflective of a mindset.

Building a spanking theology and ritual from Proverbs and Heb 12 is simply very bad hermaneutics. Spanking as we are discussing it here is an a-biblical or extra-biblical topic. It is not a holy or God-sanctioned activity. The Bible does not directly address it. This is very hard for many in our circles to even consider because it is so ingrained in our theology and even our in our view of God.

I think, personally, Christian parents are free in the Lord to spank or not. The Bible does not say directly one way or the other. It should not be spiritualized. This is when it creates problems for families.

Putting the rotten tomato guard back up now . . .

and before you write, I would suggest you read the works of Clay Clarkson (Heartfelt Discipline, chapter on Rethinking the Rod) and ask Mike Durning (member here) for his research notes. Actually, I can mail you the Clarkson book, if you want, to look over.

I know Tedd Tripp does some gymnastics to redefine "punitive" and why spanking is not punitive, but his particular approach is not logical. He basically just says, because it's Biblical, it can't be punitive. . . .

I have foudn that this issue goes very deeply into the heart of major theological doctrines, like the depravity of man and stuff like that. I may elaborate later, but this is probably not the time.

Look forward to your article and further discussion. I'm pretty sure they will want to publish it.

Kim, did I break it down accurately? The reason this resonates with me so much is that corrective/instructive pain is so often represented as behavior modification and set against reaching the heart as though we have to either go for the heart or use pain.... and not both. So the debate is often framed incorrectly from the start.

Yes, Aaron. That, I believe, is the framework for a good booklet for young mothers. The right, biblical philosophy on how to teach and discipline their children. IMO, this is not only the Scriptural thought process, but also helps relieve some of the burden and guilt young mothers can feel, at times. Often times, we get mixed signals, many from well-meaning people. We're told we're supposed to be teaching and disciplining according to the bible's guidelines in order to influence the heart, but are sometimes admonished for behavior modification along the way. That's a tough pickle to be in. How does one live that out in daily life? Is it possible to influence the heart without behaviorally modifiying? Of course, none of us doing this perfectly, but having a correct biblical philosophy surely helps.

For our household, my husband and I see both in Scripture. As you said, Aaron, they are not set in conflict with one another, but work together. Isn't that what a "new self" and "transformed life" and "bearing good fruit" etc. are all about, a supernaturally, behaviorally modified life? And isn't that the real mark of genuine believe: a changed, sanctified(ying) life? So, while our children are unbelievers and we can't actually change the heart, we believe that the tools and resources God has given to us (read: commands us to do) work in harmony to achieve both ends, all the while trusting in a sovereign Lord.

I think the pitfall is when behavior modification is an end: a well-trained, well-rounded individual which is the world's goal for their greater good. But, of course, why would we think the world could speak to either?

Appreciate your thoughtful breakdown.

Blessings, Kim

Anne, Chris is talking about doing a complete exegetical research work in the original languages throughout the Bible. You are pushing a book. Think about it.

Oh, James, dare I speak to you? Clarkson's book is also an exegetical/hermeneutical treatment of the Bible. If Chris wants to write about this, he should be aware of other treatments.

I hope my friend *tulipgirl* doesn't mind me posting some of her thoughts, but she does such a good job at putting into words what people mean by "grace" parenting. http://www.tulipgirl.com/index.php/2011/10/on-the-pearls-and-parenting-o... This post has some good insights.

Like, this is what I mean when I say it is a paradigm shift, not just about spanking:

Quote:

Our children are part of the Covenant, and I believe Christ has already suffered the punishment for their sin on the Cross. I do not need to “punish” them when they do wrong. I do need to discipline them, disciple them, help them see their sin and repent, as well as help them learn the “rules” of living in polite society. . . . Nor do I see any command in the Bible for parents to punish children for their sin–I do see many commands to disciple, discipline, teach, love, train and chastise.

I don't get into a lot of covenant theology personally, but I do want to treat my kids in accordance to God's grace to us.

Quote:

I no longer punish my children. Christ has borne the punishment for their sins on the Cross. I do enforce boundaries and discipline my children.

Quote:

Whether or not it [a particular parenting method ] “works” is in large part determined by how you define “works.” My goal is to help my children become the people God has created them to be, with an emphasis on them relying upon God’s grace for their daily living. I want to help them learn to recognize their sin and turn to God in repentance. I want to model for them what it looks like to lean into God when we are struggling.

Anyway, those are some of the deep theological shifts I have gone through in how I view childrearing, and there are many, many more changes. Like, for example, realizing that the days I read my bible, pray, don't get mad at anyone, and cook a nice dinner, I'm just as much living by and dependent on God's undeserved goodwill towards me as on the days when I dont read my Bible, yell at my kids, and don't get dinner fixed. . . .

I think playing word games muddies waters that are already murky enough. Is there really a difference between "enforcing boundaries" and "punishment" and "consequences"? No - there isn't. Try telling some guy in jail that he isn't being punished- society is just "enforcing boundaries". Ditto a child being sent to their room for a 'time out'. All of those terms describe what is happening - they are not mutually exclusive nor do they cancel each other out. Children need to understand that, and Scripture gives us a variety of ways to teach this principle to our children, one of which is the literal, physical rod.

Any form of discipline can become abusive when taken to extremes. Spanking can become a brutal beating. 'Time outs' can become a cruel banishment. Words can wound and even cripple. Even something as insidious as a withdrawal of affection violates Scripture and damages a child. Acting as if spanking is the only action that could ever lead to abuse is dishonest.

Certain terms and beliefs can affect how we teach/train/disciple unregenerate and regenerate children. Christ's atonement doesn't negate an eternity in Hell for youngsters old enough to understand the Gospel and reject Him, and we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently lead a child to believe they are saved, when in fact they have NOT received God's grace through faith in Him. We should not allow children to think that God's wrath and vengeance towards unrighteousness is negated by His grace, or vice/versa.

Wickedness is not an entity, or some misty floaty thing separated from humanity- by one man sin came into the world, and death, both physical and eternal, was the result of that sin for all mankind thereafter. I understand what we are trying to convey when we say that we 'hate the sin and love the sinner', but the two are spiritually intertwined until God performs a spiritual circumcision... also a God-ordained physically painful process perpetuated on babies in order to do nothing else but prove a point.

I agree with the author's advice about how to respond in the public arena and keeping our priorities straight. There's quite a bit said from some of today's IFB pulpits about prayer and Bibles being taken out of public schools, media attacks on family and fatherhood- but that's just a Godless society being Godless. Preaching and teaching should expound Scripture and address what is going on in the church, in the lives of the individuals in the pews- blasting society gets lots of response from the 'Amen' corner, but what does that do to equip the saints? IOW, if you are getting meat and potatoes from the pulpit, and chewing on it daily at home, you aren't going to be so tempted to dumpster-dive the world's Chicken McNuggets. The church's appetite, generally speaking, is far too accustomed to and satisfied with junk food.

Anne,

1. Children are NOT part of the covenant until they are saved.

2. Christ vicarious bore the wrath of God upon Himself. No Christian is under the threat of condemnation (Rom 8:1). This does not rule out God's "mastigoo" (punish, scourging, flogging). God's dealing with us in grace includes necessary correction of wrong, not simply encouragement to do what is right.

2 Tim 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

All of these elements are necessary to equip to do what is right.

So the "grace" method you are advocating is actually not grace. It is a perversion at worst and misunderstanding at best.

If you wanted to deal with your children the way God would, then you will love your children enough to spank them. Your paradigm shift is obvious. Just let the scriptures inform you rather than culture or yet another person trying to be more clever than God.