Spanking

[Athena7777]

I have four children of my own, and yes, I do believe in spanking. Just as the Bible says, "spare the rod, spoil the child." I'm not saying that my children are perfect because we spank, but you don't see us on Jerry Springer with our kids hitting, cussing, and degrading us. They may not understand it now, but trust me, when they get older, they will. Also, I feel that you should use some sort of object such as a belt, paddle, etc. because your hand should be an object of love and not discipline. They need to know that your hand is there to comfort them and not hurt them.

 

[pmcleanj]

...the Bible says, "spare the rod, spoil the child."

A lot of people mistakenly believe that precise phrase is in the bible. It isn't. There are several passages in the bible that do refer to the rod, often in a clearly metaphorical sense. "The Rod" can be a symbol of sovereignty, protection, or discipline. People who interpret "the rod" to mean spanking are chosing that interpretation for themselves over other equally valid interpretations.

Also, I feel that you should use some sort of object such as a belt, paddle, etc. because your hand should be an object of love and not discipline. They need to know that your hand is there to comfort them and not hurt them.

If spanking were indeed a loving thing to do, then this distinction wouldn't be necessary, would it? Where I live, hitting a child with an object is criminal assault.

 

[alaskamolly]

Hmmm...

Do you believe God is a child abuser?





(Hebrews 12:5-11 makes Him one, according to your definition).

 

[pmcleanj]

Hmmm...

Do you believe God is a child abuser?





(Hebrews 12:5-11 makes Him one, according to your definition).

No, Hebrews 12:5-11 does not make God a child abuser by my definition.

First of all, I didn't write "child abuse", I wrote "criminal assault". I did that for the specific reason, that that is the supreme court's interpretation of section 43 of the criminal code -- hence it is not my definition, it is the legal definition in this country.

And finally, Hebrews doesn't say God hits children with objects.

 

[alaskamolly]

"My son, do not think lightly of the Lord's discipline,

Nor lose heart when He corrects you;

For the Lord disciplines those whom He loves;

And lays the rod on every son whom He acknowledges."

Hebrews 12:...5-6...





OK, so you don't think He is a child abuser, just guilty of criminal assault?





You also said,

A lot of people mistakenly believe that precise phrase ["spare the rod, spoil the child"] is in the bible. It isn't.

Well, the phrase, 'spare the rod, spoil the child' is taken from a phrase that IS in the Bible, and it not metaphorical (come on, Proverbs is a very practical book, especially in regards to parenting!). The actual phrase is, "He who spares the rod HATES his son..."


I'm not fan of child abuse (terrible!), but at the same time I think Scripture makes a clear distinction between ungodly abuse and godly correction...and I think it makes a very clear case FOR the appropriateness of physical spanking when needed.


I'm not sure if you've studied Hebrew or not, but I have, as well as ancient Jewish culture, and if you do any bit of homework, you'll see that Proverbs was most certainly intended to be both literal and metaphorical...and that Jewish culture took the parenting proverbs QUITE literal! (If God meant "rod" as purely metaphorical, you'd think He'd have taken greater pains to make that clear to the people who would first read and practice the proverbs)...


Who is going to interpret Scripture for us? Our modern day culture, or the Holy Spirit? The Bible is clear that the child abuser will not go unpunished. "And if you offend one of these little ones, it would be better for you that a millstone was hung around your neck and you were cast into the sea..." Jesus had pretty strong words to say about child abuse, I think!

But at the same time, the Bible is also clear: the rod (in the hands of a loving godly parent) is something that God says will benefit a child. That's why God uses the rod on us, and I for one am thankful He loves me enough to do that.

Anyone can "metophor-ize" away anything they don't like in Scripture--it's the oldest trick in the book. But when the Bible is full of verses speaking about the rod, you can only metaphor so many of them away before you start looking a bit foolish.




Blessings,
Molly

***Ack! Sorry! I was editing a few things and did this while you were replying to me (which I found out after I re-posted it)...so this post has changed just a bit! My bad!***

 

[pmcleanj]

A person, who lays a rod on another person, is guilty of criminal assault. God is not subject to the criminal code. Parents are not God; they are subject to the criminal code.

The phrase "lays the rod upon" is a paraphrase of "mastigoo", which means "to scourge". Are you suggesting that parents should scourge their children? Do you know what scourging is?

Zec 13:9 reads "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God."

Would you suggest that because God refines God's children with fire, that parents should use burning as an appropriate punishment? I would certainly hope not!

These passages are clearly metaphorical. God does not, in fact, stand over Christian people whipping them with scourges or melting them down in a blast furnace. Why should a metaphorical description of God's discipline, justify criminal assault upon little children?

 

[alaskamolly]

You have to see my last post--I was editing it while you were replying to it, so it's "grown" a tad--sorry about that--I didn't realize you were responding to it at that time!!!



As for your argument, I wish you would attempt logic instead of emotion.

You essentially say, "since A equals B, that means C equals B too, therefore I just proved your argument is wrong! HA!"

The only problem is, I didn't say C equals B.

A person, who lays a rod on another person, is guilty of criminal assault. God is not subject to the criminal code. Parents are not God; they are subject to the criminal code.

Parents are subject to the "code" of God, as well, or did you forget that?
Which one do you think is more important?

These passages are clearly metaphorical. God does not, in fact, stand over Christian people whipping them with scourges or melting them down in a blast furnace.

Well, yes and no. The Bible is actually quite clear that He not only allows His people to suffer greatly, but He also leads them right into it sometimes. Hey, He led His own son into it, why not us? Hebrews 11:36-40 is pretty severe, and Romans 8:36 is very blunt!

God doesn't seem to have a problem with pain and suffering--or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that He has higher purposes involved and thus allows pain and suffering because He has a bigger goal in mind.

Why should a metaphorical description of God's discipline, justify criminal assault upon little children?

What definitions do you like best--the court's, or God's?
Sounds to me like you feel the court (a fallible human institution, capable of good as well as evil) is of a higher authority than Yahweh.


But I'll pretend you asked your question a different way. Let's say that you asked, "How does a metaphorical description of God's discipline help us learn how we can properly train and guide our children?

Good question--I'm glad you asked!

Well, PM, it shows us that temporary pain/discomfort can be used to provide a long-term positive benefit, when done in such a way to help direct the child toward a more productive destination.

Temporary pain/discomfort can be in many forms--the pain of isolation (aka., time-out), pain/discomfort from a swat or two, pain/discomfort from the loss of a favorite toy, etc... The forms are many, but we can be clear that Scripture shows us pain/discomfort can be a very positive tool toward bringing us to a godly maturity.


Warm Regards,
Molly

 

[pmcleanj]

I wish you would attempt logic instead of emotion.

Then let me explain the logic to you a little more clearly. If, in reading a piece of Scripture, you equate God to parent and God's children to the parents' children, then it is logical to make the same equation in other passages that describe God's dealings with God's children. It is, essentially saying, that if A=B, then A=B. If you are taking one example of God's punishment as something that parents may literally do, and another example of God's punishment as something that parents may not literally do, you do not make that equation consistently -- hence your reliance on Scripture is inconsistent.

I have not forgotten that parents are subject to the "code" of God. But God does not require them to hit little children, or anyone else for that matter, with objects. If they do, in a jurisdiction where that behaviour constitutes criminal assault, they risk being arrested, charged, convicted, and jailed -- all of which will interfere with their ability to discipline their children in legal and desirable ways. And it will also bring the Gospel into disrepute. Hence, hitting children with objects is very bad advice, in those jurisdictions.

I in fact did not ask "How does a metaphorical description of God's discipline help us learn how we can properly train and guide our children," largely because we seem to be in agreement already in that interpretation: temporary discomfort can lead to a long-term positive benefit, and can take many forms. It doesn't have to take illegal forms. It doesn't even have to be inflicted -- often the hardest thing for a parent to do -- and the most beneficial -- is simply to allow their child to experience the consequences of their own actions, without rushing to rescue them.

But then, God did rescue us from the consequences of *our* sin, so that can't be a wholly bad thing, either.

 

[Busybee]

Before I had children, I was very much for spanking. However, I've seen negative effects of spanking in my neice and in my daughter when I'd give her a few swats. I personally only felt comfortable swatting her 2 or 3 times with my hand on her rear.

My neice is no better for spanking and rebels even more. My daughter was the same way.

I found that having her stand in the corner for 10-15 minutes was the best for her and veryyyy effective. BEFORE she begins her punishment I explain to her WHY she's in trouble and why she's not to do that and AFTER her punishment is over I calmly explain to her again what was wrong with what she did.

That method has worked great for us. I've never had to deal with her throwing tantrums in public and usually if she's doing something wrong all I have to do is give her "the look" lol.

Good luck and I hope you find what works best for you guys.

 

[bamagirl]

According to today's definition of child abuse, I was definately a victim...I was "whooped" with whatever my Dad happened to pick up at the time...a belt, paddle, switch, tree(lol), water hose, curtain rod...and whoever I was disobediant to was allowed to whoop me back then...I loved my Dad and respected him when I got grown...I was just a rebellious child but I turned out great and the cycle of the whoopings that I got is not carried on to me now as a Mom...I have a 14 year old son and a 5 year old son...My 5 year old very rarely gets a swat cause he hardly does anything wrong but my 14 year old is another story...I don't whip him with water hoses or curtain rods or other things that could break a bone but I have whipped him with a belt...when he stands in front of me and has an attitude and throws his hand up as if to hit me, I will not tolerate it...He is a whopping 182 lb 5'8" boy so it is hard to just simply "swat" him on the bottom, but I imagine he would love that sort of punishment...I don't leave bruises or whelps on him but when I do have to whip him, he knows I mean business...I gave birth to him and I am his mother...God gave him to me to raise him up in the right way and that is what I am trying to do...some kids just simply require more punishment than others...each child is different and I think YOU are the only one who knows how your child is and what they are doing to deserve punishment...I will keep you in my prayers and pray that God leads you in the right direction .

 

[kbean]

Lots of people bring up valid points here....

I am confused about the whole situation, I have a friend who seems to be obsessed with the "spare the rod...: scripture and thinks it is the anser to everything. She has progressed to using a plastic spoon and believes unwaveringly that PAIN is the goal. If it didn't work, then you didn't hit hard enough...says she.
I know these verses Pr 13:24, 22:15, 23:13, 23:14, 29:15 ALL mention the rod and so she takes it literally....very.
I am not there and I don't think I ever will be. I personally don't feel loving at all when I hit my kid. I started spanking my 20 month old very recently (he is a stubborn one!!) and he doesnt care at all. I feel I should give up. There must be a better way. He cries and walks away and then....recommits the offense within minutes.
I have found myself swatting him for things that, if I analyze the situation.... (this takes time and thought, which my friend and many parents nowadays are not able or willing to give to their kids) ....I find are important behaviours that he needs to do, but are annoying to me. Such as exploring his environment, touching, moving and making messes.
Spanking can be used for many wrong circumstances which may just be selfish parenting, or lazy parenting.
If you take the time to think, there are many methods of discipline whcih leave the child's physical health and emotional health IN TACT. Spanking sadly can be detrimental all too often!!

 

[kbean]

PS if you hear anyone use the argument that ..."I just can't see Jesus coming up to a child and smacking him...." think again. He sends people to Hell for eternity....that's a bit worse.

 

[pmcleanj]

There must be a better way. He cries and walks away and then....recommits the offense within minutes.

There is a better way.

Think about it. A child will perform the same action thirty times, a hundred times, as part of exploring his environment. That's how he learns about causality. The very annoying behaviours that so frustrate parents are part of this exploration: if I push the toy off the table, will it fall every time? If I turn over my milk glass, will the milk pour out every time? These cause-and-effect pairs are direct and physically linked, and a toddler works hard to learn them. Yet we expect children to learn readily from a causal chain that goes "I do 'X', and therefore Mama hits me, and therefore 'X' is wrong and I should not do it again". This is an indirect, abstractly-linked multi-stage causality. It's no wonder that children walk away from it and do 'X' again.

We often think that until children can speak fluently, that we can't use language to teach them. That's one reason to resort to hitting -- it doesn't rely on language comprehension skills. But, in fact, children understand language well before they can use it. We can talk to our children about behaviour very early on.

I don't mean that you speak sternly from across the room, or try to argue your 20-month-old into proper behaviour. Any parent knows those aren't effective techniques for engaging a small child's attention. You get close to the child, down on his level, and use simple language -- with dramatic facial expressions and intonation -- to convey that what he's doing makes you unhappy and frightened. Then you use the same technique -- simple language and lots of expression -- to show him something fun and safe to do instead. And you do it with him for a few minutes, so he has the reward of your companionship -- something that a child highly values unless he comes to associate parental attention with being hit or yelled at.

Some of the "fun and safe" things I did with my daughters included loading the plastic dishes into the dishwasher together, sweeping floors together, and wiping down appliances with damp dishrags together; as well as the more mundane things like piling up blocks and knocking them down together and looking at books together. And I'm rewarded that I have daughters who *ask* to help me iron, wash windows, and fold laundry because they enjoy the companionship of working together.

This kind of foundation -- taking three times as long to do your chores when your child is two, so that you can reap the rewards when she is twelve -- is what is pointed to by the direction to "raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it". And I certainly don't want to raise up my child in the way of believing that people who say they love her can be expected to hit her!

 

[pmcleanj]

I started spanking my 20 month old very recently (he is a stubborn one!!) and he doesnt care at all.

Just one other thing. I know the Supreme Court judgement got absolutely terrible coverage, and that it was very poorly explained by the news media. But one of the things that the justices explicitly found to be *outside* the Section 43 protection, was hitting a child under the age of two.

 

[kbean]

Thanks. I go t a lot out of what you said. I am really angry with my Christian friend who is constantly telling me that spanking is the only way. "you can't reason with a child that young" she says. Your suggestions are valluable and I am sure my family esp. my little guy will benefit from this type of technique.
I wish my friend would not be so extreme!!! She also believes that the Bible has no metaphors or analogies, it's to be taken extremly literally, and she is still under old testament laws...tithing....no tatoos, can't shave your head (although her husband keep his head shaved she contradicts almost everything she preaches......).....ug. I will stop now, should I become a talebearer and that does not wash well with the Lord.
Happy gentle parenting...all.

 

[Swtsnshyn]

All too often spanking is used inappropriately and/or done in a wrong manner and many times with a wrong spirit or heart (anger, frustration, etc.). When done properly, spanking does have its place. However, it is not to be used for every "wrong" action. There are other effective forms of discipline. Spanking should only be used in the case of rebellion which is something that is purposed from the heart, not an exploring of one's environment, etc. Reformation did a good job of covering this earlier in the thread.

Having said that, spanking is not necessarily how we are to "train up" our children. Pmcleanj did a good job of explaining this. All too often parents today seem to adopt the "do what I say and not what I do" attitude. Children truly do learn by example. Yes, training up requires time, but it is well worth it!! When we begin to see our little ones making right choices (even what one would consider a small choice) or begin to seek out their own relationship with God, it is a reward in itself.




God Bless!!
Dawn

 

[tonya]

I use different discipline methods with my 2 year old. Sometimes just getting on her level and making eye contact and talking to her helps. Other times I talk to her and use tim-out, and still other times I have used a flyswatter to spank her behind...let me tell you..she KNOWS what that flyswatter is and most of the time you can say that you are going to get it and she straightens her behavior up. Consistancy is the key and different behaviors need different punishments...and you can't spank ALL the time or use time-out All the time...they all lose their effectiveness!!!

 

[tim58]

Spanking should hopefully be a deterrent that is very rarely used. Here in the UK its just about illegal anyway. My wife spanked our teen daughter a couple of years ago and that was enough. My wife came down stairs blowing on her hand and our red faced daughter didn't appear for about an hour. My wife plays tennis to a pretty high standard so I should imagine she smacks pretty hard! Certainly our daughter hasn't risked another spanking.

 

[alexeeah]

Just one other thing. I know the Supreme Court judgement got absolutely terrible coverage, and that it was very poorly explained by the news media. But one of the things that the justices explicitly found to be *outside* the Section 43 protection, was hitting a child under the age of two.

Proverbs 23:13-14 says 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.

 

[alaskamolly]

Some of the discipline issues involved here can be alleviated with TRAINING.

It's a lot like training a puppy or a horse, if that's not too offensive to think about. Along those same lines, you want to train your toddler to obey your command. So you keep it simple, just like you do with a puppy, and you start with one thing...and with that one thing, you are absolutely totally consistant, 100% of the time.

1-2 weeks later, when they have that one issue down, you move on to the next thing. It doesn't really matter what you pick--just pick whatever it is that is the biggest pain-in-the-rear for you to deal with, and do that.

Train with a gentle voice, and expect instant obedience (no second or third request, unless you want to train them to obey the second or third time). We usually use the word, "no-no," and train them not to touch the 'no-no.' (Whatever the no-no happens to be)...

When they obey, they get a big smile and hug from the parent--praise! Not overdoing the praise or making it fake--just a happy squeeze to let them know they did a great job. When they don't, it's a quick surface-sting swat on the offending part. No scolding, no fussing at them--just a quick moment of displeasure on their part, letting them know that it's best to stay within the boundaries. It's just enough to make it clear that touching the no-no will bring uncomfortable consequences.

They almost never cry, because it doesn't really hurt much--they just look a little surprised and interested: "Hmmm...when I touch this "no-no", this thing comes and bites me on the hand...interesting...Wonder if that'll happen the next time I touch it... Wow! Sure 'nuff, it did. Boy, maybe it's worth my while not to touch things called, "no-no's..."

Commands are always given in a gentle quiet voice--this ensures that that's the voice they will obey--otherwise, you train them to only obey you when you are yelling and looking stern and mean!

It's almost like a game--you get to have fun with it. It's a neat opportunity to train your child, and it can be a really sweet time for both of you. Any toddler old enough to respond to stimuli is old enough to be trained in this gentle manner. They long for boundaries and borders, they really do, and so they seem to really enjoy knowing what's expected of them, and take great pride in showing off their obedience.

Our children always enjoyed training time, which surprised us with the first one, but as more came along, we realized that they love knowing their boundaries--they appreciate it, and they appreciate the loving interaction, too.

This can really help parents who are frustrated about discipline. It's nice to differentiate between discipline (that's what you get when you do something wrong, it's corrective), and training (that's what you do with them before they ever disobey--it's PROACTIVE).

Instead of just expecting obedience and then punishing it when it doesn't happen, train them in the PROPER behaviour before they ever get a chance to do it wrong. It's much more fair to them, and it makes for a much more pleasant home for all.

For us, we've always trained them through their toddlerhood, so by the time they get to preschoolers, they're awesome!

Sure, they're still full of energy and curiousity and spunk, but they also know how to obey, and so it makes for a very loud active loving HAPPY home (one where parents are still tired at the end of the day, but they're not FRAZZLED from constantly dealing with disobedience)--which happens to be the kind of home I like to live in.


Blessings,
Molly