My wife and I are non-smackers of our children.
This is a reasonably controversial thing to be amongst Christians. And, I have to say, most people who were adults now (in Anglo-Saxon countries anyhow) were smacked as children - and most without any ill effects.
Our 'philosophy' is really just pragmatic: we think it is more effective not to smack and to discipline by other means. So, we are happy to say smacking might work for someone else but not for us. I have to say it is really useful to have such a policy in place for those times when you really get mad...
Any thoughts?
89 comments:
I think I am similar, in that I am a non-smaker, but I was a "smackee", and probably for similar reasons.
When they're doing things they know drive you up the wall, it can be hard not to get mad. I think even where smacking is not part of the discipline protocol, it is very hard to punish appropriately and consistently when you are mad.
I agrree that there are more effective forms of discipline than smacking. We are moving more and more towards time outs as our prefered method (thanks Super Nanny!).
However, I have been finding that time outs only work after a child is old enough to make the connection between their bad behaviour and the time out. Before this age, I think an imediate response, like a smack, is better than a time out.
Can anyone suggest a more assseptable solution :-).
Freya bringing out the worst in the others MPJ?
What are some of your alternatives Michael?
Where does the "wisdom" of spare the rod and spoil the child fit in?
I don't have strong opinions either way, and i don't have children either, but I wonder if smacking of children was outlawed would some people believe that such a law impinges on the instructions of their faith?
I was a smacker with my children when they were young. Indeed, a "wooden spooner". The rule was "if you disobey me, you get smacked." No warnings or chances. If they were tardy in obedience, I'd get up and walk over to the drawer where the spoon was.
The eldest one got smacked a lot. The middle child about half as much, and the youngest I think only ever once. I think they followed the example of the older brothers.
I find I never need to discipline them beyond a rebuke these days - they are very well behaved boys.
Thats my experience...
Maybe your children need a smack Michael... being annoyingly precocious may be endearing to a parent but it sure is frustrating to those around you and them!
Smack your kids - they need it!
There seems to be wisdom with what the Lord says in Scripture. Yet, not every error and disobediance requires such discipline.
I am a thought-out non-smacker (contact me if you want the reasons), and believe that to smack or not to smack is a matter of Christian freedom.
I was appalled to be told once by an Anglican minister, that if I didn't smack my son, I lacked faith and trust in God and was disobeying scripture (the proverbs one). Does this man strike his kids with rods? Oh no... it's the principle he would probably say. But then couldn't the principle be that disciplining you kids is a must what ever way you do it?
And what about my conscience? For me to smack my child against my better judgement and against every feeling would greatly injure my conscience. And knowing the temperament of my son, it would almost certainly contravene the command to not exasperate your children.
The way this man and some other Christians make me feel is that if I don't smack my children they will most certainly become heathens and I'm not far from being one myself. What happened to grace? I didn't get smacked as a child and I didn't get raised as a Christian and I am one now. I bet there are a lot of smacked kids of Christians who have rejected their parent's faith.
I like your question Christopher. If Australia were to adopt New Zealand's stance of outlawing smacking, would Christians "go to the stake" for the odd verse in Proverbs? I definately wouldn't and I'd think that someone who did was quite misguided. I would go to the stake for the doctrine of Grace.
To Anonymous: Way harsh and not at all godly. Maybe Michael's children are precocious (I've never met them), but is it because they haven't had it beaten out of them? Maybe they're extremely bright and just children. I know my son is precocious, demanding, rude, and everything else because it is developmentally appropriate and because he knows he won't lose my love. If I beat him a bit more it might clean up the exterior, but the negative stuff would probably just go underground to resurface later as rebellious behaviour or crippling perfectionism and people-pleasing.
If you want to smack - go ahead but don't make those of us who don't smack feel like second rate, bordering on Liberal Christians.
Better an "annoyingly precocious" child than one whose precociousness has been beaten out of him.
Lucy
"I know my son is precocious, demanding, rude, and everything else because it is developmentally appropriate and because he knows he won't lose my love. If I beat him a bit more it might clean up the exterior, but the negative stuff would probably just go underground to resurface later as rebellious behaviour or crippling perfectionism and people-pleasing."
I think this show you, personally, have more issues about you than just smacking. I'm sure your child would be better behaved if you did smack him. When your child is continually rude, by your own admission, then you need to smack him.
When Michael's children are continually rude and demanding then they need to be smacked.
Using the guise of "developmentally appropriate" is just an excuse when children can be taught differently. And if they are not paying attention to that heeding then they need to be smacked!
Its been interestng for us having a third kid separated by a decade from the first two kids.... we have been much more pragmatic and successful, basically, about child discipline with the third, and it is reflected in the comments above from people who said that they smacked less and less as more children came along. You are just much more canny about what battles to fight, and what to let go, and you understand what motivates the kids better, so you have numerous non confrontational ways to achieve a desired result. We've also found the super nanny type approach really good!
The variable here is probably not the kids getting easier to get along with, its the parents getting to understand the kids better. If so, obviously one must qustion how just and fair was all the pain inflicted on the first kid? It reflected unrealistic parental expectations more than eggregious behaviour on the part of the kids. I don't think the bible is advocating punishing your children for your own ignorance, but clearly there is a lot of that going on.
I agree that the starting point of good discipline is the starting point of christianity: being aware of your own sinfulness. You need ways to express reasonable anger and frustration to your children, but it is a different process from discipline. To let your anger flow into hitting or verbal dressing down, as I have done, and instantly felt ashamed of, well, its better not to hit or speak.
Emotion requires an equal playing field and respect: it is a communication process. Discipline requires paternalism/maternalism... it is an uneven power situation, but must be as reasonable, fair and dispassionate as possible... the parent must negotiate it all! This issue becomes acute as they become teenagers, and the relationship become complex... and its best to start as you mean to continue, I would have thought. That was what reduced my smacking to a minimum, I found it just too much of a temptation to make it personal.
These days, I very occasionally smack the two year old, and I've found it need not even be enough to actually hurt. I do agree its useful to break into the thought processes and make a concrete point.. so if the hand is going to pull the laptop off the table, the hand can be smacked, even the gentlest tap, really, and it makes what you are saying suddenly get higher priority than the powerful human curiosity driving the action...
(P Knight)
I will smack, but rarely with a wooden spoon, though I will sonetimes get one out and put it on the table, and that is normally enough. If I do have to smack, I will use my hand, as I tell the boys - with my hands I will hold and cuddle you, and with my hands I will discipline you if need be.
There was a time with my then 4 year old son, who said no he would not do something when I asked him to do something. I said to him, "I will count to 5 and if you don't do it, I will then smack you on your hand and ask you to do it again - and if you don't do it, I will smack you on the other hand and then ask you to do it again counting to 5. Then if you don't do it, I will smack you on the leg and then ask you again to do it, and if you don't I will smack you on your other leg and then on your bottom..... It was a most interesting experience, you could see him figuring it out and he got up and went and did what he was asked for.
We use a smack on the back side for lying, and giving us sass...if they swear then the threat of washing their mouth out with soap is used and once my son did swear telling us to ....and I took him to the bathroom and got the soap out and he cried and cried saying sorry and I relented telling him that next time he has I dirty mouth I will clean it and he has never sworn since.
Smacking is always the final resort and not the first.
Anonymous said...
Maybe your children need a smack Michael... being annoyingly precocious may be endearing to a parent but it sure is frustrating to those around you and them!
Smack your kids - they need it!
Hey MPJ -- It might be time to cut out anonymous comments. If someone doesn’t have the courage to own their remarks, they don’t get to keep 'em.
Delete away, I say... It’s a form of smacking that can be entirely justified.
"... if they swear then the threat of washing their mouth out with soap is used" -- crikey, that sounds bloody awful!
oh dear Justin,
I feel so spanked - NOT!!!
AS per usual, Michael gets someone else to do his dirty work.
Mum used to send us out into the backyard to "find a stick so I can hit you with it". Gave her some time to catch her breath and gave us kids some time searching the backyard contemplating our puishment. More often than not it was never given, but was a real possibility.
I once went out and found a rock and brought it in telling Mum I couldn't find a stick but that she could throw the rock at me. All kids will push the limits, be precocious, and continue to be naughty regardless of whether they are smacked or not.
And just for the record, as someone who has done her fair share of childminding in her time, MPJ's kiddies are pretty tame.
Finally, anonymous, using children as the bait in any argument/ attack is deplorable.
Look, Michael opened up this can of worms and included his kids in it...
Maybe he's the deplorable one by not smacking his children when hey need it!
When I lose my temper and yell at 2 1/2 yr old, he then yells when he is angry with me. If I were to smack him he would not understand why he couldn't whack me or anyone else when he too was displeased. Mostly we attempt preventative measures and find that a punishment is only rarely required.
I find the hardest thing to be allowing him a method of expressing anger which is appropriate and possible for him - our biggest problems tend to be with his methods of showing anger. I want to guide him to better ways of doing that without effectively barring him from expressing emotion.
I hate anonymous flamers. They really are the bottom dwellers of the internet.
It's obvious that Anonymous enjoys being spanked just a little more than is healthy. I think this "continually rude and demanding" commentator needs to be put in time out (e.g. block him/her).
All in favour?
Well, sorry for not commenting earlier. And thankyou to most people for your comments here - this has been a thoughtful discussion on the whole.
Of course, the mistake anonymous makes to equate not smacking with not disciplining. Of course we discipline our children: sometimes it isn't successful of course. It is an exhausting work of continual revision!
I have seen children of parents who thought discipline of any kind was a restriction to the creative flow of the child and we moved our son to a different school because we didn't want him to be near that kind of thing.
I would be fine if our government banned all smacking, though I do not think all smacking is necessarily abusive. It is just that I am happy to lay down my right to smack in order to reduce the use of violence on children when it is problematic, which is very often as I am lead to believe. I find it bizarre that Christians and Christian schools would take a stand on this, really.
Dear Anonymous:
I am not sure if I know you or not, naturally. If you know me and my children and think that my parenting is too lax, then feel free to email me privately with your concerns. I would actually be keen to hear them.
I am not sure what you mean by the 'as usual michael gets someone else to do his dirty work' comment. To quote a great Australian: 'Please explain?'
Come On Michael fess up! We all know that Prof Brown's groundbreaking work the Da Vinci Code revealed that all those in positions of, or related to those in positions of authority in the Church are assigend an Albino assasin to carry out whatever dirty work they require.
I must say I am suprised that Justin was assigned as your "Albino"!
I would be fine if our government banned all smacking
lol - I would be too, because I wouldn't change my approach to discipline.
I've been prepaing some talks on discipline recently and had a look at a lot of very scary stuff out there on the web. Of all of it, I have to say that some of the Jewish sites with various traditions of interpreting the OT were most helpful (and sane sounding). Of course for my considered opinion in full you would need to come to MOCHA - Mothers.Children.Ashfield (Fridays 9:30am, St John's Hall, Bland St Ashfield)
I'm not a parent but assuming I had children I think I would be a smacker (when appropriate of course). I was smacked and got the wooden spoon as a kid -- not very often mind you :-) -- and can say that I was never punished inappropriately.
Michael, I'd like you to expand on your comment that you would be "fine if our government banned all smacking". OK, this works on one level since you as a non-smacker wouldn't personally be affected. It's like the government announcing that they are going to ban polo and people who don't have any interest in the game of polo saying they'd be "fine" with the ban. I don't play or watch polo and so wouldn't be affected and on that level would be "fine" with it. But I don't think that polo is immoral and moreover I think that other people should be allowed to play and enjoy the sport of polo and I don't think governments have any business in stopping other people from playing polo. So on that level I definitely would not be "fine" with the government banning polo. Despite having no interest in the sport of polo I would feel strongly about the government banning it and would support my polo-playing fellow citizens in their right to play polo.
So on what level would you be "fine" with a total ban on smacking? On the first ('I'm fine since a ban wouldn't personally affect me') or on the second ('I'm fine with the fact that people who do smack in good conscience will be prohibited from smacking')? If the government proposed to ban smacking, what would you as a non-smacker do? Would you (a) support smackers, (b) support the government, or (c) stay silent?
The Glass House (ABC TV Australia) made reference to Christian teaching on corporal punishment line. The best line was from Corinne Grant who said the danger of punishing them for too long is that they might become smack addicts.
Michael - why didn't your postings on the Articles raise the heat, passion, and interest that this one clearly has? Our fault - not yours!
I would smack a two year old if they ran onto the road, endangered another child, climbed onto the stove, or did any other such action that needed a shock to prevent them doing it again. I don't smack older children.
Sometimes a physical reminder is OK when the crime is physical or dangerous. Perhaps one of the reasons kids were whacked more in the old days was because their behaviour was so much more likely to endanger themselves or other people, and refusal to do a chore could affect the family's livelihood. In such instances unquestioning obedience would have been absolutely necessary. I know my father was once given a hiding for burning down the henhouse, both killing livestock and endangering himself.
Apodeictic - I suspect that smacking is a little different to polo (depending on your views on animal liberation, of course...). Many children are abused horribly by parents, who justify their violence by claiming it is their right to bring up their child as they see fit. Our society (rightly) often limits such parental freedoms in order to protect vulnerable children, indeed, governments have an obligation to protect the vulnerable. Where to draw the line is very difficult, but the cost of failure is high.
Byron: I hear what you're saying, but whether it is or isn't like Polo is the $64,000 question. Some people see smacking as inherently abusive, whereas others (like myself) see only excessive smacking as abusive, being then forced to draw a line somewhere between legitimate and excessive smacking. There is a deep ideological divide here. I think a deontological anti-smacking position ("smacking is always wrong") is very difficult to justify and relies on dodgy views of human autonomy which Christians cannot accept. But I realise that most Christian non-smackers wouldn't hold such an unnuanced position and would probably put forward an instrumental argument. They would probably agree that smacking *per se* is not immoral, but then say that its scope for abuse is so great that we should ban it anyway. It's very similar to most anti-gun arguments: Most sane people would admit that guns are not inherently immoral (although a small minority would no doubt try to argue that they are); that leaves us with some uses of fireamrs that are moral and others that are immoral. Many sane people would, however, argue the case for a total ban simply because they see the potential for abuse as so great as to outweigh the concerns of those who use firearms for morally legitimate purposes. It's a rational argument. Whether it's right or worng is another matter. I'm not going to weigh in to the firearms debate here.
Hypothetically speaking, one can imagine some polo players "going too far" and abusing the horses with their polo sticks. They may even claim it as their "right" to teach those headstrong horses a lesson. What should be our response to this abuse (assuming we don't see polo as inherently abusive but only the excess as abusive)? I take abuse to horses seriously and don't want to see horses being abused. But I also take seriously the right of the non-abusers to enjoy their sport. So do we ban polo outright, and also prohibit the non-abusers from playing polo? Or do we ban the excessive behaviour (the abuse of polo, but not polo itself) that inflicts cruelty on horses, thereby leaving the non-abusers free to play polo? That's not by any means a straightforward question. The answer will depend on a lot of factors. Here are a couple I can think of: 1) the extent of the abuse (it's a very different situation if 99% of players are abusive than if 1% are abusive) 2) the ability to isolate and punish abusers on an individual basis while allowing non-abusers to continue playing (can we catch the culprits?) 3) the extent to which imposing a total ban would actually have the effect of restraining the abusers (will a total ban stop the culprits?). All these factors are also at play in the smacking debate. It is far from certain that a total ban would actually have the desired effect of stopping child abuse. The abusers might (probably would) continue to abuse and go undetected.
So on that level I do think smacking is like polo. Neither is inherently immoral and both can be abused. But there is one significant way in which smacking might differ from polo and that is in the scope for/consequences of abuse. As you said, the price of failure is high. (But then again, the price of failure in the other direction is high. Society does not want ill-disciplined youths.) Maybe the extent and consequences of abusive smacking are such to warrant a total ban on smacking, since it would instrumentally achieve the desired aim of preventing child-abuse. In my view such a position would not be irrational. It would involve a legitimate end and weighing up the pros and cons of how to achieve that end. So you can make a rational instrumental argument for a total ban on smacking. I just happen to think that those who advocate a total ban are wrong. Rational, but wrong.
So yes, smacking can definitely go too far and some children are abused by their parents. There is a line that should not be crossed. We should want to prevent child-abuse. And rational people will differ over where that line is to be drawn and how best to prevent child-abuse. A total ban based on essentially instrumental ('a ban on smacking will prevent child abuse'), rather than deontological arguments ('smacking is inherently abusive') is in my view a rational, but ultimately wrong, response to legitimate concerns. Banning smacking outright would not significantly reduce child abuse IMHO. The best approach is to target and punish abusers and allow the non-abusers to discipline their children as they see fit. But perhaps you beg to differ.
Yes I do!
I can drive very safely without wearing a seat belt. But I am happy to restrict my own freedom in this area for the sake of those who need to wear seat belts when they drive.
HOWEVER: perhaps we should consider whether smacking is wrong deontologically speaking. It is an act of violence after all... couldn't it be possible to argue that violence merely perpetuates violence in this way?
(Not from the other Anon)
Remember that most punishments for a child would be considered an "act of violence" if done to an adult.
Restricting someone's movements is an act of violence - for an adult it is called kidnapping.
Hi Mike,
thanks for having the courage and insight to raise an issue like this.
I think it is worth highlighting the distinction between "smacking" and "discipline". For me, when I have noticed chasms between my practice and the practice of others it has always been a divide between those who generally practice some kind of discipline and those who generally don't (smacking has not been the issue at all, although I notice a statistical but not necessary correlation between those who don't believe in smacking and those who don't practice any kind of discipline)
The key issue then seems to be what discipline is, and what role it plays in training children. Perhaps the more focussed question is, what is punishment, and what role is it to play?
It seems to me hard to escape the conclusion that God would have us inflict painful consequences on our children, in order to train them to be godly (as hebrews says, no discipline seems pleasant at the time). Proverbs would go as far as to say that we hate our children if we do not do this.
It is as though we must give them little "judgments" in order that they might avoid the big "judgment" (and no I don't think I can make my children Christian)
With this view we can readily "smacking" might be seen as one strategy amongst others (and although we don't have a policy against it in our family, we don't see it as the primary or most effective strategy), certinaly I think those who wish to rule it out altogether need to present either some kind of case as to why other forms of pain are so much better, or a case as to how raising children can be done without inflicting painful consequences.
Thanks again Mike,
Tim
Mike: re the original post...how do you know there were no side affects from you being smacked? Serious question! I'm still discovering attitudes and characteristics of my own which are only now recognisable as effects echoing from the way I was brought up.
Also the deontological aspect of smacking is the key question here. Surely the biggest impact on a child's development is the character of their parents. Surely it's the matrix of personalities surrounding every 'smacking event' that has the biggest impact on the child. I read somewhere that the 'most balanced' children (whatever that means) are the ones with a non-anxious mother (whatever that means). What happens if a non-anxious mother chooses to smack? Perfectly brought up children? Any takers?
On smacking and deontology: In my comment I thought most Christian non-smackers (if they thought the issue through) would reject the view that it is deontologically immoral and actually put forward instrumental arguments against smacking. (I gave one possible instrumental argument -- an instrumental moral argument -- which I then rejected, but there are other instrumental arguments too.) Perhaps I was too hasty to draw the comclusion. Maybe there are Christian deontonlogical non-smackers out there who would be willing to defend that viewpoint. I certainly reject deontological moral arguments against smacking, but I would be curious to hear what others have to say. (Of course, perhaps I'm also being too hasty in assuming this blog's readership to be Christian. Non-Christians are also welcome to weigh into the debate.)
Michael, in your original post, however, you didn't seem to take a moral (whether deontological or instrumental) approach to your non-smacking. You said: "Our 'philosophy' is really just pragmatic: we think it is more effective not to smack and to discipline by other means. So, we are happy to say smacking might work for someone else but not for us." I read this as saying you're not opposed to smacking on moral grounds but on grounds of efficacy. You just said you don't do it because it doesn't work (for you) as as well as other means of discipline. That's a rational position to take. Whether it's right or wrong is a different matter and will probably differ from parent to parent and from child to child. I can't really say very much more on this given that (a) I don't have children and (b) (more importantly!) I don't have YOUR children. Maybe I would come to the same judgment as you after being a parent. Then again, maybe I wouldn't.
But I don't think the government could (convincingly) ban smacking on efficacy grounds. After all, how are they to know whether it does or doesn't work in my particular situation? The government really doesn't have a clue what's effective discipline and what's not for your particular children in a given situation. If the government were (convincingly) going to ban smacking for everyone it would need to be on moral grounds (either deontological or instrumental) rather than on grounds of efficacy. And on that basis I don't think there's a convincing argument for a total ban on smacking.
Yes, though governments do things for all sorts of non-convincing reasons!
I guess to answer Marty: I think my folks were very sparing in their use of corporal punishment. I got smacked once in 1977, not at all in 1978 and in 1979 and 1980 once each. But then again, I can remember it each time... so what does this say? I could fault their parenting, but not on this basis.
I can see the value in the argument that punishment is communication: and that if you communicate that punishment through violence you perpetuate violence rather than reflection and growth. I remember vividly a friend of mine whopping his child for hitting his brother "don't hit!" he said, as he hit his son. Isn't this bizarre?
Michael,
When did smacking become volence? Is rumbling with some friends considered violence? What about chopping down a tree? Could banging a drum be considered violence? Or what about playing poision ball (dodge ball) in youth group be considered violence? What about playing a game knuckles with your father?
I think your equating smacking with violence is inflamitory and incorrect. And is you subtle way trying to persudade your readers that you are right by using emotive language, and guilting them into thinking your stance is the only right.
Smacking is not violence. Beatings are violent. Canings are violent. A smack on the hand, (which is not the first step but one of the last in teaching your child 'no') to help a child learn and remember something especially if they are in danger should not be put down just because your personal 'philosophy' doesn't allow it.
Wow, Rachel: ouchie! That smarts!
Well we need a clearer definition of the word 'violence' in that case... I would have thought that a smack is obviously and incontrovertibly violent; it is just that it is (for some) permitted violence, or violence with a particular context and meaning, just as we might say a policeman's violent acts though still violent in restraining a criminal are perfectly allowable. It is still violence, of course. It needn't always be abusive - or at least, it remains to be proven that it is if it is. It isn't abusive merely by the fact of its being violence per se.
And it is true that our society is particularly squeamish about violence (with interesting ramifications for theories of the atonement interestingly!). We no longer punish our criminals with violence. Which is partly I think why people now more often object to using violence on children.
Um, yes David: it would be interesting to reflect on anger for a minute... I think it is impossible to imagine a parent acting coolly, like a judge on the bench, dealing out non-emotive punishments. What is so wrong with anger? Doesn't God punish out of his wrath? The problem isn't the anger: it is the lack of self-control which results perhaps in disproportionate punishment. In punishment I am precisely communicating my displeasure to my child and they should know it! It isn't impersonal!
I think one of the good reasons not to smack is that children imitate their parents, with little discretion. A child who is smacked when their parents are frustrated with their behaviour (the most common smack - the parent has lost it) will use smacking as an outlet themselves. Some children discover this on their own anyway.
With respect to the "spare the rod" proverb, I read in one Christian book that the author preferred to interpret this as a shepherd's crook. You don't imagine shepherds giving the sheep a great whack across the back to get them to go the right way, rather a yank around the neck... hmmm... maybe that didn't quite come out the way I intended.
I haven't had my husband agree yet though, and I only have one two year old girl so far, who is so sensitive that when I say her name in anger, she dissolves into tears, meaning that I haven't exactly got a rebellion issue yet.
I think maybe the issue at hand isn't really about smacking, but more about a parent abusing the authority given them by God to discipline their children. As a child, my parents used to cane me, which really was the practice of their culture, but what scarred me was caning out of their rage. They may have been completely justified in their anger but when I reflect on it now, I don't think the caning expressed their desire to communicate to me that what I did was wrong, or if so, it wasn't quite to the effect they were looking for, I'm sure.
In any case, I don't have children (I'm not even married!!) but I think the issue about whether to smack as a method of discipline is really dependant on each individual - their own upbringing, personality, predispositions and of course, children. For myself, I think I'd avoid it unless absolutely necessary for fear of my own lack of self-control.
Thanks Apodeictic for clarifying your Polo comment (at such length!). Perhaps it would be interesting to hear people's take on other issues of government control. We've already heard MPJ on seat-belts (interestingly, Australian seat-belt laws came in well before (and with much less fuss than) those in the UK. As for the US...). Anyone else?
NB I realise that governmental control was not the issue in the original post.
Michael - your reply to Rachel didn't actually deal with the issue she brought up.
According to dictionary.com violence is an (amongst other things) "Abusive or unjust exercise of power"
This may cover physical, emotional, and mental violence.
Berating a child, sending them to a "naughty" seat, yelling at them, confining them to a room, making them skip dinner, removing privileges may all be considered violent acts under the right circumstances.
Smacking on the other hand may not be inherently violent as you inflammatorily and incorrectly claim.
The issue is not if it is physical or not, but if it is an abuse of power.
Well folks it's been interesting. But the discussion endeth hereth. It is decided. Smacking your children is good and should be done.
Now let's go help mom with the shopping...
as someone who used to work in child protection - (in the dodgiest part of Sydney too!) I would Never endorse smacking or do it myself (I have a one year old). Maybe anon if I took you to the homes on an emergency responce visit you may change your mind about smacking (and perhaps about your own self-assurance that you could never hit a child 'like that' as even though I worked in a generally poor area it was not only the poor who were susceptible to being an abuser). I believe that smacking shows a lack of (anger management) discipline and thought from a parent. What a child needs far more than a smack is modelling of appropriate behaviours as this is how a child learns for the fisrt 7 or so years of life.
I wonder if any form of discipline to the child is a form of violence.
My son hated it when I took away his toy guitar and his spiderman toys for a couple of days and had a real paddy about, which only stopped as I added another day to every tantrum about it until we reached a week.
He hates it when he is not allowed to watch his TV shows or sent to his room - often with a huge show of tears.
Could one say that that is a form of violence? I think some could make a case that it is, for it causes the child some kind of anguish.
At the local preschool my son goes to, they told us they are not allowed to use the "NO & Don't" word's to the kids, to use other words to distract them.....I think the world is going a bit mad, as children need to learn the words "No, Yes, Stop, and Don't"
I think a smack on the hand is important if they are trying to reach something hot on the table, or touch something they shouldn't, and as Jame Dobson says in his book on disciplining a strong willed child, a smack on the bottom through all the layers of clothing and nappy needs to be a hard one so that they know they have been smacked.
Since Violence is an action with the intention to, or results in abuse or damage, any of the punishments mentioned can be violent.
It is the intention and result that matters - not the form.
Perhaps what people are not realising is that smacking is developmentally inappropriate. If it is used under a certain age it is confusing and does not teach a child much about appropriate behaviour but administered after a certain age teaches a child that a parent has the right to humilitae them in order to 'teach' them a thing or two. I understand that this is a sensitive topic as are most parenting topics. I choose to not let my son play with plastic/commercial toys and to not let him eat sugar but these are not matters I would insist others take up. Smacking though has societal impacts and therefore I think Michael's no smacvking policy is a good model to follow.
with regards to government control, I've not really formed an opinion either way, but I do have to wonder how it would be enforced? With seatbelts, they can make it regulation for vehicle manufacturers to include them in their production and to some extent police officers can monitor whether people are using their seatbelts through random road inspections (kinda like RBT I suppose). But how could you ensure a no-smacking policy is being adhered to without invading the privacy of the home? Unless you perhaps had some sort of neighbourhood watch program but it still seems logistically impossible.
Besides, I think you'd need conclusive, empirical evidence that smacking as a form of discipline is truly developmentally impairing for children. I don't think anecdotal cases would be sufficient as there are probably just as many cases where individuals have been smacked throughout their childhood and have developed just fine.
Although, I guess it all depends how you measure 'fine'.
Yeah I would like to see what evidence has been established on smacking.
Well I think violence is the issue that needs discussion. I didn't find the dictionary.com definition to be a very good one.
Is rugby a violent game?
So suggest an alternative. I would not expect such blind prejudice.
Rugby can be a violent game, but is not nessesarily so. If you followed your original logic, Rugby should be banned because it can often lead to violence.
"with regards to government control, I've not really formed an opinion either way, but I do have to wonder how it would be enforced?"
The government could encourage children to dob their parents in, and then a secret "task-force" could come and take the parents away in the middle of the night.
This approach would reduce the negative impact that smacking children has on society.
It may be of interest that violence does not only consist of physical violence. Violence can be emotional (hence there is the term emotional- abuse.) I would also suggest that those in favour of smacking try and gain a child's perspective of being smacked...
As a child who was smacked it seemed unpleasant at the time, but now I can see that it was appropriate most of the time and inappropriate some of the time. I have no hang-ups about being smacked and I think I will smack my children if needed.
But I don't think my children will be naughty enough to deserve discipline :)
Comparing a smack with extreme forms of physical abuse is like comparing "time-out" with solitary confinement on Alcatraz.
As I made clear, I was a smacker when the boys were young. Nothing I've read here has convinced me that its not right. And there is the clear scriptural endorsement. You might say "spare the rod" just endorses discipline generally - but you must conclude that "the rod" is explicitly affirmed at the very least!
There is nothing more unpleasant than an ill-disciplined child. And I don't believe such children are well prepared for adolescent and adult life.
In regard to "clear scriptural endorsement" that statement scares the willies out of me. Would you also say there is clear scriptural endorsement to make sure your wife wear a hat (head covering) at all times or stay silent during church? The 'rod' may well have been used in bible times but is comparable to the 'cane' being phased out now. I am not saying that giving your child a smack is abuse but as many in our society have and will abuse this form of discipline (including ourselves when we are REALLY angry) It is wiser to refrain and set an example to other parents.
Discipline is not reduced to smacking or even time-out for that matter. One can even save 'no' and 'don't' for the really serious situations and instead say and model appropraite behaviour to our child eg "we speak quietly at bedtime" said in a whisper.
Are we smacking because we are tired, fed-up, frustrated etc or because we think that it is the best way for a child to understand limits and boundarys? Most smacking does not appear to be child-focused, but rather for reasons related to the former.
In regard to "clear scriptural endorsement" that statement scares the willies out of me.
Well, it shouldn't!
The 'rod' may well have been used in bible times but is comparable to the 'cane' being phased out now.
There's no use keeping up with the times if the times aren't going anywhere. (Chesterton)
It is wiser to refrain and set an example to other parents.
I disagree. I want to set an example to other parents that it is right and proper to discipline our children, including smacking.
Are we smacking because we are tired, fed-up, frustrated etc
No, its because I wanted my children to grow up well disciplined, and well equipped to cope with a difficult world.
or because we think that it is the best way for a child to understand limits and boundarys?
Yes
Most smacking does not appear to be child-focused,
I don't think you can make that generalisation.
OK so Craig and anon, you and I are going to come at this from VERY different experiences (past and present) and I doubt any type of agreement will take place (this does seem rather like the control crying vs attachment parenting debate except with the bible thrown in).
There is no christian black and white answer to this issue. Like many things the bible is silent about smacking but not about discipline. I agree with you that discipline is Godly and Good but beyond that I can not agree.
Thats fine - I respect your right not to smack your children Rachel.
Anonymous: I am loathe to delete your rather aggressive comments because I think you actually do contribute to the debate. But I do think outing yourself would be the right thing to do.
I genuinely want to know what violence is. My comments have been brief and more than usually incoherent lately because I have had limited internet access owing to new baby! I think I would define violence as a physical act of touching another against their will with the intent to cause pain (however slight). "Emotional violence" is just a metaphoric use of the word, not the same thing: this just confuses the issue.
According to this definition, rugby would NOT be violent, but it would contain acts of violence that the game expressly forbids. There could be legitimate and authoritative violence - under this definition, smacking is not immediately by definition seen as abusive per se. Neither would capital punishment: you could argue that this was legitimate use of violence, but it would still be against the will and against the person of the object of the act.
So, my use of the word violence was in no way intended to call smacking abusive per se.
This is a fascinating discussion, on a number of planes. Firstly, is the biblical witness clear and binding at this point? After the, the rebellious son of Dt 21 is called to be stoned. Ought we to apply the domestic practices of theocratic Israel to Christian family life indiscriminately? Might the biblical practices represent some form of accommodation to the survival-focus of Israelite culture?
Secondly, there is the question of violence. It's a loaded word, perhaps unnecessarily. Obviously, the focus of the current discussion is on physical violence, in the form of smacking, and whether that also has unintentional emotionally violent outcomes which are unhealthy in the long-term. Contra Rachel Greenwood, I think we could all agree that a smack, intended to inflict pain, however mild, is a form of violence. The question is whether it is *legitimate* violence. I'd be interested in hearing someone's opinion on the place of *fear* in filial relations, because that may give us some guidance.
Thirdly, there is of course the role of discipline. Much modern Christian writing on bringing up children seems to suggest that the aim of discipline is to conform children to the will of the parents. That sits uncomfortably with me as a parent. Have I failed if my children are unable to sit quietly in church, or conform to other social norms? Or is my desire to impose that behaviour upon my children a sign of my unwillingness to bear fully the cost of parenting, which may often involve having my will thwarted.
There is no doubt that Susannah is often exhausting, draining, inconveniently adventurous. Maybe that is just whom God has made her to be.
Michael - please forgive me for my agressive statements. They have come from a frustration with your choice in language. Accusing you of blind prejudice was wrong, incorrect, and inexcusable. Sorry.
It is also worth nothing that there are several Anons (or at least 2) here. My comments have been challenging your use of language. The other Anon has been much more agressive - and unfairly so.
Back to the topic.
I strongly disagree and I continue to be frustrated by you calling smacking inherintly violent. I stand by my earlier statement that this is inflamatory language. It does not help this debate.
Calling something violent is never a good or neutral thing. In common useage it is always negative. Even using your definition, we don't want a violent police force, though we do want them to physically restrain people and stop crime. We don't advertise for violent people to join the police. Calling someone a violent person is never a compliment, no matter how restrained and "right" their violence may be. If you hold a screaming kid to stop them crossing the road, we wouldn't call your action violent. You don't reward the person who saved your childs life by calling them violent - no matter how positive you think this may have been.
So for a debate about smacking, you confuse the issue using emotive language which is designed to manipulate your readers into agreeing with you.
I happen to have no problems with people not smacking their kids. I have no problems agreeing that smacking may lead to violence and abuse. But to call people who smack their kids violent - it is not fair debating. In most people's minds violence = abuse. Your labelling is insulting.
And that is where my frustration lies - I would expect better from you. Debate the issue, don't label those who disagree with derogatory names.
I think I have made my point.
Much modern Christian writing on bringing up children seems to suggest that the aim of discipline is to conform children to the will of the parents.
That is precisely what discipline should do. Children are not in a position to decide what is best for themselves. They have parents to make these decisions for them.
As they grow older, of course, they are given increasing responsibility.
That sits uncomfortably with me as a parent. Have I failed if my children are unable to sit quietly in church, or conform to other social norms?
Pretty much yes. If your children are unable to conform to "social norms", they are going to have a tough time of it in society.
For example, if your daughter can't sit still for 10 minutes in church, how is she going to cope with school? Or university?
What if her "adventurous spirit" when she is an adult means she wanders into work at 11:30am. What is going to happen?
If your children are not required to conform to the will of their parents, why should they conform to the will of their teacher, or lecturer, or boss? Why should they conform to the will of a policeman or magistrate?
When I discipline my children I am giving them skills that will enable them to do whatever they wish to in life.
Remember there is a promise attached to the fifth commandment - "that it may go well with you". I believe that to be true, by and large. The kids I knew growing up who were most rebellious toward their parents tended to come to a bad end.
G'day Michael.
Have I failed if my children are unable to sit quietly in church, or conform to other social norms?
This is something I struggle with as well.
What do we do with boistrous children in church who cannot sit still, and cannot be quiet, such as my 4 year old.
How do we bring that child up to enjoy church and not find it a tedious experience?
I have decided for myself that I will restrain the child as is nessecery, such as stopping him from running up and down, or speaking too loudly, but I believe church has to be church for all people including 4 year olds and the congregation needs to be 4 year old friendly. Our other son when he was 4, watched the then AB Harry Goodhew sit in his chair during a visit to our church and when he preached he marched boldly up to that chair and crossed his arms and sat in it facing the congregation with a rather defiant look. We decided to leave him there instead of making a disturbance and getting him off it.
I also struggle with the issue of have I failed bringing my children up when the congregation tuts tuts or the sunday school teacher spits the dummy because the children are being just that, children?
Do you think that it is possible for a form of violence to happen in church in the way of peer group pressure towards parents to make a child conform?
The whole issue of violence is a rather interesting one I must say.
This is Nick W. Posting under "anonymous" right now because I normally blog from home where I'm auto logged in and, being at work at the moment, can't remember my login, so apologies!
I don't know MPJ, but I do know Justin and maybe one or two others posting here.
I have no feelings one way or the other on the topic. But having read this thread I wanted to direct the infamous "anon" to John Piper's latest "Fresh Words" over at DG:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/080906.html
I think there's something in that for all of us. I certainly found it pretty challenging.
God bless.
If ya canna hear ya mussa feel.
Belting our little bighters into a tame submission to immoral authority is essential otherwise they might grow up questioning the right of others to rob them of their true autonomy, why they might become so far gone that they observe the entire educational process is designed to inculcate only apathy and desparate resignation to a world that floats on shit.
otherwise they might grow up questioning the right of others to rob them of their true autonomy,
On the contrary, it is only the truly well disciplined who have the courage and strength of character to stand up against authority.
The ill-disciplined are tossed back and forth with every wave. They do not make impressive adults.
Craigs
Gotta say, I disagree heartily with the thrust of a couple of your points.
That is precisely what discipline should do. Children are not in a position to decide what is best for themselves. They have parents to make these decisions for them.
Much childhood behaviour, especially in the early years, is not rooted in rational cognitive processes. Granted, this means that in many ways parents need to steer them through life. However, it also means that children are fundamentally *different*. They need some space to learn to make decisions for themselves, but also to be children.
Which is why I think your assertion that a child who cannot sit still in church represents a failure of parenthood, because of a failure to conform the child to social norms, is developmentally naive.
Church isn't designed for children. Children aren't designed to sit still for any length of time. They are high-energy, high-activity creatures with short attention spans. There is significant documented evidence that to fail to recognise the developmental psychology of children, by applying adult social norms, is damaging to their normal healthy growth.
Not to mention to fact that 'social norms' is, unfortunately, often an ideological handbag for those who wish children to be seen and not heard. 'Norm' implies an averaging out; but individual children are not 'averages'. We need to make space for children in social contexts to be themselves, rather than Joe and Jemima Bloggs. They'll even out a bit over time, on their own.
But most of all, it appears that you have equated discipline exhaustively with corporal punishment ie. smacking. How do you sustain that? We have a no-smack policy for reasons similar to MPJ's, and it seems to work well. Susannah is sent to The Step for some time-out when she does something wrong. She is then welcomed back into the family social setting with a kiss, an explanation of what she did (again) and a request that she not repeat the behaviour. I don't claim this is 'enlightened parenting', but it works well for her. Particularly as, at 1 1/2 years, her most egregious errors involve hitting. Do you smack her in immediate response while saying, 'Susannah, it's wrong it hit'? Sounds a little like a mixed message to me.
Oh, and just a thought on smacking children with a wooden spoon, it is my understanding that the Crimes Act now contains the following sentences regarding discipline,
the force is applied by the use of a stick belt or other object (other than an open hand), or
the force is applied to any part of the head or neck, or
the force is applied to any part of the body of the child in such a way as to cause harm or threaten to cause harm to the child that lasts for more than a short period.
The are consider unreasonable uses of force, adn are therefore illegal. So whatever your personal preferences, if you use a wooden spoon, you're breaking the law.
Which is why I think your assertion that a child who cannot sit still in church represents a failure of parenthood, because of a failure to conform the child to social norms, is developmentally naive.
Well, I respect your right to your opinion. My sons are 13, 11 and 9, so I speak from experience. I may be naive regarding developmental theory, but not regarding practical parenting.
The are consider unreasonable uses of force, adn are therefore illegal. So whatever your personal preferences, if you use a wooden spoon, you're breaking the law.
I understand that. In this instance the law is in conflict with the teaching of scripture - and also the welfare of my precious children. If the state chooses to prosecute me, so be it.
But most of all, it appears that you have equated discipline exhaustively with corporal punishment ie. smacking.
Not at all, as my previous comments indicate. But I think it is an effective method of discipline, and one which is clearly endorsed by Scripture (and there has been just about zero talk about scripture on this thread).
Michael,
great issue.
Pragmatically speaking, my wife and I have found that in the past when we have smacked our children, it has led to much more violence in our home both kids on kids and kids on parents. It always seemed kind of ridiculous smacking a child while saying it is not okay to hit me.
To say that not smacking is an unbiblical method of parenting, seems to ignore the New Testament and that bearded guy who talked about love and stuff.
My goal as a parent is to love my kids and help them to grow up to be people who know and love Jesus. THat certainly means disciplining them, but for mine that is me loving them. I therefore need to find the most loving way to discipline them.
Time out works for us even for the three year old when she was one.
Being stopped from doing what you want to do for a period of time, and then having a time of talking about the issue and needing to say sorry to the appropriate people before you can go on works for us. Even with the most stubborn and they are that (not sure where they get that from)
Anyway, I'm off back to THessalonians sermon.
Craigs, I still am wrestling with your argument that corporal punishment is clearly endorsed in Scripture. After all, 'spare the rod' comes from Prov 13:24, which is immediately followed by v.25:
"The righteous eat to their hearts' content,
but the stomach of the wicked goes hungry."
And it seems to me that in a world where many Christians starve to death, this passage requires careful interpretation. As I quoted above, Deut suggests that the rebellious son be put to death. Would you apply that in your family on the basis of the 'clear endorsement of Scripture'?
We need to be careful to understand texts within their context, and to be cautious about applying them directly to our situation. Proverbs are not only Wisdom, but also poetry; the author may simply be suggesting that discipline is necessary for the healthy development of children, using 'the rod' as a poetical image. After all, as someone above has asked: do you beat your children with a rod? Prov does not say 'hand' or 'spoon'! If you don't, either you are disobedient to the clear endorsement of Scripture, or you intuitively understand that 'rod' has a breadth of meaning beyond its immediately obvious semantic range. And if it may include 'spoon', or 'hand', why not a more abstract connotation?
Have to say I agree with Michael P: there is no 'clear' endorsement in scripture for corporal punishment... but there certainly is clear endorsement for discipline. There continues to be the assumption (not by CraigS) that no smacking = no discipline. That isn't the issue, is it?
I fully accept that discipline can be broader than "the rod". But "the rod" is the specific instance that Scripture mentions. I don't know how anyone escape the conclusion that Scripture endorses corporal punishment for children.
If you choose to discipline your kids in other ways, that is obviously your perogative.
Regarding Deuteronomy MichaelP, this is an old question and you already know the answer. Mosaic Law, the national context of Israel; ceremonial/moral/civil divisions; prawns and gay sex etc etc.
Proverbs has a broader context than that passage in Deuteronomy, and I'm sure you already believe that.
A couple of other points -
Saying "Scripture endorses child discipline" seems like a bit of a motherhood statement. I mean, *everyone* endorses child discipline - Genghis Khan and Hitler endorsed child discipline. Is that really *all* Scripture has to say on this incredibly important topic????
The argument that it is hypocritical to punish a child for being violent with violence is puerile. Following this logic, it would be wrong to punish a kidnapper with imprisonment, or to punish a thief with a fine.
The problem is the immoral application of violence, not the application of violence per se.
Sorry, CraigS, but you still haven't justified your particular reading of Proverbs as rod = smacking. Can you muster a defence?
As for Deut, not only have the old divisions of ceremonial/moral/civil been long shown to be thoroughly insupportable (esp in evangelical biblical-theological readings), but even if you ran with them, where would you place stoning? My guess is that for both Dt and Prov, in a scarcity-driven society, discipline is a civil matter (among other things, it directly bears on the safety of society - if a child fails to close the gate at night, it doesn't just mar the urban aesthetic, but allows wolves into the community flock). For modern Christians in the West, discipline is more of a social issue, I would think.
Sorry, CraigS, but you still haven't justified your particular reading of Proverbs as rod = smacking. Can you muster a defence?
I disagree.
As for Deut, not only have the old divisions...etc
MichaelP, you can use this sort of sophistry to prove up is down and black is white. It impresses me not a bit, and I much prefer plain writing.
In your opinion, what does the bible teach about child discipline.
Sorry, let me express myself more clearly.
Proverbs advises the use of a 'rod'. How does that justify the use of a hand - ie. smacking - as opposed to other forms of discipline.
Secondly, I don't think that anyone in the field would see our salvation-historical understanding of the application of the OT to post-resurrection Christian life as sophistry. Since so much of the OT does not apply directly to us, it seems to me that you still need to demonstrate why the hermeneutic for Prov 13 is as linear as you claim.
You have not yet shown why this text, unlike many other OT texts, should be read off as simply as you model.
The passages which I would be much more likely to start with - and which I think you ought to - are those in places like Eph; or even the qualities of elders in Titus and Timothy. Here we find a clear - and immediately applicable - demonstration of the importance of fatherly discipline of children. Note, however, that no mode is spelled out for this discipline.
I suspect that as the use of beatings - quite severe beatings - was pretty much the order of the day in c.1st Judaea and the broader Mediterranean, so that Paul probably assumed some such approach. And yet I think that we (even you) would be uncomfortable with the severity of that model.
But this just returns us to our earlier disagreement. Please explain your hermeneutic.
MichaelP, I'm not inclined to define and justify my whole hermeneutic here. This thread will become very tedious if it becomes much more academic.
At this stage I'm much more interested in what you believe the bible does teach about child discipline.
My take on the stoning issue in Deut is this.
If you knew that you had to stone your child if he went wild, I think perhaps parents would look after their children differently....and not only them, but would look out for each others children more so as well.
I agree craig B. I am a strong believer in the saying "it is the village that raises the child".
89 comments so far! That has to be a record.
A cynical person might suggest this contraversal post is buying time until the next one (2 weeks and counting Michael!) ...
Ouch!! Good point. I have ordered broad band for my home so that I can blog more effectively, oh cynical anonymouse.
Post a Comment