To Spank or Not to Spank?

[Nickman]

Many religious families spank their children, at least when I was growing up. My father whipped me with a belt until I was a teenager. This made me not want to go to him when I knew I had messed up, because I was afraid that I would receive that leather strap across my butt. I am a firm believer in talking to your kids and using the belt only in last case scenarios.

Is whipping your kids beneficial?

Is talking to them better than whipping?

When is the right time to whip them or to talk to them?

[Peds nurse]

Okay, now that I have a minute....been breaking out the rod (ha ha)

Have you ever considered, that the word "rod," is a metaphor? Don't spare the rod of discipline? The Bible talks metaphorically all the time, and I believe this is one of those...why? Well, I'm glad you asked

Take the verse, Proverbs 13:24- Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. Notice it did not say: beat, malign, abuse, cause harm, or render helpless, it said, DISCIPLINE. In 1 Corinthians, it talks about the rod of discipline. "What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit? He also tells us not to exasperate our children, Ephesians 6:4. More importantly however, it that the greatest commands are to love God, and love others. If we are beating and hurting our children, that goes against this command.

All that being said, and having well over 100 foster kids come through our home, and six of our own, I would like to offer this... The discipline doesn't matter as much as our hearts in doing it. This means, that if I don't discipline out of love, then it doesn't matter if I am spanking, grounding, putting them in time out, or time-in. Kids don't respond to long term change, unless they feel the adult loves them and has a genuine interest in them. This is why every child that comes through my door, I offer unconditional love to them. I don't give them a list of do's and don'ts, or a set of rules, I offer them my heart.

[Yochanan]

[Replying to post 1 by Nickman]

I had some spanks as a kid from time to time but nothing serious and when i really did something very wrong i often knew it when i was eligible for spanking lol but i think my parents did okay what's important is not to spank a kid in early age if the kid does not understand what he did wrong then all you do is punchbag him the kid needs to have a correctional disciplinary action that shows "bad things dont go unpunished" but if others means can lead to the same results it is better to avoid the spanking.

[OnceConvinced]

Okay, now that I have a minute....been breaking out the rod (ha ha)

Have you ever considered, that the word "rod," is a metaphor? Don't spare the rod of discipline? The Bible talks metaphorically all the time, and I believe this is one of those...why? Well, I'm glad you asked

I find it hard to believe. It seems to be a common thing for Christians to claim metaphors when society changes its values and bible verses start to become embarassing. I never once heard of the "rod" as being metaphor in the 70s and the 80s. That seems to be a more modern interpretation, which is not surprising now that we live in a time where striking children with objects is considered abuse.

If we look at how things were back in the days of Solomon, it was a time where violence was used on a regular basis to punish. Slaves were beaten up. Children would have faced violence for misbehavior too. If you are trying to say that in biblical times children were not physically beaten, then I think you're kidding yourself. To use a rod on a child would have been standard and accepted, just as it has been in modern society up until about 30 years ago.

Take the verse, Proverbs 13:24- Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. Notice it did not say: beat, malign, abuse, cause harm, or render helpless, it said, DISCIPLINE. In 1 Corinthians, it talks about the rod of discipline. "What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit? He also tells us not to exasperate our children, Ephesians 6:4. More importantly however, it that the greatest commands are to love God, and love others. If we are beating and hurting our children, that goes against this command.

I think you are trying to read more into this verse than there is. You can't possibly compare the Proverbs to the verse in 1 Cor. That's taking it way out of context.

Proverbs is full of such comparisons. Take the chapter in its context. Just look at the verses leading up to 24. (eg v1, a wise child listens to their father, while a foolish one ignores) LITERAL comparisons are made all the way along, showing contrasts between good and bad. It makes no sense to add a metaphor into all those literal contrasts.

On this occasion it takes A) "Whoever spares the rod hates their child" and creates a picture of a parent who does not discipline their child accordingly and thus shows they don't love their child, then it compares it to B) "the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them", thus showing the opposite scenario... a parent who loves their child and thus uses the rod. It is quite clearly indicating that using the rod is the sign of a good parent and it is part of good discipline. Be careful not to take the verse out of context simply because it's embarrassing.

And when you think about it further, what a huge faux pas it would be on God's part to allow such a terrible metaphor to be thrown in there. For centuries people have been taking this so-called metaphor literally and children have been abused because of it. So for all these centuries people have been abusing their children because God used a badly chosen metaphor! God should surely have known better!

All that being said, and having well over 100 foster kids come through our home, and six of our own, I would like to offer this... The discipline doesn't matter as much as our hearts in doing it. This means, that if I don't discipline out of love, then it doesn't matter if I am spanking, grounding, putting them in time out, or time-in. Kids don't respond to long term change, unless they feel the adult loves them and has a genuine interest in them. This is why every child that comes through my door, I offer unconditional love to them. I don't give them a list of do's and don'ts, or a set of rules, I offer them my heart.

If it’s done out of love, then I agree with you. As I think I said in a previous post, I used to get a leather belt across the back side on the odd occasion. Used to get smacked quite a bit and had rulers whacked across my butt. Yet, even as a young child I knew the difference between that and striking someone in anger or out of revenge. I rarely ever used violence to get my own way because I knew it was wrong. There was no confusion there.

One situation was when I was about 9 years old and I hit my younger sister out of anger. I knew right away I’d done a bad thing and I knew that I was gonna get a leather belt around the backside when my parents found out so I went and hid in the long grass over the road from my house. Not once were the lines ever blurred between physical discipline and violence. I DID get a leather belt around the backside for hitting my sister. And I knew I deserved it and I knew my parents still loved me and it was for my own good. Once it was done it was over with and actually I never once ever hit my sister ever again after that.

[Alueshen]

Many religious families spank their children, at least when I was growing up. My father whipped me with a belt until I was a teenager. This made me not want to go to him when I knew I had messed up, because I was afraid that I would receive that leather strap across my butt. I am a firm believer in talking to your kids and using the belt only in last case scenarios.

Is whipping your kids beneficial?

Is talking to them better than whipping?

When is the right time to whip them or to talk to them?

So the notion that we hit children in order to teach them right from wrong seems counter intuitive to me. After all, don't we teach children not to hit? Look at it from the child's point of view. Here is the person that loves me and they are hitting me. Causing me pain. Isn't that a mixed message? The idea that a young child realizes that they are being hit for their own good is at best inconsistent, at worse it's just silly.

The majority of parents hit their children when they are angry and children will connect anger with the act of hitting. What kind of adults does this make? If hitting a loved one is the practice for making others understand, it's not surprising that we have such issues with domestic violence. That's not to say that every child that hits is prone to domestic violence, I'm a good example, I was routinely hit as a child, and while I don't hit my children or my wife, it's a choice born out of the way that hitting affected me.

Hitting your child is, imo, is just an admission that you've failed to properly motivate the child and just venting your frustration upon them in hope that they will fear to make the same mistake again. In most cases the parents haven't taught there children why what they've done is wrong, just he consequences of do so.

There are ways to motivate children that are just as effective, if not better, to motivate children.

[OnceConvinced]

So the notion that we hit children in order to teach them right from wrong seems counter intuitive to me. After all, don't we teach children not to hit? Look at it from the child's point of view. Here is the person that loves me and they are hitting me. Causing me pain. Isn't that a mixed message? The idea that a young child realizes that they are being hit for their own good is at best inconsistent, at worse it's just silly.

I can speak as a child that was spanked and sometimes got a belt across the legs or butt. Never once was there any confusion for me. What I got was discipline for bad behavior. From a very early age I knew full well the difference between discipline for being bad and hitting someone out of anger.

It's a matter of the parent teaching the child the difference.

The majority of parents hit their children when they are angry and children will connect anger with the act of hitting. What kind of adults does this make?

This is where the confusion can clearly come in. Hitting out of anger is abuse. Unfortunately many parents strike out of anger. There is a big difference between that and taking the child aside, telling them they have done wrong and then administering physical discipline.

Another problem is that abusive parents tend to go overboard with the discipline. That too becomes abuse.

If hitting a loved one is the practice for making others understand, it's not surprising that we have such issues with domestic violence. That's not to say that every child that hits is prone to domestic violence, I'm a good example, I was routinely hit as a child, and while I don't hit my children or my wife, it's a choice born out of the way that hitting affected me.

I for one have never struck out in anger at any of my partners or my kids. In fact that last time I struck someone in anger was in a school yard fight when I was 13 years old.

Hitting your child is, imo, is just an admission that you've failed to properly motivate the child and just venting your frustration upon them in hope that they will fear to make the same mistake again. In most cases the parents haven't taught there children why what they've done is wrong, just he consequences of do so.

I know of many loving parents who have used smacking as a tactic and their kids are a credit to them. They are successful, well rounded individuals who have successful relationships and live law abiding lives.

It's the ones who had genuinely abusive parents who have turned out to be a problem themselves.

There are ways to motivate children that are just as effective, if not better, to motivate children.

Unfortunately some of these so-called effective methods are also time wastes and only cause more stress for everyone involved.

[jeager106]

Spanking is NOT Christian Bible base, not even close.
Listen: DISCIPLINE. = control, training, teaching, instruction, regulation.
Why were Christs first followers called disciples? So they could go out and beat people?
Discipline means to teach. The disciples called Jesus "teacher". Remember that?
Refer to Psalm 23, where the writer says "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me".
The rod and staff bring COMFORT? Really?
Well then perhaps it's good to understand what a rod and staff are? What do you think?
Good idea?
Reseach it for yourself if you want. I think you should.
The rod and staff are shepards tools. These tools are used to guide sheep in the direction the shepard wants them to go.
Guide them, not beat them.
God is the good shepard whose WORDS bring comfort.
The rod and staff are often used to mean God's word, God being a good shepard
guiding the sheep safely, not hitting them.
Substitute WORD OF GOD for rod and staff and what do you extrapolate?
Spare the word of God and spoil the child.
What is so hard about that to understand? Isn't that more in line with the loving Creator we believe in?
Don't hit the kids. It seldom brings about postive results and has no roots in the Bible.
It's important to understand what the Bible means and HOW it makes meaning.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 16 by jeager106]


This sounds like a literal beating with a rod to me:

Prov 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 think you're taking out of context trying to turn the "Rod" into simply guidance and correction. Reading the verses around Prov 13:24 seems to be clearly talking about literally beating the child.

Better to listen to Solomon and use a rod on your child, than the murderous Moses:

Leviticus 20:9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

Refer to Psalm 23, where the writer says "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me".
The rod and staff bring COMFORT? Really?

This is talking about something completely different here. It's talking about God protecting his sheep from danger. It's got nothing to do with disciplining and correcting them. The entire chapter of Psalm is about being comforted and protected. You're trying to take this verse and the other verses in Proverbs out of context.

[Haven]

Rephrasing the question: is violent assault a valid and effective pedagogical technique?

Thanks for reframing it this way. Let's call it what it is: violent assault of a child. Hiding behind terms like "spanking" or "corporal punishment" takes away from what the act actually is--violently attacking a small child. This is abuse, plain and simple, and it should be illegal.

[jeager106]

I speak from experience.
People that were beaten, vs. a slap on the wrist, always minimize the beatings.
Always.
They say, " I had good parents, they weren't so bad ", and more.
Then investigation reveals that not so bad dad held the kids head in the toilet to punish him.
Hitting with a belt causes welts, "but I didn't turn out so bad" say the proponents of "spanking".
Children literally deify the parents, the care givers. There is nothing as helpless as a human infant.
Parents feed, wash, hold, coddle, love, the infant.
They ARE gods to the baby and gods until the child matures enough to figure out what a good parent is even if the parents WEREN'T.
Literally EVERY criminal I delt with was created thus by childhood experiences.
The more violent the criminal the more the child was abused.
A child, small child, 4/5 yrs old, runs into the street.
Mom runs after the child, grabs the child to safety and give the kid a smack on the butt.
Nothing wrong with that. It reinforces in clear terms the kid did something wrong.
And harmful to the child. That is a spanking, that is NOT a belt, club, rod.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 19 by jeager106]

Well I'm happy to say I've never committed a violent crime, despite being smacked, whacked with a leather belt and sometimes a wooden stick. In fact the last time I did a violent act was when I was 13 years old in the school yard when I hit a classmate a couple of times and even then I felt guilty about it afterwards.

Heck I still feel guilt about throwing stones at a girl my age, who lived down the road when I was 5 years old!

It's really about what you are taught by your parents and the attitudes your parents had when they punished you. Saying it's because they used a rod is too simplistic.

My ex has two sons who have never been smacked let alone struck with a stick. Both young teenagers. One of them uses violence when he's angry on a regular basis. The other is out on the streets doing drugs, drinking and sometimes not coming home at all and he's only 13 years old! There's clearly more to it then whether they were smacked or not.