Not signed in (Sign In)

LiveSearch


‹ Familyman Home

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome
Welcome, Dad, to the Familyman Forum, designed to let dads interact, ask questions, and offer advice. Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now. If you don't have an account, apply for one now and get instant access to the forum.
  1.  
    I HONESTLY DO NOT BELIEVE IN SPANKING CHILDREN, and the Feds I believe are most concerned with the child's safety and even sometimes the adults safety, should we discipline our children? yes we should but by OTHER MEANS RATHER THAN spanking them, and GOD IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN TELL US, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN LISTEN TO HIM, OR OTHERS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SENT BY HIM TO HELP OUT WITH THE SITUATION, NO ONE LISTENS TO THEM EITHER. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is many other ways to discipline a child than by spanking. cause technically hitting is an assault to a person. and if I am correct assault can lead to court and cops and such.
    • CommentAuthorspilo
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
     
    This should be interesting. :)

    I have yet to see any biblical support for never, ever spanking. In fact, there is more scriptural support in favor of corporal punishment. I believe there is an appropriate time and place for spanking. It's all about the context.

    As for the feds, they care about controlling your children, and use the guise of care for their well-being as a guise. Even if the people "in charge" may care, Satan surely wants the government to control and indeed brainwash our children. It is a further means to destroy the family unit in western culture.
    • CommentAuthorRedGuy
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
     
    Spilo, do you care to comment on the claim that the "rod" referred to in Proverbs is more akin to a shepherd's crook, used to keep sheep in line and not used for hitting? This has a come up a few times. Hence the phrase "Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me. :o)
    • CommentAuthorspilo
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: RedGuyused to keep sheep in line and not used for hitting


    So...rod = for hitting, crook = for guiding? Maybe, but the Psalm in question says "thy rod AND thy staff" (emphasis added). In addition, the word "rod" - to nitpick - has disagreements surrounding its use compared to the staff/crook etc.

    There might be a misunderstanding - culturally speaking - of the use of the rod. When a lamb would stray, the shepherd would break the lamb's legs so that it could not stray for a while, and then tenderly care for and love the lamb as it recovered. This would form a bond where the lamb would know that the shepherd had the lamb's best interest at heart, and that animal would not stray.

    I'm certainly not advocating breaking any legs, but the comfort from the rod of correction isn't as soft as many church-goers think of it. I'm also not claiming to understand God's use of the rod of correction for our comfort. It certainly doesn't seem very comfortable at times.

    The claim of biblical support for corporal punishment of a child draws from a few sources in the old testament, of which I am admittedly not intimately familiar.
    • CommentAuthorspilo
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
     
  2.  
    yea maybe you are right spilo, but I don't believe that, I do believe the Bible, but what u r saying about the feds I honestly don't believe.
    • CommentAuthordjlemley
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010
     
    goldeneagle,

    All you have to do is look at the curriculum that is used in our public schools, from Head Start through the university level. Indoctrination into socialism, presenting athiestic evolution as a fact, rather than a theory, promotion of homosexual and other perverted lifestyles, teaching middle elementary and junior high students to question the authority and morality of their parents. Look at the people the people who our President has appointed to high positions in education and social services. He is selecting people with a blatent history of radical opposition to family values.

    Hitler understood this, as did Stalin. It's very difficult to change the mindset of the masses; adults tend to be too stubborn in their morality and integrity. But if you can influence the minds of the children, if you can mold the easily influenced young, if you can harness the power of peer pressure for your agenda, then you have a chance.

    I encourage you to look into Ken Ham's book "Already Gone," published by Answers in Genesis ministries. He looked at the polls showing the mass exodus of high school graduates and college students from the church, and tried to pinpoint a cause. What he discovered is that this exodus actually started in the hearts and minds of our early-elementary students. At school they were learning that the stories of the Bible were just myths, but that Science knew the truth...and the church hasn't been articulating to them why this is untrue.

    Yes, there is a conspiracy for the hearts and minds of our children. Is it at the state level? Yes, but it's bigger than that. Is it at the federal level? Yes, but it's bigger than that. Is it at the international level (UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child)? Yes, but it's bigger than that!

    The conspiracy is founded in the depths of hell. Satan knows the same secret that Hitler and Stalin knew. Satan HATES Christian families; he HATES seeing godly young men and women being raised to be the next generation of mighty warriors for God. It is not the state educational system or social services system that is seeking to control our children and turn them from God, it is the Prince of Darkness!
    •  
      CommentAuthorTodd
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010
     
    Welcome to the forum Goldeneagle62!
    Todd
    PS - I'm guessing you're a 62 year old native American or you've worked for the audubon society for 62 months?Am I close?
    • CommentAuthordjlemley
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010 edited
     
    So, to steer back to the original topic of this thread...godly discipline...is spanking a child good or bad?

    Passages from New Living Translation (NLT) unless otherwise indicated:

    Hebrews 12:5-11 (I'll just type the last two verses) "For our earthly fathers disciplined us for a few years, doing the best they knew how. But God's dicipline is always right and good for us because it means we will share in his holiness. No discipline is enjoyable while it is happening--it is quite painful! But afterward there will be a quiet harvest of right living for those who are trained in this way."

    Deuteronomy 6:4-9 (excerpts) "Repeat [God's commands] them again and again to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are away on a journey, when you are lying down and when you are getting up again."

    Proverbs 13: 24 "If you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don't love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."

    Psalm 89:30-32 (God speaking of David's dynasty) "But if his sons forsake my law, and fail to walk in my ways...then I will punish their sin with the rod, and their disobedience with beating."

    Proverbs 13:24 (NIV) "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

    Proverbs 22:15 (NIV) "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him."

    Proverbs 23:13-14 "Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death (Hebrew Sheol, often translated Hell)"

    Ephesians 6:4 "And now, a word to you fathers. Don't make your children angry (KJV exasperate) by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up in the discipline and instruction approved by the Lord."
    • CommentAuthordjlemley
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010
     
    My humble opinion, based first on the verses above, and second on my understanding of child development and developmental psychology (Scripture always comes first, before any academic discipline)

    Child development studies have shown that very young children have a very limited concept of time, and a very limited capability to associate separate events. So for an older child, a consequence such as no video games for a week would be very effective, but it would be meaningless to the preschooler.

    I tried to find a study that I read about on One News Now (American Family Association), but can't locate it. Results of the study showed that younger children who were spanked were better adjusted psychologically as adults than those who were not. However, the reverse was true of older children (tweens and early teens).

    Conclusion: scripturally, painful discipline is effective discipline. Studies have confirmed this. However, it is also true that too many parents spank too readily. Rather then putting forth the effort to teach and truly discipline a child, to determine what works best with that child, they use spanking as a "one-size-fits-all" method. Also, spanking done in anger is not discipline, it is abuse. When a parent lashes out at a child in anger, that parent is violating Ephesians 6:4. Children who are spanked in anger respond in anger; parents who spank in anger are more likely to escalate into more drastic forms of abuse.

    I believe that spanking should be reserved for, and is the absolute most effective disciplinary method for, willful defiance. It should not be the response to childish mistakes. Some very willful children do not respond to other forms of discipline. On the other hand, some very mild mannered children respond well to other methods of discipline, and spanking is overkill (and counter-productive). Like blsdw8 pointed out, children who have been previously wounded by abuse are not going to respond well to spanking either.

    But, like I previously said on this thread, the fathers who have posted on this subject seem to be strongly committed to raising our children to become godly men and women. Our methods may differ, and that's okay; as long as our methods are in agreement with the leading of the Holy Spirit, not the latest pop-psychology fad. Our society is adamently against parental discipline, especially spanking. Look how well that's working--violent crime is down, respect for authority is up, and the prisons are empty...wait, I think I got that backwards!

    May God's richest blessings be with each of you fathers (and mothers) as you bring up your children in "the fear and admonition of the LORD!"
    •  
      CommentAuthorTribeDad
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010
     
    While I strongly agree that it's horribly inappropriate to chastise in selfish, fleshly, anger; especially if the reason for the need for correction is from parental lack of good training and/or consistency; there is no arguing [to me] against the bible's clear instrux for physical, corporal punishment as a means to train foolishness into wisdom.

    In addition to the many citations already listed:
    Prov 20:30 Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, As do stripes the inner depths of the heart.

    Plus there are TONS of examples where our Father called for stoning and even the destruction of whole cities (including Jerusalem), as correction for disobedience. And children were involved in these incidents.

    Let everything be done in self-control, love, and wisdom; but let the wisdom be from God and not the world.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCRBMoA
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010 edited
     
    This is a good discussion.

    Like DJ said, we are all committed to raising Godly children.

    And we are all, to quote Todd, "Playing Nice".

    Let Love be your guide. Honest, God-fearing men can disagree.




    [Just a little preemptive strike from the 'Hall Monitor']


    ;-)
    • CommentAuthordjlemley
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010
     
    To add a little humor; I heard a radio preacher say (I think it was on Family Life Radio) that when children disobey, it's a hearing problem. They don't hear the instructions of their parents because their ears are full of wax. And the best way to remove that wax is to soften it by warming up their rear ends!
  3.  
    well Djlemley, I don't pay any attention to what public schools are really teaching, I am a christian and I do believe in what the Lord God is saying, but I also do not believe in spanking, you may believe in it all that you want too, but that is not going to change my mind in thinking about the spanking of children.
    • CommentAuthordjlemley
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2010 edited
     
    and that's fine. It is not my job to try to change your mind, or to try to change the way anyone else parents their children. I'm just contributing my two cents to our discussion. If anyone's mind needs to be changed, that's the Holy Spirit's job.

    If you care to discuss further, I would love to hear the scriptural basis behind your decision. If not, that's fine too.

    God bless you and your family! And like has been said before, welcome to the forum! As you look through the recent posts, you'll find posts where we shared a little bit about where we are from and bragged on our families a little. If you care to contribute those posts, we'd love to get to know you. If you'd rather not, then that's fine too.
    • CommentAuthorGreybeard
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2010
     
    When the Bible speaks of a "Rod of Reproof" it can be taken two ways. One is the common understanding that a physical rod is used for the purpose of reproof. But that particular grammatical construction is frequently used figuratively so it can also be understood as a rod that consists of reproof. The mere fact that we are reproved often hits us as if we had been hit them with a rod. Reproof itself serves as a rod.

    When the figurative idea of the rod of reproof is combined with the understanding stated above about catering the form of discipline to match the emotional and psychological development of our children, many more effective methods of disciplinebecome available as our children mature.
  4.  
    i thought a rod was to help guide but not to beat people or things, I guess I am really confused about that, I honestly still believe we as parents should find another way to discipline our children, by other means that spanking. People may think that they are teaching their kids lessons at times, but honestly it can also lead to rebelling against parents, and all other kinds of stuff. IF WE CONTINUE NOT TO DISCIPLINE OUR CHILDREN HOWEVER, THEN THEY WON'T LEARN A LESSON, BUT IT ALSO MAY HURT THEM BADLY IF YOU SPANK HARD ENOUGH. AND CAUSE THEM TO HAVE HATRED AND FEAR TOWARD OTHERS ALL AROUND THEM.
    • CommentAuthordjlemley
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2010
     
    very true words, goldeneagle...
    • CommentAuthorspilo
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2010
     
    Goldeneagle62:

    I agree that all other means of instruction and correction should be sought out first. It's been said before, but spanking IS NOT the only way. Hatred and fear are a reaction to anger, and so should spanking should also never be done in anger or self-righteousness (saying "I'm going to teach them a thing or two"). It should *always* be approached as a means to instruct with humility in the parent.
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    djlemley,

    I have given the scriptural basis behind my decision to parent without hitting but no one has responded. Has no one here looked into the meanings of the Hebrew words used in these verses? Why not?

    Spilo, I understand why you may believe that bit about a shepherd breaking a lamb's legs, that bit gets passed around Christian circles like communion, and when you hear something often enough, you start to believe it, regardless of whether or not it's actually based in truth. Linking blogs of other people who believe the same thing for the same reason doesn't make it true.

    In any event, I can't advocate basing a huge parenting decision, something that will have a dramatic impact on a child, on something antedoctal at best instead of scripture. Say there was a shepherd who did this at some point in time... who says he was a *good* shepherd? He definitely wasn't THE Good Shepherd. Sheep are very skittish creatures. Hitting one sheep hard enough to break that sheep's leg is going to result in that sheep bleating like a banshee--and the other sheep scattering in fear. I don't think even very many BAD shepherds ever broke their sheep's legs!

    I know you'll ask for Scriptural evidence, (so would I) so here it is, along with a few common sense issues to think about to show why that theory just doesn't hold water.

    1) Shepherds would never hurt their sheep in that way, sheep were precious commodities and supported the family. They would never break their legs because of risk of infection and permanent disability. What if the bone shattered? The odds are, a sheep that had their leg broken would either never heal correctly and always be crippled, or they would develop an infection in the broken leg and die. Shepherds don't mutilate their livelihood. Their very existence depended upon those animals.

    2) Also, lambs are usually born all at the same time, there would be hundreds of little lambs, and the shepherd wouldn't be able to carry more than one, not only that, but it would endanger the rest of the herd, how could he perform his shepherding duties with a 70lb lamb on his back?

    3) If someone suggested doing that to a dog who would not stay inside their unfenced yard, you would think that person was nuts. So how can you take what is obvious animal abuse and make a parenting method out of it?

    4) The lamb has to go to the bathroom sometime. Would the shepherd have to stop the entire flock every time that one lamb had to go? Assuming of course that he knew ahead of time WHEN the lamb needed to go. I seriously doubt it. Suffer the effects of an un-potty-trained lamb with a broken leg one time and it's not something a wise shepherd would try again.

    5) Even adult sheep wander off. And they aren't exactly "light." So would a shepherd also carry them around all day around his neck?

    6) Sheep are grazing animals. How is a crippled sheep supposed to maintain nourishment? Would the shepherd also have to move the sheep to a new spot every few minutes when they stop to graze?

    and Scripture:

    7) Jesus was the unblemished lamb sacrificed for us -- and His legs were not broken. A main value of sheep in Biblical times was as a temple sacrifice. Sacrificial lambs were to be free of blemish (that includes injury, past or present). Once a lamb's leg was broken, it could never be given to God. If we are to be raising our children to the glory of God, for His service, then how would this translate to parenting?
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    The crux of the issue is not whether the shepherd story is true--either in general or in specific instances... but rather that analogies are not a legitimate basis for something as important as parenting... nor do they hold ANY weight if the conclusion they reach is not supported by scripture.

    There are tons of factual analogies that can be used to illustrate all kinds of ideas. Analogies are nothing but word pictures--used to illustrate and communicate a concept.. that's all they are. If you use a great analogy to communicate an idea that is harmful or untrue, it doesn't change the fact that the idea is harmful and untrue.

    Even if it were true, it is still animal abuse... just hitting an animal is considered abuse, let alone intentionally breaking it's leg. How exactly does this translate to a good parenting practice? The Bible doesn't mention breaking a lamb's leg, or even beating a lamb or sheep with a rod or staff. It takes a great deal of extrapolation to get this whole "shepherd breaking the lamb's leg" idea from the Bible... there is no proof that the shepherds of Israel did it, and even if they did, that it was a GOOD practice to begin with. Obviously MANY shepherds have herded their flocks for centuries without using this questionable practice, which is why it is so hard to get support for this idea. Maybe a GOOD shepherd didn't NEED to break his lamb's legs to take care of them? The sheep know Him by his voice and follow.

    People need to think these things through before they apply them to their children. Most of the time they just don't make much sense if you follow them through to their logical conclusions.

    oh and the reason the rod and staff comfort me is because the rod was used to guide the sheep, the only time it was used as a weapon, to strike, was to fight off attacking animals, the enemy out to capture the sheep.
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010
     
    one other question, for those who advocated the childrearing methods of Michael and Debi Pearl (the book To Train Up a Child and No Greater Joy Ministries), has your stance changed now that another child has died at the hands of parents using those methods?
    • CommentAuthorspilo
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2010 edited
     
    j78

    I appreciate your desire to stick to this topic. I agree that it's an important one to think about.

    It seems like there is a distinction that should be drawn between when it might and might not be appropriate to employ physical deterrent as a form of discipline.

    Your earlier story related to the use of spanking in a child who obviously had progressed to a certain cognitive point in his life where physical/corporal punishment may not be appropriate. I would suggest that this may be a distinctive point. I'll give you an example.

    Our young son who has recently learned to walk is entirely too interested in the fireplace. We do what we can to dissuade him from touching the grating and thus burning his hand. It can be difficult to train him to avoid this temptation, and certainly he cannot be under direct supervision 100% of the time. So, we have a choice.

    1. restrain him at all times - result: frustration, abandonment, etc?
    2. let him burn his hand - instill a potentially unhealthy fear of fireplaces/fire?
    3. spank him probably once - which gets the message across, when mommy & daddy say don't touch, we mean it

    Thankfully, he is *pretty* good about not messing with stuff after he's been firmly told "no" a couple of times, but given the choice between potentially very harmful burns and a single spanking, I opt for the spanking. It's not going to be hard, or in anger. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that that single incident will leave any kind of lasting damage on him (something Dr. Spock would take issue with, I'm sure).

    Frankly, the biblical mandate to NOT spank your child is about as tenuous as so-called biblical mandates TO spank your child. And I would even say it's a stretch to claim that the bible mandates spanking.

    I found the following article to be somewhat interesting:
    http://www.tldm.org/news6/child.discipline.htm

    This related article is also an interesting read from a very clinical perspective:
    http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/spare_the_rod.htm

    EDIT: The above link no longer works, but has been moved here: http://ches.okstate.edu/facultystaff/Larzelere/spare_the_rod.htm. The professor(s) responsible for the article were previously at Biola, as noted in the above url.

    There are some interesting ideas in it about the useful purposes, and some suggested guidelines.

    To the detractors who would claim that I am using psychology to back up my position I say - In many cases the field of psychology reveals much of what the Bible has already revealed to us about the nature of mankind, the issue being the misunderstanding of the source and point of human behavior.

    Bottom line: it is still my belief that spanking - not beating or abusing - is a useful tool for a parent to employ with wisdom and humility, and with as much love as you can muster.
    • CommentAuthordjlemley
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    j78,

    I re-read through your past comments, including the scriptures that you posted. Got to thinking...there are some things that the Scripture is crystal-clear about, such as that there is no other name by which we can be saved other than Jesus Christ. Such as it is the responsibility of parents, and especially fathers, to raise their children to honor God and their parents. On other things, and on some of the finer details, the Scripture is less clear. I think that God purposly did not spell out everything in detail for several reasons. First, He gave us brains, and second, He gave us His Spirit. Then there's the whole legalism aspect.

    Here's what I see as crucial. Discipline involves teaching, modeling, instruction, guidance...and sometimes punishment. Whether the parent chooses to spank or not, the punishment portion of discipline must be done in love, must not be done in anger, and must be consistant. Punishment should be severe enough to cause the child to be reluctant to repeat the offense, but not so severe as to break his/her spirit. And punishment should be age appropriate.

    I personally believe that there are times that spanking is the most effective option. Properly administered, spanking does not harm the child. Properly administered (in love, not anger) spanking does not teach a child to be violent. And there comes a time when spanking must be phased out...I would say that when the child's age reaches double-digits might be a good baseline.

    When all is said and done, you and your spouse must parent in unity and in obedience to the leading of the Holy Spirit. I must do the same. Neither of us can afford to be so rigid that we refuse to change course to meet the needs of our children or to obey God's prompting.

    I seek not to pursuade you to change your opinion, for that is not my job; it is the Holy Spirit's role to convict if either of us are in the wrong. My goal is the same as I assume yours to be; to raise godly men and women who will be mighty warriors in the army of the Most High God.

    May God's richest blessings rest upon you and your household!
    •  
      CommentAuthorTribeDad
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
     
    Posted By: j78one other question, for those who advocated the childrearing methods of Michael and Debi Pearl (the book To Train Up a Child and No Greater Joy Ministries), has your stance changed now that another child has died at the hands of parents using those methods?

    Absolutely not. I'd still shop at Walgreens if someone OD'd on their prescription from there by not properly following the instrux.

    User error does not condemn the service provider.
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    What makes you believe it was user error? By all accounts (other than Michael Pearl himself who has chosen to laugh at his critics and mock this family's pain, instead of weeping with those who are weeping right now and at least clarify his instructions) this family followed the methods laid out in No Greater Joy books and materials.

    Perhaps all of that evidence should go in it's own thread so as not to veer too far from the original topic. Let me know if you would like to spinoff.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTribeDad
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: j78What makes you believe it was user error?
    I assume it's user error bcs I've read almost all of their stuff, and they never advocated killing your children.

    Not to make light of the trajedy that a family is dealing with, but I also don't want to participate in the killing (slandering) of the Pearl's name or ministry.
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    I hear some of the latest comments as being more open to discussion and other points of view on this subject than in the beginning of this thread, that's good to see, and much appreciated. Thank you.

    I am curious about this idea of "aging out" of spanking given by those of you who are promoting spanking as a parenting tool. Where does this idea come from? If you use the rod verses in Proverbs as a basis for this thinking, have you ever looked up the meaning of the word translated as 'child' and what that denotes?
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    I think Michael Pearl has done a pretty job of ruining his own name and that of his organization (I cannot call it a ministry). If his previous actions and teachings had not already done so then his most recent choices have certainly sealed the deal.

    Like I said, please spinoff if you would like to discuss this further.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTribeDad
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    With all due respect j78, you're the first person that I've [personally] heard criticize them so vehemently.

    It's obvious that you greatly disagree with them, but there are also VERY MANY who agree with them as well.

    So, I believe it's a bit much for you to sound so conclusive as to cast-the-stone of full-condemnation at them.

    I don't necessary "wish to discuss further", but as I asked in a whisper comment to you, I'd appreciate it if you'd steer me to whatever "evidence" you're citing. I wouldn't mind reading it.

    I have done a couple of light searches, and the only criticism that I've seen are some posts/sites that didn't seem to hold much water to me.
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    TribeDad, I caught your whisper, I've started to compile a few things already. However I have not saved every article I've read by the Pearls, nor do I have the book excerpts here waiting to give to you the moment you ask. I have purposefully NOT saved that type of literature because I prefer not to have it around me.

    I do have a copy of To Train Up a Child downstairs in my "Reference Only - not to lend out" section of books and I would be happy to provide you with several quotes as well as to pull up the links again from the Pearls' own website. However please understand that all of this takes some time and I would appreciate your patience.

    Right now my family is preparing for the Sabbath so I may not be able to get back to you until Sunday or Monday with all of that information. Since the subject matter concerning the Pearls is aside from the subject of spanking (or not!) in general, I will start a new thread myself for discussion on that topic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTribeDad
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    j78 - There's no need to go to all that trouble for me, and I admit that I subconsciously figured that you would be able to easily direct me to some of your sources since it's such a weighty accusation that you bring.

    "preparing for the Sabbath"...there's another thread!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorCRBMoA
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
     
    For the most part, I believe this thread is heading down a slippery slope.

    The topic was Spanking or Not Spanking.

    To that end, let's keep the discussion on track. If you have information (scripture, quotations, opinions, etc.) that illuminates your POV, great.

    Opining about the ministry or actions of persons not participating on this forum will be limited to anecdotal evidence, quotations, excerpts and the like.


    CRBMoA
    Forum Administrator
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2010
     
    Thank you, I have started the new thread, please go there to discuss the Pearls.

    TribeDad, when speaking of someone I would prefer to use their own words so as not to misquote them, take anything out of context, or rely on a third party's conjecture. As I explained, I prefer not to keep that type of material near me so thank you for your understanding and patience in waiting.

    For those who wish to continue the current discussion, I'll repeat my earlier question.

    I am curious about this idea of "aging out" of spanking given by those of you who are promoting spanking as a parenting tool. Where does this idea come from? If you use the rod verses in Proverbs as a basis for this thinking, have you ever looked up the meaning of the word translated as 'child' and what that denotes?
    • CommentAuthorspilo
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
     
    If the order of correction/punishment comes in layers, with the most ideal coming first (non-physical), and using spanking as a last resort, then logically I see no reason that a "rod" would need to be employed as a child grows in understanding and development.

    I can't stress enough the importance of the idea that physical discipline is a LAST resort, not a FIRST. Most of us who were spanked as kids didn't come out of it any worse off for it, and in my case I can remember probably 1 that really drove the point home. I bear no bitterness about it, it wasn't a regular thing, and I can't say with any confidence that my parents should have handled it any differently.

    In this case, as I've said, I don't believe the Bible lays out a clear mandate that you MUST or MUST NOT spank your kids. It is left to the wisdom of the parent to decide what, and how much, is appropriate, and those decisions - along with the wisdom - can ONLY come after prayer and listening to the Spirit in you. It is all too easy - and I'm guilty of it myself - to take an idea that seems great and just run with it without examining all facets of it.

    To condemn parents who choose to spank their kids is just as wrong as condemning those who do not.
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
     
    Spilo, I just want to clarify one point with you and define a term because it seems we use the same term to mean different things. Because discipline means teaching, as Jesus taught the disciples, both words having the same root, I see 'physical discipline' as physical teaching. At very young ages, such as toddlerhood, this happens quite often in the form of redirection. If an object is off-limits, simply saying "That's not for (child's name). Here, play with this instead." while removing the object and handing the child a more appropriate toy, works wonders coupled with the short attention span characteristic of this age group. Physically moving a child away from an unsafe area is also a very vital form of physical discipline. I understand that by using that term, that you mean physically striking a child so I wanted to clarify that so we aren't talking past each other.

    I agree wholeheartedly that physically striking a person would be a last resort, as I see a provision for this in Scripture. The provision is given in the Torah to parents of a nearly adult child behaving in a manner worthy of punishment according to Torah. The parents were told to bring him (as it applies only to males) to the elders of the city at the gate and make the accusation that he is a drunk, rebellious, etc. Obviously these are not the crimes of a young child. This provision is for a nearly adult man who was about to be turned out into the community with character issues that would be corporately destructive. It would be humiliating for the parents, akin to admitting that they had completely failed in their duties. Interestingly, there is no record of this ever actually occurring, but the provision is there.

    Further, I think it also applies to this discussion to note that it is specifically stated in Torah that if you strike a slave enough times to hurt them there was a legal penalty. But a child isn't a slave. So what about a child? The child of a Jewish person is also considered a Jew, and it was illegal to strike a Jew without a trial. Torah goes on to give specific instructions for how often a slave may be struck with a shebet and specific details on where. The importance of this is that no such provisions are given for striking children. If Torah allows for something that requires a boundary, otherwise it can lead to abuse or death, the boundaries are very clearly stated. No such boundaries are provided for the idea of striking children. Torah was the guideline for life in the ancient Hebrew world. It is God’s instruction—the Way to live that Jesus came to fulfill.

    Also Spilo, if you have interpreted my comments in this discussion as condemnation of anyone here, let me assure you now that that has never been my intent. I laid out my intent in this discussion in my very first post.
    • CommentAuthorspilo
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
     
    I use the term physical discipline as opposed to punishment because the intent of me spanking my children in specific situations is out of a desire to guide them, not merely to inflict pain. As in my previous example, a swat on the bottom of my 1 year old is necessary after being taken away from the fireplace more than a few times and being told "no". With the 1 swat he gets the point (thankfully). So, I think you and I employ the term physical discipline in a similar way, with one difference, I include spanking in that, you don't.

    Can't speak about the Torah or its contents, as I haven't studied enough of mosaic law to know what is and is not there. I do know that there is a fair bit that has changed, no longer applies, or applies in a different way than was originally understood. Eating certain meats, for example.

    Now, if the scriptures advocate corporal punishment for a young man about to enter the greater realm of men and is corporately destructive, where does that lead? Would that then advocate "spanking" or "beating" of a teenage boy who is unruly? Some scriptures may point to that.

    So where does that leave us? There is still the proverb "spare the rod, spoil the child", which some equate to a rod of gentle guidance, and others equate to a rod of correct in a more tangible sense (spanking). It seems that the discussion is far from over, and I'm betting there will still be plenty of disagreement to come on this subject.

    It is not the comments that bothered me, but the underlying tone, but then that's nothing new given the fun nature of the interwebs. Glad we have that cleared up.
    • CommentAuthorj78
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
     
    Torah refers to the first five books of the Bible, sometimes called the Pentateuch. Saying that part of the Bible no longer applies is a statement that I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with and is most definitely another separate theological discussion.

    The idea of scriptures advocating corporal punishment for a young man about to enter the community is an interpretation that exists and one can definitely find support for that idea. The punishment provision given in the Old Testament however, was for stoning in that instance.

    "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not Scripture. It is from a poem by Samuel Butler about spanking in the bedroom.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudibras

    In his poem, Butler originated the phrase "Spare the rod and spoil the child," and although the phrase is often taken to be a Biblical injunction about child-rearing, (probably as a corruption of Book of Proverbs 13:24), it is in the context of Hudibras a bawdy metaphor suggesting the best way to curtail amorous passions or, through double entendre, to prevent conception:

    If matrimony and hanging go
    By dest'ny, why not whipping too?
    What med'cine else can cure the fits
    Of lovers when they lose their wits?
    Love is a boy by poets stil'd
    Then spare the rod and spoil the child (Part II, Canto I, ll. 839-44).