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.

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.

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.

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?

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!"

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']


;-)

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.

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.

very true words, goldeneagle...

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?

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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

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!!

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?

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.

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).