The Bible and spanking

[Coburn In 2012]

What does the Bible have to say about corporal punishment of kids.  The believe I have always has is spare the rod and spoil the child.  This pastor at the church we are visitng is saying that this is outdated and really not Christian to do.  He's very strong on the authority of the Bible and is very much down on liberals but where is this coming from? 

Can anyone (no Christian bashers please there is enough of that here all ready) tell me what the Bible says and what they think is right?

[Devilman88]

Question: "How should Christians discipline their children? What does the Bible say?"

Answer: How to best discipline children can be difficult task to learn, but it is crucially important. Some claim that physical discipline (corporal punishment) such as spanking is the only method the Bible supports. Others insist that “time-outs” and other punishments that do not involve physical discipline are far more effective. What does the Bible say? The Bible teaches that physical discipline is appropriate, beneficial, and necessary.

Do not misunderstand—we are by no means advocating child abuse. A child should never be disciplined physically to the extent that it causes actual physical damage. According to the Bible, though, the appropriate and restrained physical discipline of children is a good thing and contributes to the well-being and correct upbringing of the child.

Many Scriptures do in fact promote physical discipline. “Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death” (Proverbs 23:13-14; see also 13:24; 22:15; 20:30). The Bible strongly stresses the importance of discipline; it is something we must all have in order to be productive people, and it is much more easily learned when we are young. Children who are not disciplined often grow up rebellious, have no respect for authority, and as a result find it difficult to willingly obey and follow God. God Himself uses discipline to correct us and lead us down the right path and to encourage repentance for our wrong actions (Psalm 94:12; Proverbs 1:7; 6:23; 12:1; 13:1; 15:5; Isaiah 38:16; Hebrews 12:9).

In order to apply discipline correctly and according to biblical principles, parents must be familiar with the scriptural advice regarding discipline. The book of Proverbs contains plentiful wisdom regarding the rearing of children, such as, “The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother” (Proverbs 29:15). This verse outlines the consequences of not disciplining a child—the parents are disgraced. Of course, discipline must have as its goal the good of the child and must never be used to justify the abuse and mistreatment of children. Never should it be used to vent anger or frustration.

Discipline is used to correct and train people to go in the right way. “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11). God's discipline is loving, as should it be between parent and child. Physical discipline should never be used to cause lasting physical harm or pain. Physical punishment should always be followed immediately by comforting the child with assurance that he/she is loved. These moments are the perfect time to teach a child that God disciplines us because He loves us and that, as parents, we do the same for our children.

Can other forms of discipline, such as “time-outs,” be used instead of physical discipline? Some parents find that their children do not respond well to physical discipline. Some parents find that “time-outs,” grounding, and/or taking something away from the children is more effective in encouraging behavioral change. If that is indeed the case, by all means, a parent should employ the methods that best produce the needed behavioral change. While the Bible undeniably advocates physical discipline, the Bible is more concerned with the goal of building godly character than it is in the precise method used to produce that goal.

Making this issue even more difficult is the fact that governments are beginning to classify all manner of physical discipline as child abuse. Many parents do not spank their children for fear of being reported to the government and risk having their children taken away. What should parents do if a government has made physical discipline of children illegal? According to Romans 13:1-7, parents should submit to the government. A government should never contradict God’s Word, and physical discipline is, biblically speaking, in the best interest of children. However, keeping children in families in which they will at least receive some discipline is far better than losing children to the “care” of the government.

In Ephesians 6:4, fathers are told not to exasperate their children. Instead, they are to bring them up in God’s ways. Raising a child in the “training and instruction of the Lord” includes restrained, corrective, and, yes, loving physical discipline.

[Alcon]

If it worked for Rehoboam...

[Coburn In 2012]

Thank you, I was leaning in that direction but I hoped you or Jmcfst would offer some Bible support. 

I knew there was a reason kids grew up decent in the good old days!  LOL

[Alcon]

I knew there was a reason kids grew up decent in the good old days!  LOL

If you are at all looking for more observation science, the general thrust of studies indicates that spanking may not be especially effective long-term.  The American Academy of Pediatrics, kind of the Moderate Heros of the medical world sometimes, strongly recommends against the use of physical punishment as a form of child discipline, calling it "the least effective way to discipline."  The APA also indicates that there is ample evidence that corporal punishment may cause long-term harm, and teach that it is acceptable to engage violence to cause someone weaker to submit.

Because of the multi-variable problem associated with studying spanking, this can't exactly be 100% proven.  Then again, the inverse can't be either, and when there's indications that harm may be caused, I think we need to be circumspect.  Either way, "kids growing up decent" probably relates a lot more to cultural norms than spanking.  Spanking is illegal in many parts of Scandinavia, and their crime rates are drastically lower than ours.  It's kind of like guns in Canada -- it's not a lower/higher rate of ownership that keeps their gun crime rate lower than ours.  It's a false comparison.

Anyway:  There is little empirical evidence that spanking is more effective long-term than strict supportiveness without spanking; the opposite, in fact.  And considering the possible higher correlation with bad behaviors later, my (non-theological) opinion is that it's wrong.  Two cents.

[12th Doctor]

Well, after I take the little tyke over my knee, it's time to choose a Bible.  The classic, extra larger family Bible won't do for this task.  Far to large.  Usually, you want to take your 10x8' Bible, or something close to that.  Good size and good thickness.  You also want to pick something with looser binding, as opposed to a hard cover.  You need to put more effort into each swing, but you get a nice wrap around effect that covers the childs entire bum.

Next, we will talk about swinging technique.

[dead0man]

and teach that it is acceptable to engage violence to cause someone weaker to submit.

Sometimes it is ok to do make the weaker submit.  In fact, sometimes it's the right thing to do.

[opebo]

and teach that it is acceptable to engage violence to cause someone weaker to submit.

Sometimes it is ok to do make the weaker submit.  In fact, sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Might makes 'right', deadman.  Anything else is pure fantasy.

[Alcon]

and teach that it is acceptable to engage violence to cause someone weaker to submit.

Sometimes it is ok to do make the weaker submit.  In fact, sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Didn't mean to say it wasn't.  In a superior-inferior relationship, like young kid & adult, it's a necessity.  Ignoring the practical arguments and speaking only in moral absolutes, my problem is with the "engage violence" part of the equation.

[Joe Biden 2020]

As long as the parents don't intend to cause long-term physical damage (long-term as in more than a couple hours), then I have no problem with it.  I can't stand any government trying to tell the parents how they are to raise and discipline their children.  The only thing the government should be able to interfere on, should it be necessary, is the medical well-being of a child (such as is the recent case of the boy in Minnesota).  While spanking may cause temporary pain, it will do more to develop the child and rid the child of said behavior.  For some children, spanking does not work, and some may even LIKE to be spanked (though that is a bigger issue).  When spanking is not the answer, grounding or time out or loss of privileges/time with friends maybe the answer.  The bottom line is the parents should do whatever is in the best interest of the child and whatever will correct the behavior in the most effective and efficient way.

[Alcon]

As long as the parents don't intend to cause long-term physical damage (long-term as in more than a couple hours), then I have no problem with it.  I can't stand any government trying to tell the parents how they are to raise and discipline their children.  The only thing the government should be able to interfere on, should it be necessary, is the medical well-being of a child (such as is the recent case of the boy in Minnesota).  While spanking may cause temporary pain, it will do more to develop the child and rid the child of said behavior.  For some children, spanking does not work, and some may even LIKE to be spanked (though that is a bigger issue).  When spanking is not the answer, grounding or time out or loss of privileges/time with friends maybe the answer.

Radical neo-hippie organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics disagree with that statement.  If spanking was clearly more effective and healthy long-term, the only remaining argument would be morality.  But that very fact is disputed.

The bottom line is the parents should do whatever is in the best interest of the child and whatever will correct the behavior in the most effective and efficient way.

The most immediately effective corrective behavior may not be in the overall best interest, tho.

[Coburn In 2012]

Well in the good old days you got a whipping at school and then another when you got home.  And those people won WW 2.  So I don't think it did any lasting damage.  What I do not support is these people who beat there kids until they need to go to the emergency room.  That is just sick. 

We just had one here not long ago.  So terrible.

[Alcon]

Well in the good old days you got a whipping at school and then another when you got home.  And those people won WW 2.  So I don't think it did any lasting damage.  What I do not support is these people who beat there kids until they need to go to the emergency room.  That is just sick. 

We just had one here not long ago.  So terrible.

Wait...spanking must be effective because we won WWII?  So spanking was the main variable leading up to V-E Day?  Do the Germans not spank?  I've heard they're actually real into that.  Some videos or something.

Wait, what were we talking about?    Oh, yeah, I don't support beating the s**t out of seven-year-olds either.  But looking for all of these broad-brush cultural correlations when we have specific studies on the matter...I don't see why.  "We won a war when spanking was more common" vs. "this is a study that follows-up on later life behavior among the spanked and non-spanked with sufficient discipline."  Why's the former better than the latter?

[Coburn In 2012]

Alcon.

Children had respect back then.  For the flag, for God, for there parents and for everyone.  If a kid got out of line he got a whipping.  (Not a brutal beating like some of the baby daddys give when the welfare check is not on time).  All I mean is that if a kid got spanked (instead of the stupid new-fangled time out or naughty stool -- he learned his lesson and didn't repeat the bad behavior.

I do think it should be in the home and not in the school unless it is a private Christian shool.  Government schools have no business spanking kids.

[Alcon]

You're providing a narrative and no evidence.  Starting a sentence with "all I'm saying," and then completely rehashing the same flawed argument, doesn't make the argument less flawed.  You're confusing correlation and causation.  Society was more authoritarian back then, and individuality was less valued.  Spanking goes along with that culture, but it is not the cause of lower crime rates.  Here's an example.  You know what's an authoritarian nation with a vastly lower crime rate than we had even in the Good Old Days?  Singapore.  You know what they don't allow?  Guns.  So, ready to lose your Second Amendment rights?  After all, in a country with virtually no crime, guns aren't allowed, nor are many of the individual liberties you value as an American.

Of course, this argument is nonsense, and that's my point.  If you're going to argue that there are indications that simply removing guns, does not lower crime rates, you now understand what I'm talking about when I tell you that your line of argument is fundamentally flawed.  There is no reason to choose multi-variable correlation and narrative when you have earnest, less flawed attempts at establishing a direct observation.  Here, we do have those.  Why ignore them?

For the record:  If someone else hit my kid, regardless of circumstance, I would have them charged with fourth-degree assault, private parochial school or public.