Before moving forward with this issue, I encourage you to read that issue of the WC, found here:
http://scottgranger.blogspot.com/2006/03/sts-23-main-article.html
Since that time, I have decided that there is good merit to printing the majority of that dialogue. My reason is simply this: there are too many lessons covered in that correspondence to merely deal with a mere portion of it. So, with that said, I’ll here paste the “post” that started it all. Since this dialogue happened in thread format (on a forum), you may see some repetition here and there. Because of this, I will seek to be extra-careful in how I lay out the dialogue.
-//-
My initial post that kicked off the discussion:
“I know someone that, as a matter of child-discipline, will bite her child if that child were to bite one of her playmates. Moreover, she will go so far as to desire to leave teeth marks. I am pro-corporal punishment and consistently use a wooden/plastic spoon in a first-time obedience manner with my son, but I'm not really sure how I feel about the biting (I lean away from it actually). One of my other friends (who is not a big fan of corporal punishment at all) asked: ‘How do you expect to teach against that which is wrong by doing what is wrong in itself?’ This sort of over-simplified thinking could work her into a pretzel in my opinion - if pressed a bit further. For example, I could see her arguing the same way against spanking. One popular line is: "I just can't see how violence is ever justified." Well, some would seek to show that corporal punishment is not a form of violence, per se. I don't know about that (i.e., self defense, cases of just war, capital punishment when appropriate, etc.). I would like to generate some discussion on these various concerns.” -Scott
Response:
“The biting thing seems ludicrous. There doesn't need to be a connection between the bad behavior and the punishment chosen to correct it. If my child lies to me, should I teach him a lesson by lying to him? That's just dumb and misses the whole point of discipline, which is to assert parental authority and help children understand that some behaviors are not acceptable.” “Personally I don't think spanking is a necessary form of punishment, though I don't have any real moral objections to it. But I do think that spanking radically underestimates how much children are capable of understanding about their actions and consequences. It adopts the assumption that the only consequence to bad behavior that children can understand is physical pain. Children are capable of understanding much more than that, even at a very young age, and other forms of punishment such as the famous 'time out' seem to work fine. The main thing is that consequences are explicitly made known and enacted on a consistent basis and that parents explain to children why they are being punished in a calm, clear way. Anger has no place in child discipline; spanking seems to me to invite anger, though I know people who spank and are very careful not to let it in.” –Peace2You
-//-
My Reply to That [please note that I respond with “in-line” comments depending on what all I feel needs addressing; thus, I will re-post a sentence or two of his, with my comments directly below, and so on and so forth]:
The biting thing seems ludicrous. There doesn't need to be a
connection betweenthe bad behavior and the punishment chosen to correct it. If
my child lies tome, should I teach him a lesson by lying to him? That's just
dumb and misses thewhole point of discipline, which is to assert parental
authority and helpchildren understand that some behaviors are not acceptable.
–Peace2You
I would echo you here. –Scott
Personally I don't think spanking is a necessary form of
punishment. –Peace2You
Okay. You may not think this, but the same God who created us and perfectly knows our capabilities also exhaled the following truths through the vehicle of a man:
--
Proverbs 13:24 -He who spares the rod hates his son, but hewho loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 22:15 -Folly is bound up inthe heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 -Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish himwith the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul fromdeath.
Proverbs 29:15 -The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left tohimself disgraces his mother.
--
As far as a "shebet" (or, rod/stick) is concerned,the use of one in that culture would be analogous to a sharp, quick sting generated from something like a wooden spoon or switch today.
Be careful here! There is no wiggle-room allowing for a symbolic-only usage of the rod here, one that would render this passage in such a way as to say something like: He who fails to administer a discipline of his choosing hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. That's straight up exegetical gymnastics, and nothing but.
We would also do well to keep the following verse in mind:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 -All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every goodwork. -Scott
though I don't have any real moral objections to it.
–Peace2You
From what standard, reference-point, or authority would moral objections to corporal punishment come, seeing as how Believers derive their ethical system from the Bible (and seeing as how the Scriptures prescribe corporal punishment)? It's good that you don't have any moral objections to spanking Peace2You. The Scripture is clear on corporal punishment. Moral objections stemming from anything other than the revealed commands/precepts of God (located in His Word) are found to be without a foundation and are baseless. You would construct a house on a foundation of sand by doing such a thing. Again, from what foundation would you proceed and how do you justify it as a Christian? –Scott
But I do think that spanking radically underestimates how
much children arecapable of understanding about their actions and consequences.
–Peace2You
Did God not know this when He moved the persons above to say what they did? In all seriousness, though . . . do you know better than God? I do ask this genuinely, appreciating your participation here. Have we come to a place where we have progressed in such a way as to render the maxims in Proverbs obsolete in some sense? –Scott
It adopts the assumption that the only consequence to bad
behavior that children can understand is physical pain. –Peace2You
How so? This is for you to justify. –Scott
Children are capable of understanding much more than that,
even at a very young age, and other forms of punishment such as the famous 'time
out' seem to work fine. –Peace2You
Okay; although, when you use the phrase "work fine," you are coming from a purely pragmatic angle (i.e., end justifying means, etc.). I take your phrase to mean that compliance can be had via other routes. If this is what you mean, I do not argue you there. Some children, in my finite perception, seem to comply better when alternative methods of discipline other than spanking are implemented; however (and this is huge), this does not give you the right as the parent to avoid the rod. By avoiding the rod, your child will learn at some point that you didn't take God's word seriously at certain points. Don't be shocked when they adopt the same nasty habits at other points. Besides, if compliance is the ultimate and only objective, why don't we cut off our childrens' hands when they sneak a candy bar from the grocery checkout? I bet that would solve that problem, right (I am speaking tongue in cheek here)? But, we do not have such a freedom or right. Pressing the point further, I would have "complied" with every desire and command of my parents growing up if they had offered me a $20 bill in each instance! But again, it doesn't make it right. Compliance can come about due to many different things, and some of those things could land you in a position to clearly violate a commandment (i.e., the precepts relative to corporal punishment). By the way, none of what I say here is to be taken to mean that other methods are useless. My wife and I incorporate many, in a peripheral and additive sort of way, into certain situations. Also, not every situation calls for the rod; but, where rebellion and defiance is present, so must be the rod. No, we are not promised that our obedience to God's commands (in this case having to do with our young) will always and necessarily result in compliant children or in them "turning out right," but neither do we have the right to commit idolatry by thinking we know better than God. Remember that salvation is a gift, and not a result of our works. –Scott
The main thing is that consequences are explicitly made
known and enacted on a consistent basis and that parents explain to children why
they are beingpunished in a calm, clear way. –Peace2You
I hesitate to join myself with you in stating that this is the "main thing" (as if the method of discipline were a relative issue), although you get at a very valid point here. There are 2 opposite, yet equally destructive, extremes that I see many parents falling into (ones that I have to constantly guard against myself).
--
[1] Not clearly communicating a standard but holding your child to it (i.e., an unspoken norm, etc.) . . . or, on a related note, holding the child to a standard that you think you have communicated but one that he or she hasn't really grasped in a functional way; &
[2] Communicating boundaries to your child, knowing that he or she has grasped them, yet failing to hold them accountable in a consistent fashion to them.
--
You are correct. We should be able to discipline our children in a calm, cool, and collected manner -- we should be in control throughout the entire disciplinary process. Moreover, if we have fallen into a trap of some sort of an early warning system (i.e., counting to 3, raising my voice above the normal level, or constantly repeating a command), then we are failing. We need to come out of that and to come out quickly for the sake of our children (and the society that has to eventually put up with them). Their very life could one day depend on this . . . what if I were to one day see a coiled rattler 5 ft. behind my unknowing son? I would need to be able to command him, "Son, stand still and don't move," and to then have him immediately comply w/o hesitation. Well, what if I had to say, "Son, if you don't stand still while I count to 3 . . .," etc. You can see the problems there and the point I am getting at. My child will not likely respond to me the first time in a crisis situation if he hasn't been trained to do so in a normal circumstance. –Scott
Anger has no place in child discipline; spanking seems to me
to invite anger,-Peace2You
We do need to be careful to see that spanking is not abused or improperly administered; however, we are commanded to exercise corporal punishment. It doesn't seem to me that spanking would automatically invite anger; but, if it did, then maybe the will has not been properly broken, in which case another lick or two might be in order. The bit on "anger having no place in child discipline" has more to do with the disposition of the parent administering the discipline that the response of the child. We must be careful of what seems to be the case in anything really. This gets close to arguing from intuition, which lands us in a world of trouble logically. I can attest to many things/thoughts that seemed correct at the time that were clearly not in conformity with the revealed precepts of Scripture. Still, I'm sure I have plenty more blind-spots that need to be taken captive to the obedience of Christ. –Scott
though I know people who spank and are very careful not to
let it in. –Peace2You
Right. Thanks, Peace. -Scott
-//-
I will end this one with an excerpt from Dr. James Dobson (emphasis mine):
. . . children who have experienced corporal punishment from loving parents do not have trouble understanding its meaning. I recall my good friends Art and Ginger Shingler, who had four beautiful children whom I loved. One of them went through a testy period where he was just "asking for it." The conflict came to a head in a restaurant, when the boy continued doing everything he could to be bratty. Finally, Art took him to the parking lot for an overdue spanking. A woman passerby observed the event and became irate. She chided the father for "abusing" his son and said she intended to call the police. With that, the child stopped crying and said to his father, "What's wrong with that woman, Dad?" He understood the discipline even if his rescuer did not. A boy or girl who knows that love abounds at home will not resent a well-deserved spanking. One who is unloved or ignored will hate any form of discipline! [Dobson]
-//-
As for biting as a punishment, the Bible says to use the "rod" for discipline, and not to necessarily do to the child the same thing that he has done wrong. That is what I'm seeing. I'll deal more with lex talionis, or the law of retaliation/retribution (an eye for an eye), in part 2 (next issue).
It IS exactly right that we cannot teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong. But the question still remains -- WHAT is wrong? What's wrong is a violation of God's laws. What’s right is obedience to His revealed commands and precepts. The child was wrong in biting another not because violence is itself wrong, but because it is a violation of Biblical precepts; however, corporal punishment IS itself a Biblical precept.
So, we follow the same principle when we forbid biting AND administer corporal punishment. That is to say, it is wrong to teach against biting (what is wrong) by NOT exercising corporal punishment. At the same time, how can we teach what is right (not biting) by NOT doing what is right (administering corporal punishment)?
This is merely a God-centered approach to ethical decision-making, utilizing His revealed laws as a reference point. If violence ITSELF is wrong no matter what, then corporal punishment (by deduction) would be wrong by sheer necessity. But how would one go about justifying the assumption that violence is wrong no matter what?? Would they exempt themselves for the things that they want to permit themselves to do, such as cutting carrots into hundreds of pieces (a form of violence)? What about killing thousands of bacteria with every breath that they take (yet another form of violence)? From this perspective, the “no-violence at all” crowd becomes mass murderers.
We come full circle. This is the difference between a God-centered approach to ethical decision-making (with a reference point on the revealed precepts of the Bible) and a man-centered approach to that same undertaking (with a reference-point of subjective intuition, feelings, and/or experiences). If the reference-point is man-centered, then it will ultimately produce implications or conclusions that the adherent of that man-centered approach would not likely live with at the end of the day. This would expose inconsistencies and arbitrariness. For example, in the case of no violence at all because all violence (in any form) is wrong, consider locking someone up against his will (as in kidnapping or some other situation of a related nature). If this is IN ITSELF wrong, then the adherent of the man-centered approach could not logically support the prison system . . . that is, unless the criminal WANTS to go to prison. That's not going to happen though. -Scott
-//-
To be continued . . .
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment