Outer Rim Territories

For article go to:
http://www.family.org/parenting/A000001538.cfm
"Spanking typically works best with ages 2 to 6. It should be used only for specific, purposeful misbehavior and should never be done in anger. ..."

Unfortunately, I have encountered a number of parents unwilling to discipline their children and most notably, without any physical contact.

I am hoping to arrive an ethic (practice) which can be explained by sound theological principle (in addition to common sense and reasonable observation.)

In my experience, such an approach is lacking. Many parents seem to think parenting is entirely subjective and that Scripture offers no mandate. I believe it does offer a mandate and that the mandate should drive our practice.

He begins by saying:
"Since God is the Creator of children, He must certainly know how our kids ought to be raised and how our families should function. Indeed, He does!

We find in His Word a very consistent and easily understood prescription for parents who want to do things His way. Let me quote a few verses that illustrate this divine wisdom. Note three concepts within them that I have emphasized: (1) The authority of parents is endorsed; (2) discipline is in the best interest of children; (3) discipline must not be harsh and destructive to the child's spirit."
He then quotes the following scripture: I Tim. 3:4-5, Eph. 6:1-3, Col. 3:20-21,Heb. 12:5-11, Prob. 29:17
"These Scriptures and related verses contain more wisdom than all the child-development textbooks ever written. They came from the heart of One who flung the stars in space and created Adam from a handful of dust. He makes no mistakes! To summarize the primary theme from all the related biblical passages, it is for parents to shape the will without breaking the spirit. That's the formula. That's the prescription."

2) I am not sure of your example, to what purpose would one withhold food? That is needlessly cruel. Much of the teaching from right and wrong comes from the example of how you as the parent lives. Sometimes it means letting the live with the consequences of their actions while guiding them too repentance by helping them see what they did wrong. With pre-verbal youngsters there is a lot of redirection when they are doing something you don't want them to do.

3) I couldn't say, I haven't done the research.

4) I can't speak for the rabid anti-spankers because I am not against spanking. I just think there are better ways to train in righteousness than smacking them on the backside. Besides, one can spank and never actually parent their children.

5) Ezzo and the Pearls never, the baggage isn't worth what little good there is in their books. Others, I can't really speak about because my research isn't that extensive.

6) The same way we handle it in the church, with much prayer, care, and discernment.

1) The lines of the two kingdoms are rather blurred within the family. One, parents do wield the sword in that they must enforce the law, besides there is that whole 4th commandment thing. Two, the family is to also be the image of the relationship of Christ and the church which is ruled through grace.

Well said. Indeed the home is an example of civil law at work, guiding and preserving our society. No family=no children=no society. I do think that what you say reinforces the clear necessity that grace predominate in families too but not without a law in its full sternness.

2) I am not sure of your example, to what purpose would one withhold food? That is needlessly cruel. Much of the teaching from right and wrong comes from the example of how you as the parent lives. Sometimes it means letting the live with the consequences of their actions while guiding them too repentance by helping them see what they did wrong. With pre-verbal youngsters there is a lot of redirection when they are doing something you don’t want them to do.

This is a matter of practice which we don't have to agree on. I think you would agree that pre-verbal youngsters need other methods of discipline other than simple words or reasoning. I wouldn't withhold a meal with a pre-verbal child... but I would take food away from my two-year-old if he starts throwing it on the floor. Such action speaks loud and clear.

3) I couldn’t say, I haven’t done the research.

I think this might be necessary. Your post on Education being the new religion has me most concerned about the influence of modern method on our temporal and spiritual formation. The child psychologists have fueled the anti-physical discipline regiment with concerns over development and mental scarring from any physical discipline. Obviously some go too far and move into abuse. Reason is out the window in those cases.

4) I can’t speak for the rabid anti-spankers because I am not against spanking. I just think there are better ways to train in righteousness than smacking them on the backside. Besides, one can spank and never actually parent their children.

Truly said. Spanking is not the only means. In our practice, it is last resort to a stubborn will. But we do use the Pearl method of "licking", a gentle snap on the wrist, arm, or leg which might sting for a time but more than anything gets their attention. Discipline is about setting them back on the path. Sometimes they need a little more than this prodding to get back in line.

5) Ezzo and the Pearls never, the baggage isn’t worth what little good there is in their books. Others, I can’t really speak about because my research isn’t that extensive.

Here we differ since we apply the practice of the Pearls from a different theological framework. You might call this sanctifying their practice. I'm not utterly confident this can be done without flaw. Hence the question.

6) The same way we handle it in the church, with much prayer, care, and discernment.

Well spoken. Ultimately, spanking isn't the issue but your theological framework. Spanking is one of many practices to discipline children. I don't think we can exclude it carte blanche as many have. But I think we also need to be clear that we don't believe this is a sanctifying action (ala Pearls.) The confuse the third use of the Law as working outside of the Gospel. They pursue perfection through the Law exclusively and so their method sets people up for an unreasonable expectation.

We can expect obedience from children albeit never perfectly and only by guiding them back to the grace received in their baptism.

The mental pathways are forming. Thanks for the stimulating response.

5) Can the practical advice (from Ezzo, the Pearls, etc) be useful and correct, even if their underlying theology is flawed?

Yes and no. Any individual piece of practical advice could be correct, but once you start adopting large chunks of their system - even without buying into the underlying theology - I think you are in danger of getting burned. Your theology determines your practice (or at least should). So if you believe A, but adopt a practice by someone who believes B, I think you need to closely examine what purpose you think it serves, as well as what purpose B thinks it serves.

You mentioned that you do use "swats" in disciplining your (presumably young) child, a la the Pearls, in order to get their attention. While I disagree with using physical pain to get your child's attention - I believe there are numerous better ways of accomplishing that - I imagine you are still utilizing swats in a far different manner than Pearl advocates (or at least I hope so!).

For some background, Michael Pearl does not believe in an inherited sin nature. He believes that children are incapable of moral action - either good or bad - till they are old enough to be aware of right and wrong. He also believes it is possible to attain complete sanctification in this life, and seems to believe he himself has done so. This is obviously going to inform his child-rearing practice.

As he does not believe young children can sin, the whole goal of training them is to get them in the habit of right behavior so that when they ARE able to choose, they will already be in the habit of choosing rightly. His method of training young children was inspired by the way the Amish train mules, and seems to largely consist of conditioning via pain. He is very explicit that this is "training", not "teaching", as young children are incapable of understanding moral issues.

This is very far removed from Lutheran theology, and just adopting the method while jettisoning the underlying theology is pointless, as the theology *determined* the method.

2) None of the authors of the above posts advocate a lack of discipline. They basically do not advocate physical discipline, working with the Proverbial “rod” in a figurative sense. I wonder if they ever withhold a meal as punishment? I expect so. Is this not also inflicting physical pain?

4) What forms of discipline, if not the “rod”, are permissible?

Well, there is a LOT more to gentle discipline than just not spanking. For one, gentle discipline adherents - and I consider myself one of them - don't do punishments, as such, at all.

But the real difference between gentle and punitive parenting is how we see our relationship with our child. While we might use the many similar consequences as punitive types, they are implemented in a different spirit.

Punitive parenting sees discipline as a battle between parent and child, in which the parent has to *make* their child behave. The focus is on what the child *shouldn't* do. When a child doesn't do what they ought, parents either have to be mind-readers - "Was that defiance or childishness?", or overly critical - punishing any time there isn't first time obedience, no matter what the reason. As well, children may decide that the benefits of the misbehavior is worth the punishment - not exactly the attitude we want to teach.

Gentle parenting, on the other hand, sees discipline as the parent mentoring the child, in which the parent *helps* their child behave. The focus is on what the child *should* do. Whenever a child doesn't do what they ought, the response - non-punitively help them do it - is the same (at time of the incident, anyway). There is no choice to disobey and take the consequences; the price of doing something wrong is to have parental help to do it right.

My guiding discipline strategy is that:
*I will tell my child what I want them to DO ("Feet on the floor") versus what I DON'T want them to do ("Don't climb"),
*Give them a chance to do it, and
*Then, if for whatever reason they don't do it - physically or mentally incapable, mitigating circumstances (tired, hungry), or just plain defiant - then I help them do it.

Right now, there is not much that young Lutherette can do on her own. In most situations, we either show her the correct action, or physically guide her in the action; in both cases we talk about what to do as we do it. In time she will be able to do more herself, but we are laying the foundations now.

Getting a bit more into specfics: what is and is not a "punishment"? Consequences can be divided into three categories: natural, logical, and punitive. To give an example: Your young child, if left to their own devices, will run into the street.

A natural consequence would be to let them do so, and if they are hit by a car, well, that is the natural consequence of that action. As parents, we feel that is too severe of a consequence, and want to protect our child from it. Yet, we still must do *something*, or our child will never learn to not run into the street.

A logical consequence would be, since you cannot trust you child to stay by your side under their own power, you do not allow them to be in a position in which they *could* run away, until you can trust them to stay with you. This could include always holding their hand when around moving cars, using a toddler harness, keeping them in the cart, etc.

A punitive consequence would be where you let them be in a position where they are able to run into the street, but should they try, you then impose an artificial, negative, consequence: spanking, time-out, losing unrelated privileges (whereas with the logical consequence, they lost a *related* privilege - to walk near a street without direct supervision).

Many punitive parents also use logical consequences, so what makes them different from their use in gentle discipline? The main difference is the spirit in which they are implemented. Punitive parents are using them as an unpleasant alternative to obeying. Gentle parents are using them as a matter-of-fact response to a situation.

For example, let's say a child colors on the wall with his markers. A punitive use of logical consequences would be, "You colored on the wall when you weren't supposed to, so as a result you lose your markers for a week." A gentle use of logical consequences would be, "You are having trouble using your markers properly - on paper - on your own. As a result, Mama will need to stay with you when you use your markers, to help you remember, until you can do it on your own." And this would probably end up curtailing marker use a bit, as Mama would not always be available to supervise marker use. The goal is to teach the child to use markers properly, and it is not necessary to artificially increase the negative consequences to bad behavior. (Of course, the second example could easily turn punitive if the mom said it in a shaming way, or if she said no to supervising marker sessions for no reason other than to punish him. Gentle discipline is an attitude and a lifestyle - not a set of methods.)

Well, I hope this gives you some insight. I'm signing off for the moment, but I will undoubtably be back soon - I bet you can't wait =).

Discipline is about setting them back on the path.

I agree 100%.

I just disagree that it requires punishments - especially those that inflict physical pain - to do that.

The two main reasons given for punitive punishment by Christians are:
*That it somehow necessary to "remove guilt" (generally requires corporal punishment), and/or
*Children need the "pain", physical or otherwise, to become aware that their action was sin. If they are unaware that they sinned, then they will not see the need for a Savior.

The first reason implies that we (or our parents) have some effect on our salvation. It rejects the fact that we can do nothing to save ourselves - it is all God. Most people who advocate corporal punishment would deny they believe this, but I believe it undergirds most Christian corporal punishment methods (in Ezzo's and Pearl's case, they make it explicit), even if the practitioners are not aware of it. This is the reason explored in my post, and Lutheran theology pretty handily rejects it.

The second reason is far more common, and rests on a belief that the only way to get kids to realize they did something wrong is to impose an external, punitive consequence to make them feel bad. The people who say that "defiance" or "rebelliousness" requires spanking, whereas other, lesser, offenses do not, they are often buying into this concept (and often the idea of "spanking removes guilt", as well). Usually their reasoning is something to the effect that disobeying your parents breaks the commandments and you just have to punish outright sin. Even though some of this is due to a false dichotomy that the only alternative to punishment is the child getting their way, I believe a good portion of it is the idea that, in disciplining our children, we have to treat sin differently, or else they will never become aware of it.

I disagree with this for a couple reasons. First, I believe that everyone, Christian or not, is aware of when they've done something wrong. They may not care, but they still know it wasn't right. Paul said that the Gentiles "show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness" (Romans 2:15). As well, I believe that the Holy Spirit lets Christians know when they have done wrong and need to repent, and that the Holy Spirit is just as active in my child as in me.

Therefore, children know in their hearts that they have done wrong, without any prompting from us. However, they still need their parents to explain that wrongdoing is sin, everyone sins, and there is nothing we can do to save ourselves, but that God loved us so much that he sent his Son to save us from the consequences of sin. While the fact they did wrong is self-evident, the truth of the Gospel is not, and needs to be conveyed.

For me, this lays to rest all the "spiritual" reasons that might require punitive punishment. All that is left is the practical reasons, and I have no trouble believing that gentle discipline is just as effective, if not more so, than punitive methods.

http://lutherama.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-on-tripp-and-spanking.html

I'm glad I'm not a fundamentalist.