As a nine year old I received six of the best from my teacher for something of which I was totally innocent. I don’t think it turned me into psychological mess but it did teach me was that there were lines over which we cross at our peril. A colleague of mine recounted that when he was boy his new chemistry teacher lined up the whole class, just for starters, and caned the lot! I don’t know if they learned much chemistry but they certainly learnt in advance the lesson of cause and effect!

David Skinner, UK

Christians need to be careful about brandishing the Scriptures on “sparing the rod” too carelessly and unconditionally and remember the “rod” mentioned is the rod of PURPOSEFUL DISCIPLINE (as used by traditional shepherds to guide errant sheep in the right direction) – not of uncontrolled, senseless or vindictive beating. We are supposed to discipline our children for THEIR good and Gods glory – not to release our own frustrations and anger.

Some reasonable practical guidelines that would help parents distinguish between discipline and abuse would be useful I think. My own personal family guidelines for using physical discipline include:

1) No hitting around the head, neck or abdomen of a child. Physical punishments involving slaps or blows to a childs head can cause damage to hearing and eyesight. I also feel a slap to the face is a particular psychological blow as it is an attack on a very personal and unique part of everyones personality. If someone slaps you in the face you feel they hate you as a person. Physical discipline is most appropriately confined to hands, legs and bottoms.

2) No spanking with anything other then flat of hand or short flat paddle-like instrument (hair-brush/wooden spoon etc) – it is potentially unsafe and imappropriate to use instruments such as canes, whips, electrical cords, or to punch a child with a closed fist as a discipline measure.

3) No spanking of an infant or toddler under the age of 18 months. – It is not necessary or appropriate to spank a baby or small toddler. Apart from the physical dangers of smacking a very small body, babies do not have the maturity to reliably understand that behaviour has consequences at so young an age and this is essential for discipline to be real discipline. Babies don’t cry and ‘play up ‘ because they are sinners who need the devil beaten out of them – they cry because God has given them this very effective means to ensure their essential needs for care and nourishment are noticed by their parents. Crying babies don’t need punishment – they need responsive parenting until such time (usually recognised by their parents as the onset of the “terrible 2’s” period of their development) as they are able to recognise and benefit from appropriate controlled discipline to moderate deliberately wilful behaviour.

4) At the other end of the age scale I do not think it is appropriate to use spanking/physical discipline once children reach highschool age (12-13). Once children reach puberty I feel their body becomes much more their own private property. Parents who regularly have baths with their younger kids would not dream of forcing their adolescent teenager to have a bath with them for instance. Also a teenager who is spanked like a smaller child is more likely to respond with strong emotions such as anger and humiliation due to the natural confusion of hormonal origin that is the norm at this age.
By the time a child is a teenager they should be mature enough to be able to understand the idea of consequences such as loss of privileges for bad behaviour which would be a more appropriate discipline measure at this age.

5) Following on from my comment to Perth Now above, I also feel it should be clearly understand that it is never safe for a parent or guardian to attempt to discipline a child while they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Drugs and alcohol dramatically interfere with the parents ability to distinguish the facts of the situation and what is an appropriate response to it. Get out and sober up first!

Overall, I feel that, as Christians, we need to recognise that the issue of child abuse vs.smacking is not just a simple one of being either pro-smacking bans or a Christian parent who is against any restrictions on parents disciplining of children (and therefore in the eyes of many secular academics, in favour of allowing parental abuse). The Christian community need to respond wisely to the debate on this issue.

Gail Gifford

Some interesting comments from you and others on this issue. Thought you might be interested in my recent comments to the Perth Now article on “Smacking linked to Child Deaths” copied below:

The perennial calls from academics for undiscriminating blanket bans on all physical discipline of children will do nothing but make 100s of 1000s of responsible Aussie parents criminals. It is already a criminal offence for any person to bash up or assault a child (or adult). The law, and majority of sensible adults, already recognises the difference between brutal assault and normal parental discipline of normal naughty kids. It is ridiculous to suggest that there is an urgent need to bring in anti-smacking laws and dishonest to suggest that these will drastically reduce child deaths from abuse as there is no reliable evidence to support such an extravagent claim.
How about targeting new laws at the chief factors known to result in serious child abuse and neglect rather then sledgehammer controls against the majority of (smacking) ordinary parents?
A key factor in the majority of child abuse cases is drug and alcohol abuse by parents and those having custody and care of a child. Why not make it illegal for a person caring for a child to be under the influence of illicit drugs or excess alcohol?
We criminalise those who have control of a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol because we recognise the danger to all. Why not also legally recognise the danger of a parent, stepparent or other guardian being drunk, stoned or high while caring for a child, especially those who are chronically drunk or drug affected?
Banning drug and alcohol abuse by parents or others having care and custody of a child would have a far greater impact in preventing child abuse and neglect by targeting those most at risk of being perpetrators. It would also give child welfare officers more teeth to get a child at high risk out of a dangerous family situation earlier rather then have to wait until there is obvious physical evidence that a child is being abused or neglected by a chronically substance addicted parent or guardian.

(Comment to Perth now article on http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/comments/0,21590,24873690-5005370,00.html )

Gail Gifford

Ewan McDonald.

http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2008/family/aocscot_12mar08.htm
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20081023/sex-ed-for-five-year-olds-to-be-made-compulsory/

The government also pours millions of pounds into outfits like the Family Planning Association, whose message for teenagers is to either use a condom or to find other ways, apart from coitus, to pleasure their sexual partner:

http://www.fpa.org.uk/attachments/published/736/PDF%20Love%20sex%20relationships%20June%202008%20non%20printing.pdf

In their publications they advise:

‘No one is born sexually experienced,….talk to your partner .Ask what they like.’

‘People often find that changing a relationship to a sexual one is a bigger step than they think. You don’t have ‘to go all the way’ to have a good time…..Kissing and petting can be a lot of fun and are all part of sex. And knowing how your partner like to be touched is what makes you a good lover.’

It appears that as long as both( all) partners are consenting everything is permissible. Nothing is off limits, including, presumably sado-masochism and bondage. If smacking between a sixteen year old and thirteen year old is designed to bring pleasure that, according to the government, can only be good, healthy and wholesome.

Whereas to use corporal punishment to stop a child destroying itself is criminal.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20081117/father-arrested-for-smacking-son/

Hello. Is anyone out there?

David Skinner, UK

The anti-smacking brigade would defiantly tear out biblical verses like, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.” Psalm 111, or “I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” Luke 15:5. They would instead invoke a New Age god of love.

C.S. Lewis said “The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials ‘for the sake of humanity’, and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man”, Mere Christianity, Chapter II.

Canadian Michael D. O’Brien is here is talking about homosexuality, but I believe that what he is saying is connected to the anti-smacking lobby:

“How long will it take for our people to understand that when humanist sentiments replace moral absolutes, it is not long before very idealistic people begin to invade human families in the name of the family, and destroy human lives in the name of humanity? This is the idealist’s greatest temptation, the temptation by which nations and cultures so often fall. The wielder of power is deluded into thinking he can remould reality into a less unkind condition. If he succeeds in convincing his people of the delusion and posits for them an enemy of the collective good, then unspeakable evils can be released in society. Those who share a mass-delusion rarely recognise it as such, and can pursue the most heinous acts in a spirit of self-righteousness.”

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:0uKwxgD3iGsJ:www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/050228a.html+Canadian+Michael+D.+O%E2%80%99Brien+when+humanist+sentiments+replace+moral+absolutes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

David Skinner, UK

“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die”

and states that:
“Interestingly, the last verse quoted explicitly breaks the supposed link between proper corporal correction and “child-homicide”.

It is a matter of both logic and medical fact that even a single blow with a blunt object, applied with sufficient force to the head or to damage a vital organ, can kill a child.

While noone here would advocate that kind of excessive punishment, surely this is a case where the Bible cannot be interpreted literally.

M J Willis

Pascal Denault

See this clip from Yes Prime Minister astutely showing the logical fallacy involved. For those who can’t see it, two head civil servants (Sir Arnold Robinson and Sir Humphrey Appleby) illustrated ‘politician’s logic’:

1) Something must be done;
2) This is something;
∴ We must do it.

As pointed out in the program, this is just as invalid as:

1) All cats have four legs;
2) My dog has four legs;
∴ My dog is a cat.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane