I grew up in a strict Christian home, where my father often reminded us that he would not hesitate to discipline (ie, spank, cane, smack, etc.) all of his children when the occasion called for it, regardless of our age. . . just because he sincerely believed it was his prerogative to do so, as a parent.
I remember feeling incredibly sad and humiliated about it (I was 20 years old), and even if I had not been "spanked" since I was an early teen, his threats of discipline always caused me to shrivel up, a little, inside. At that time, I was not able to articulate my feelings very well . . . I just knew that I was always the brunt of his displeasure, and that perhaps, there might be a better way to handle discipline.
Fast forward eight years, and I'm now a parent myself, of two precious little girls. I must confess that I have disciplined Mikaela many times, for all the wrong reasons. My frame of reference was the way *my* parents raised me, even though I was keenly aware that I was perpetuating a cycle I did not want to follow.
This is the best resource I have read, to date, on discipline:
Thy Rod and Thy Staff They Comfort Me
Lord, have mercy on us all!
~ Mrs. Arcfide
6 comments:
He spanked you when you were 20? WOW, that seems way over the top to me =/
I'm sorry to hear you were humiliated so...
I was raised with spanking but I don't think I was ever spanked past the age of 11 or maybe 12. I'm certainly not against it but it needs to be done in the proper way. I am glad that my parents chose to spank me at the appropriate times because it taught me to never do those things again and I certainly learned right from wrong. I really respect my parents for choosing to discipline me correctly too.
Praying for you and for wisdom as you raise your little girls. I haven't read the book yet but I'll look into it.
@Samantha - No... I wasn't spanked when I was 20. I wasn't spanked past 11 or 12 too.
But, it's the principle of the matter. Parents should not think it's their right to spank their children just because they're the parents. It's *unscriptural*.
And yes, I would encourage you to read the eBook. :)
Could you please explain how spanking is unscriptural? Thanks!
I'm not sure what you mean by "right" but I do believe all parents have the obligation to discipline their children. God disciplines us, His children.
From the beginning of time, parents have been disciplining their children. In fact, parents do a disservice to their children by NOT disciplining them and not teaching them right from wrong. Parents who truly love their kids will discipline them.
Spanking has been around since the beginning of time; or so it seems. My ancestors were most likely spanked/paddled. There are references to George Washington and other great leaders of our country being disciplined as such when they were little boys themselves.
As far as spanking goes, it's certainly not something I think should be done for every act of disobedience. I wasn't spanked for everything growing up. In fact, it was usually reserved for really bad things I had done- deliberate acts of disobedience etc... I was a stubborn one at times and am thankful my parents sought to curb my sinful behaviors and corrected my lovingly. Some children have more sensitive consciences and are rarely if ever spanked for wrongdoings. A lot of times, it depends on a child's personality.
I think a lot of discipline and how you do it has to do with your heart attitude. Are you doing it to lash out in anger or are you lovingly correcting your child because you want them to learn and you want them to know right from wrong?
Not only that, but you want them to be respectful, polite, well-behaved and seeking after righteousness all the days of their lives.
Spanking never had an negative affects on me. I know of plenty of kids who were spanked growing up and it doesn't seem to have affected them negatively at all (from Christian homes and non-Christian homes). I know of a big family where the older ones were spanked/paddled and the younger ones weren't really paddled at all and the difference is noticable. The older ones seemed to have gotten more discipline growing up and they are the ones who aren't self-centered. They respect everyone around them more, are more mature and polite and just well-balanced. The youngers ones.... not so much.
The following quotations come from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible:
Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."
Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."
Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."
Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."
An additional verse from the New Testament is occasionally cited as justification for physical punishment of children:
Hebrews 12:6-7: "...the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?"
If you look up all the key words in the Strongs' Concordance, you can see what "rod" refers to.
I started reading the ebook... it's long! I'm already taking some issue with the author because he has the tone of disregarding the Old Testament which I believe is wrong. The old and the new are given to us for instruction and not to be disregarded. As far as the Torah goes, that holds no weight with me for various reasons.
I'm not against disciplining children. I now discipline Mikaela using natural consequences. I used to spank her frequently, but it had more negative results, than positive.
Do you mind explaining your comment on the Torah?
Also, your take on the Author's thoughts about those verses you quoted would be appreciated.
The Torah is a Jewish Book, right? I'm not Jewish and the Bible isn't directly related to Jewish people alone (Hebrews weren't Jewish). I don't believe the Torah should be correlated or quoted as the Bible is and should be.
Also, I believe that God made the Bible to be understood by many-Jewish and Non-Jewish. Therefore knowing the customs of the Jewish people is unnecessary for understanding the Bible. The Author takes a LOT from Jewish customs,definitions history etc...
I think he is over complicating the subject instead of taking God's word more literally. I use Strong's concordance to help me define/understand certain words in their original Greek and Hebrew forms.
Therefore, I believe those verses in Proverbs to mean what they say, generally speaking.
Ah, I see.
The Torah comprises part of the canonical Old Testament.
I don't claim to understand everything (still learning!), but I see that we have entirely different perspectives on the matter. I've come to realize that to truly understand God's Word, we have to be students of history and traditions - otherwise we are in danger of becoming proof-text Christians, just lifting different verses from the Bible as we wish to interpret whatever we want. The Bible itself came into existence over time, and itself is a tradition. When we understand history and times, we receive not only a context for reading the scriptures, but also a guide for interpretation. This guide stops people from using the scriptures to say whatever they want them to say, and we realize that what we might think the verse means is entirely different from what the author meant. Indeed, the scriptures don't have verses, but verses are merely an aid for reference.
The KJV alone, was a project undertaken by 52 translators. When you have that many people working together, you're bound to come up with different translations for different words at different parts of the Bible.
That is why careful study of history is so important, as well as understanding pronouns, gender, and the audience for which each passage is directed at. Take the early church. They did not use the Hebrew scriptures, but instead relied on the Septuagint, which is the Greek Old Testament. There are many in the church who consider the modern emphasis on younger Hebrew texts as a flawed favoritism over the historically older and likely more accurate Septuagint translations.
For example (and this is related to discipline - but not this article I linked to), I just learned that the verses in 1 Corinthians 5:11 where most protestant churches and individuals reference when shunning other Christians actually refer to not partaking communion/the Lord's Supper with them. When taken literally, we think, "Oh, it says not to eat with these people, etc." but church tradition actually says otherwise. Because if we were to literally shun those people, then Christians will be shunning each other because *everyone* has sin, right? Anyway, that's a pet peeve of mine... and as I said, I'm still learning. :)
The author of this book clearly has a romanticized view of Rabbinical Judaism, which is itself a heretical offshoot of Israel. It is clear that Christ's church is the continuation of Israel. The author unnecessarily complicates the book, and talks at length about very little sometimes, certainly. His reliance on the heretical Judaic traditions, however, does not mean that those traditions were not clearly a part of the historical Israel and the church.
The author has a number of important points to make, especially drawing out modern presumption of the meaning of words that are taken for granted, but which are the result of our own culture. For instance, women and men are not to be treated the same under the Law. The rod would mean the flogging and caning of children, which is not what most people mean by spanking. The relationship of sons and daughters with their parents before and after marriage was also different. Indeed, if we are to take such things, then why are children not also married according to these practices, which has them married off by their parents much earlier than we do now.
It's important not to become a literalist when dealing with scripture, because scripture never was and isn't meant in that way, and certainly not the Proverbs. We also should avoid trying to interpret a scripture outside of understanding how others have understood and meant that scripture to be read, including people like the Apostles and the early church, or the priests of old. It doesn't make sense to understand a thing outside of its custom and intention.
Post a Comment