spanking=literal interpretation of Scripture?

[Titus2:5Catholic]

I'm not asking about the spanking verses per se. I don't believe those are literal and really never have.

I've been reading studies on spanking and religious beliefs, and it seems like those who hold to the most conservative interpretation of Scripture, especially as far as family roles/beliefs, choose to spank. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP-Empirical.htm

From what I've seen on this board, this seems to be true; I've seen a fair amount of posts which are negative towards wifely submission, the woman's role in the home, the rejection of birth control, the prohibition on women pastors, etc. As someone who takes a very traditional belief on these, this bothers me. It makes me wonder if this way of discipline is compatible with my beliefs on the inerrancy of Scripture and God's structure for the family.

I also wonder; most of Christian history parents spanked as discipline. Is it really possible that it is only in our age we're discovering this is against God's will? I'm always suspicious when the Christian community discovers a "truth" at the same time the world is discovering it- is there any history at all of Christians believing it was wrong to spank before the 60's? I do know there are some saints who advocated against corporal punishment, but that is probably of more interest to me as a Catholic then to most of you. ;) :heart

I'm not trying to debate any of the issues I brought up in and of themselves; I'm more interested in correlations.

[kris10s]

I believe husbands should submit to their wives wives should submit to their husbands*, women should not serve as pastors and otherwise interpret the bible literally (as far as the book's literary genre permits.) But I don't think spanking is *necessary* to discipline a child according to Scripture.

Note, I don't think all spanking is child abuse. I don't think those who spank are all sinning. I just don't think spanking is a scriptural requirement.

* you shouldn't post when you woke up every hour all night. You might say something silly.

[TulipMama]

I've seen a fair amount of posts which are negative towards wifely submission, the woman's role in the home, the rejection of birth control, the prohibition on women pastors, etc. As someone who takes a very traditional belief on these, this bothers me. It makes me wonder if this way of discipline is compatible with my beliefs on the inerrancy of Scripture and God's structure for the family.

You'll also find very many women here (perhaps not outspoken on the threads you've been on. . .) who are positive towards wifely submission, highly value and encourage the woman's role in the home, many who are "quiverfull", many who believe in elders being men--and have a very strong view of Scripture being our authority for faith and practice.


I also wonder; most of Christian history parents spanked as discipline. Is it really possible that it is only in our age we're discovering this is against God's will? I'm always suspicious when the Christian community discovers a "truth" at the same time the world is discovering it- is there any history at all of Christians believing it was wrong to spank before the 60's?

I was very slow to reject spanking because of the very questions you are asking. I don't think we are "discovering" some new truth. John Bunyan, for example, wrote about discipline--and he taught that the "rod" was only for extreme cases as a last resort for older children (much like what Clay Clarkson teaches.) That is a far cry from modern disciplinarians that teach "training swats" and spanking for every disobedience or defiance (which often leads parents to interpreting everything as defiance.)

Crystal has a lot of articles, some related to the history of spanking, in her Spanking Files (http://www.aolff.org/sf.htm). As she is an ordained woman pastor and not Catholic--I understand you being cautious about her information. (Me, too--I come from a different doctrinal view from Crytal on a lot of things. However, I've come to respect her and take good information from her, while evaluating it light of what I believe.)

What made a big difference for me, was my continued Bible study, growth in the Lord, and doctrinal study. I came to see much of what I accepted about "Christian" parenting was very much part of the current North American Christian subculture--not a reflection of what the Bible really teaches. Current Christian spanking practices are very much based on assumptions about what the verses in Proverbs mean (ie, people read "spanking" when they see "rod"--rather than studying what rod in that context means, they read into it. . .)

I encourage you to keep returning to the Bible. Keep praying. Keep returning to the Gospel.

[cklewis]

Philip Greven points out in his book Spare the Rod that spanking crosses denominational lines in the United States. It's not just those who are literal, but those who hold to a more "liberal" interpretation as well.

C

[J3K]

Wow. i was wondering the exact same thing. Thanks Titus for posting it , and thanks to the others who answered. Looking forward to the 'spanking files'.

[Close2MyHeart]

I had wondered that as well when I first started coming here. But as TulipMama said there are some of us here who do believe in wifely submission, the woman's role in the home, etc. I know, for myself, I'm just not outspoken about it. I'm not really outspoken about anything IRL or here.

I realized when I first starting learning towards GBD that I can't go with what someone else says or believes.... I need to study it for myself in the Word, pray a lot about it and try to go with what the Lord is helping me to learn. I can tell you that I see a big difference in my children since I started GBD. The trust me more, they aren't scared of me when they've done something wrong and even own up to their mistakes. They are learning to be more gentle with each other and work out their disagreements w/ words and actions rather than hitting and screaming. They aren't perfect and we still have some days where I feel like pulling out my hair... but there's definately a positive change in them and in me.

[Titus2:5Catholic]

I also wonder; most of Christian history parents spanked as discipline. Is it really possible that it is only in our age we're discovering this is against God's will? I'm always suspicious when the Christian community discovers a "truth" at the same time the world is discovering it- is there any history at all of Christians believing it was wrong to spank before the 60's?

I was very slow to reject spanking because of the very questions you are asking. I don't think we are "discovering" some new truth. John Bunyan, for example, wrote about discipline--and he taught that the "rod" was only for extreme cases as a last resort for older children (much like what Clay Clarkson teaches.) That is a far cry from modern disciplinarians that teach "training swats" and spanking for every disobedience or defiance (which often leads parents to interpreting everything as defiance.)

Crystal has a lot of articles, some related to the history of spanking, in her Spanking Files (http://www.aolff.org/sf.htm). As she is an ordained woman pastor and not Catholic--I understand you being cautious about her information. (Me, too--I come from a different doctrinal view from Crytal on a lot of things. However, I've come to respect her and take good information from her, while evaluating it light of what I believe.)


That's interesting about John Bunyan. Do you have anything else on the history of it?- I read a little bit of the files and I'm sure Crystal will understand :) when I say I have strong disagreements w/ her view of history in the "history of spanking" URL.

I came to see much of what I accepted about "Christian" parenting was very much part of the current North American Christian subculture--not a reflection of what the Bible really teaches. Current Christian spanking practices are very much based on assumptions about what the verses in Proverbs mean (ie, people read "spanking" when they see "rod"--rather than studying what rod in that context means, they read into it. . .)


I can very much see that as being true, and then it is a matter of faith- "The Bible says to spank, so I'm going to do it regardless of the evidence against it." Which is a stand I respect in one sense, and I do understand the suspicion of psychology.

[cklewis]

Sara -- you should read Alice Miller's For Your Own Good (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374522693/qid=1119025817/sr=8-5/ref=pd_csp_5/104-8006249-8813569?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). The history of spanking is unfortunately not just American and not just from literalists, and I think you'd be interested in that book.

C

[Titus2:5Catholic]

Sara -- you should read Alice Miller's For Your Own Good.

You know, it's funny- I found that book at the library. I started reading it and was going to post on it and ask about it because she seems SO anti-Christian. Now that I have a recommendation I think i'll pick it back up again. :grin

[cklewis]

Sara -- you should read Alice Miller's For Your Own Good.

You know, it's funny- I found that book at the library. I started reading it and was going to post on it and ask about it because she seems SO anti-Christian. Now that I have a recommendation I think i'll pick it back up again. :grin


Well, you're right, in a way. Especially to our ears. But the book is still enlightening.

C

[Singingmom]

After getting my feet wet in the theological forum, I realized that there are many different beliefs here at GCM. With almost 900 members that shouldn't be surprising, but it actually did take me by surprise. I've been grappling with some of the things you mentioned. How can I accept the teachings on biblical discipline when I disagree so firmly with some of these other beliefs? When I don't trust the scriptural interpretation in these other areas?

Tulipmama is coming from a reformed perspective ( I learned that at her blog) which describes me too, so I read her insights with more confidence. The fact that she's saying a lot of the same things as some of the others who have very different beliefs tells me that the ideas behind GBD cross the lines of denominations. Evaluating what we hear regarding discipline in light of our own belief system sounds like important advice.

I'm still strugging with the history of it, too. I have a deep trust and high regard for the men and women whose teachings have meant so much to my heart over the years, and none of them that I know of rejects spanking. Fitting it all into my own faith is part of my journey, I guess.

Thanks for posting this. I was too timid to bring any of this up. :-)

[inesperada]

I guess I don't interpret Scripture literally, I interpret it exegetically and hermaneutically (take into consideration the historical context and Scriptural context). Nevertheless, I hold many of the conservative views you mentioned in the OP, Sara. There are women here and elsewhere that agree to those points and also believe in GBD.

And I believe strongly that a non-spanking interpretation of the rod verses is a very literal interpretation. As has been explained elsewhere, the 'rod' is the rod of authority. I do not and will not withold authority and discipline from my child.

[ArmsOfLove]

I'm sure Crystal will understand when I say I have strong disagreements w/ her view of history in the "history of spanking" URL. Actually I'm not at all sure what you disagree with--it's not my view of history :shrug Can you be more specific? I didn't offer a lot of linking support for some of the things in that article but it's because the information on the history of spanking is a history of sexuality and I'm not comfortable linking to many of the places I had to go to get information.

most of Christian history parents spanked as discipline this is simply not true :shrug It was not a promoted way to parent until the Victorian Era. And when Christians today talk about the "good old days" they usually are referring to that era. In fact, it's in a commentary on the Victorian Era that the phrase "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is first used and it's used to mock the practice--not promote it.

I would also like to correct something else you said in your op here--I don't believe I've ever read anyone here be against wifely submission. I'm openly positive towards wifely submission. Many of us, based on our study and exegesis, do not believe in wife *only* submission. We believe that Scripture teaches that all believers are to submit to one another--even husbands and wives. We would suggest that the dh's call to "sacrifice" is another expression of submission. I am very pro sahm/wifely roles. I'm a sahm with 5 children :grouphug

I do not believe that Scripture is to be read and applied completely literally--that is where you start, but from the original language. But there is also the issue of the genre of a book--is it Torah/Law, history, prophet, Gospel, epistles (letters of pastoral/apostolic teaching), poem, wisdom sayings . . . iow, not all of Scripture was intended to be taken literally. Gluttons really should not put a knife to their throats ;)

I also do not believe in an eternal mandate against women preaching or holding pastoral roles--and neither does my denomination (and Dobson is a Nazarene too ;) ). I believe that when Paul makes the one statement to this effect he's referring to the dynamic in the new believing churches in communities where Jewish men (who knew Torah), Jewish women (who didn't), Gentile men (who didn't and who were used to learning from female temple prostitutes) and Gentile women (who didn't and who were used to being temple prostitutes) were all worshipping together. The women were not qualified to teach (and it doesn't say, in the original language, that women are not to have authority over men--but that they are not to USURP authority over them--and I'd not suggest usurping authority over anyone in authority :( ) but the Gentile women were used to having leadership roles and were leading men astray (the Gentile men used to following them) with their incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Because of this dynamic Paul warns against women being in leadership. But he does something REVOLUTIONARY in that day--he admonishes them to study and learn! Something previously forbidden of them! I believe that Paul speaks of many women who had studied and moved into leadership capacities within the believing community. And the only men in that day who would have fit the requirements that Paul gives to Timothy for men in leadership were Jewish men who were now Messianic believers. We don't require only Messianic Jewish believing men to be pastors today :shrug

I'm sharing this not to debate! But to explain where I'm coming from. I have immense respect for Scripture and have studied it intensively. I have a lot of respect for those who believe differently about different things but I won't pretend to not believe as I do. I don't classify myself with feminists and I don't consider Scripture to be merely suggestive or symbolic.

[Titus2:5Catholic]

I'm sure Crystal will understand when I say I have strong disagreements w/ her view of history in the "history of spanking" URL. Actually I'm not at all sure what you disagree with--it's not my view of history :shrug Can you be more specific? I didn't offer a lot of linking support for some of the things in that article but it's because the information on the history of spanking is a history of sexuality and I'm not comfortable linking to many of the places I had to go to get information.

I actually can't, because it goes into differences between Catholic/Protestant history and I promised the moderators when I applied for the board that I would not get into these debates, respecting the statement of beliefs of GCM, which is Protestant. That probably tells you enough, but I don't feel comfortable saying more when I can't come back with my side of the story, show my proof, and sit there and hash it out. ;) I hope you understand that.

This is simply not true It was not a promoted way to parent until the Victorian Era. And when Christians today talk about the "good old days" they usually are referring to that era. In fact, it's in a commentary on the Victorian Era that the phrase "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is first used and it's used to mock the practice--not promote it.




And that is something I would like to see more history on. I wouldn't be suprised by it, I would just like to see more proof OF it, KWIM? I know that time the heresy of Janeisism (can't spell this morning :cup ) was very strong and it would lead to a tendency towards corporal punishment.

I would also like to correct something else you said in your op here--I don't believe I've ever read anyone here be against wifely submission. I'm openly positive towards wifely submission. Many of us, based on our study and exegesis, do not believe in wife *only* submission. We believe that Scripture teaches that all believers are to submit to one another--even husbands and wives. We would suggest that the dh's call to "sacrifice" is another expression of submission. I am very pro sahm/wifely roles. I'm a sahm with 5 children

I'm not even going to go there. :D Suffice it to say I disagree with the concept of mutual submission (except in the order of charity) and I just was just wondering if taking that passage literally is more correlated w/ spanking.

I'm sharing this not to debate! But to explain where I'm coming from.

I understand. I'm sure the arguments both ways on this have been tossed around more times then I could count. :-)
To debate this was not my intention.

[DebraBaker]

I don't think this is a strictly Protestand board, I know we have a few Catholics onboard.

I think you may be right in your observations. I don't think hypersubmission or teaching spanking as "Biblical" is a traditionally Catholic position. I have some Catholic relatives and neither of these teachings are important to them. Also, I was heavily involved in pro-life action in the 1980's and 1990's. Among many Catholics were some priests. I felt more connected with the Catholic Prolifers and "hung out" with them. The priests were always advocating a Christ-like gentleness. Once I went to a Mass to start the homeschooling year and several young children were running around and even went up to the alter (which I think is sacred) and the priest was in the transubstianation part of the mass and he stopped and spent few moments blessing the children and shooing them back to their mother(s?) I was touched by his gentle demenour.

I think the people who take teaching about submission to *extremes* tend to be punitive in theri parenting.

I also do not think these positions are part of traditional Catholic teaching (certainly not practiced by my traditional Catholic family and friends.

I also think the same people who have been taught to question teachings and taught to test teachings against both Scripture and their own judgement. People who are in authoritarian churches are conditioned to obey rather than to think and question. If you are simply *told* to be punitive you may well suppress your own heart telling you to use more gentle techniques. If you are taught to *think* and *question* and *investigate* facts you may well conclude that GBD is both Biblical and appropriate for children.

Debra Baker

[DogwoodMama]

Crystal, I found some interesting info about the history of spanking in a book I'm reading, "The unnatural history of the nanny" by Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy. I don't know what his sources are, but here is some of what he says about the history of beating...

"It was universally accepted until well into the nineteenth century that the most effective, indeed the the only effective way in which to discipline even tiny children was to beat them".
will add more later...

[Titus2:5Catholic]

I don't think this is a strictly Protestand board, I know we have a few Catholics onboard.

I think you may be right in your observations. I don't think hypersubmission or teaching spanking as "Biblical" is a traditionally Catholic position. I have some Catholic relatives and neither of these teachings are important to them.

That is what I'm finding re: spanking. I was first given TTUAC by Catholics but I've been surprised at how much teaching there is either directly against corporal punishment or against the principals involved with it, like breaking the will.

I also think the same people who have been taught to question teachings and taught to test teachings against both Scripture and their own judgement. People who are in authoritarian churches are conditioned to obey rather than to think and question.

Obedience is something I strive for in my life towards legit authority. I try to submit to my husband, I try to submit to Scripture and the teachings of the Church even when I don't understand or necessarily agree because I believe there is a point where I have to submit my understanding to my faith. I'm not GOING to understand everything. However, Christian faith has never advocated blind obedience and faith, hope and love are higher virtures then obedience, KWIM?

Then again, maybe it's my convert mentality. I grew up with non-Christian parents. Literally EVERY step I've taken has been due to me thinking and questioning my parents. :)

Edited because my quotes looked all funny

[ArmsOfLove]

Sara--my marriage looks and operates very much like my dear Catholic friends and when she and I have talked about things over the years we are much in agreement on many things. Again, I am adamantly supportive of wifely submission.

I also want to point out to you that TTUAC is not writting by Catholics or for Catholics and does not in any way, shape or form express or hold to Catholic doctrine. It's EXTREME Protestant, Conservative, Gothard-esque parenting. I'm actually quite surprised that, theologically, there is any compatibility with what the book expresses and what I understand Catholic doctrine to be--especially on parenting.

And from your response I see what you took issue with--I don't think it's any secret that the Catholic Church, especially when it was catholic, was full of humans who didn't always fully express their faith in every area of their lives. I see a majority of the catholic Catholic Church history to by my church history also. I did not write what I did to Catholic bash--simply to trace the history.

I'd be interested in that Nanny book--especially about how far back he's referring to this universal practice. "Until into the 19th Century" is very vague because that would incorporate the time I'm talking about it becoming popular and, no doubt, that evolved from the period just before when it was practiced. But we're talking a very short time of human history. It is not a traditionally Jewish practice and it is from Hebrew Scriptures that Christians claim to get he teaching so :shrug

I have read several other books and I'd like to find time to research and expound upon that article some more when I have the time, but I try to focus less in what I teach on spanking and more on all of the myriad of discipline tools that are wonderful :hearts

[J3K]

I am fascinated by this discussion. In two ways....#1 the discussion itself. wow. and #2 and more importantly...the KIND way it's being tossed back and forth.

[haak]

I agree this is a great thread- I am learning so much. I actually printed out a lot of it to read and study later. I have recently been learning a lot about the whole "women in leadership" philosophy and was very enlightened by Crystal's information. Thanks everyone for "debating" in such a kind, informative way. :heart

[Titus2:5Catholic]

I also want to point out to you that TTUAC is not writting by Catholics or for Catholics and does not in any way, shape or form express or hold to Catholic doctrine. It's EXTREME Protestant, Conservative, Gothard-esque parenting. I'm actually quite surprised that, theologically, there is any compatibility with what the book expresses and what I understand Catholic doctrine to be--especially on parenting.

There isn't any agreement. It totally contridicts Catholic doctrine on the will, the nature of man, etc.
Unfortunately, it is pretty big among conservative/traditional Catholic circles because 1. they tend to have large families and are afraid that this kind of parenting is the only way to be able to handle it, and 2. They are overreacting to the lack of obedience shown by most Christians today towards any sort of authority- and so they are trying to raise kids who can be properly submissive. When you have the problem of most people who claim to be Catholic (or Protestant, for that matter) not accepting even the most basic dogmas of the faith, then I understand the fears.

I wish I could say that my main motivation was something other then pride, but it wasn't. :sad2

And from your response I see what you took issue with--I don't think it's any secret that the Catholic Church, especially when it was catholic, was full of humans who didn't always fully express their faith in every area of their lives. I see a majority of the catholic Catholic Church history to by my church history also. I did not write what I did to Catholic bash--simply to trace the history.

My problem wasn't that you said it happened, was that you seemed to say it was Church teaching or it was common. I would believe almost anything was an abuse that happened at one point, maybe in a specific area or something; human folly does not surprise me all that much. But considering the very strict rules on privacy in the confessional, ESPECIALLY when there is a gender difference, the way confession is set up, etc., I find it hard to believe it was a widespread practice. Violations of the sacrament of Confession became grounds for excommunication pretty early on. I've studied Catholic history quite extensively from both pro and con sources and have never heard of this. I'm not accusing you of lying or anything- I really hope it isn't coming across like that. If you want to PM me your source, I would be very interested to read more. (I'd thought I'd heard everything. :) )

I have read several other books and I'd like to find time to research and expound upon that article some more when I have the time, but I try to focus less in what I teach on spanking and more on all of the myriad of discipline tools that are wonderful :hearts


Good for you! And thank you for being so nice and polite... I'm just trying to learn here. :grouphug

[cklewis]

It was not a promoted way to parent until the Victorian Era.

Sometimes I think we may get confused about "spanking" and "whipping." I *think*; if I remember "the Spanking Files" articles, you're refering to spanking as spanking not as causing physical pain, right? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

Because we know that Jonathan Edwards whipped. We know Susanna Wesley did. We know that Germans child-rearing manuals from the 18th century advocated painful punishments.

C

[DogwoodMama]

The nanny book I mentioned above that I am reading paints a picture of a pretty brutal upbringing for most children from the middle ages on...

"In the fourteenth century, a book, "The Goodwife"... said this about misbehaving children.

And if they children be rebel and will not them bow,
But if any of them misdoeth, neither ban nor blow [don't curse or cuff]
But take a smart rod and beat them in a row
Till they cry for mercy and be of their guild aknow."

The author says the reason behind this universal acceptance of beatings is what we've heard before, the issue of original sin... it was viewed as a way to save their souls. The author says that Henry VI's gaurdian complained that the young king "grew 'more and more to grucche with chastysing and loth to it".- he was 8 months old at the time. The author cites examples from the 15th & 16th centuries about parents asking schoolmasters to lash their young children, and children being beaten for shyness. And of course John Wesley's mother as Camille cites... Dr. Johnson endorsing beating in order to govern by fear ... The author also notes that the middle ages were a pretty brutal period, so I'd be surprised if children "weren't" beaten. :shrug

[cklewis]

Exactly, Elizabeth. That's why I think *spanking* as spanking (meaning slapping the bottom instead of beating the back or legs) is relatively recent. But beatings and whippings are old, old. At least in Western European cultures.

So you can't blame the literalists for that. . . .

Which brings me to another thot. . . . My ilk claim 'til they are blue in the face that they take the Bible literally. But they don't. They read the Bible like the rest of you say which I casually describe as "taking the Bible seriously." Not one of preachers I've ever heard in my life took the Bible patently literally. Not one. . . . And I've heard a LOT of fundy preachers in my lifetime.

One of my favorite "jokes" is the experience I had on an academic listserve some years ago. A mainline liberal feminist theologian was mocking fundamentalists for being so stoopit as to take the Bible literally. She kept going on and on. :rolleyes And then on a different topic but ironically in the same post, she was relishing Solomon's Proverbs 5-7. "See," she said, "Solomon actually knew a woman named Sophia, and he was writing a beautiful description of her there." Uh -- no. It's called personification, you ding-dong. Why are you taking the Proverbs so literally, when this Sunday-School-trained fundamentalist can clearly understand the Text figuratively? :rolleyes

Back to your regularly scheduled thread. . . .

C

[ArmsOfLove]

Camille :laughtears :laughtears

My problem wasn't that you said it happened, was that you seemed to say it was Church teaching or it was common. that was not at all my intent! Perhaps, not being Catholic, I did not write that section with as much sensitivity as I would hope. I'll try to find time to go back and reword it after I pray on it a bit and I will try to find my source again (new computer ;) ) and pm it to you.

As for *spankings* I'm talking about the ritual spankings as done in Christian homes today--the idea of formalizing it and making it a discipline. Sure, throughout time people have been beaten for lots of things :( People of all ages. In fact, it's only been about 50 years since wife beating was viewed as wife *abuse* and even now there are judges and courts that will not protect women :cry It would also be expected that, especially in the middle ages, there would be lots of violence. It was a violent time and the Scriptures only being read in Latin meant you had a lot of very *religious* and *uneducated* people so we see beatings, witch burnings, and lots of things we'd not like to formalize and turn into doctrine :eek

But *spankings* as we know them today are a very new concept--ie Victorian Era forward--and my attempt is to help people see that what is being done today in the name of Scripture is *not* what has *always* been understood by those Scriptures. And, as Camille and Elizabeth were pointing out, what has been done with the doctrine of Original Sin over time has, sadly, resulted in some harsh treatment of children :( I'm not suggesting that Christians have always been gentle or done GBD ;), but the verses primarily used to promote *spanking* today are the *rod* verses found in the Hebrew Scriptures--long ignored by the church--and what *we* have done with them is different from even the Jewish history of them. Some Rabbis have argued for harsh treatment and used them to support that argument, many have avoided this because they don't see them as being spoken to promote or teach a parenting *program*--but to be wisdom sayings of the day. Sadly, modern Rabbis are much in the same boat as modern pastors and clergy in that they often fail to really study these verses :shrug

[Maggie]

I guess I don't interpret Scripture literally, I interpret it exegetically and hermaneutically (take into consideration the historical context and Scriptural context). Nevertheless, I hold many of the conservative views you mentioned in the OP, Sara. There are women here and elsewhere that agree to those points and also believe in GBD.

And I believe strongly that a non-spanking interpretation of the rod verses is a very literal interpretation. As has been explained elsewhere, the 'rod' is the rod of authority. I do not and will not withold authority and discipline from my child.
ITA with Liz! This is me, as well. I think you'd be surprised by the number of conservative moms here. :) I'm glad you're here asking these questions! :)

[Spirit of the Home]

I find this thought of literal interpretation to be spoken of often by Christians and many of them are quite proud and adamant of literal interpretation, but then when you talk about the rebelious son that is a drunkard[ this has to be an older person not a little one] being given over to the elders to be stoned all of a sudden it was for then and not now. It's like strict literalists pick and choose what even they want to be literal about.
I actually see that throughout history books that I have read, or discussed, there have always been Christians that are gentle and Christians that are very punative. Then there is also the cultural accepted practice of the day.
I have yet to meet a Jewish family that was punitive. And there is very little wife abuse in their communities, [so i have been told] i know I have not met them all :D I see a respect for the wife, the life of the child and the family. Teaching is not grounded in fear control but in a guidance in the scriptures and laws to give you a wholesome and good life on earth.
I have seen old dictionaries that do not use discipline and spanking in the same sentence. One older dictionary i am referring to passed through an antique store where i work, i always read the discipline meaning and was joyous to see that the meaning was
to teach as a discipline. It mentioned some learned skills. I think of piano lessons or soldiers, or a fathers trade, reading, cooking, cleaning and Studying the scriptures, praying. oh so much more. But to many christians the word conjures up images of spankings. :banghead
I believe life to be so much more exciting and joyful God loves watching people celebrating and being happy[and not a contolled be happy] I do not see punitive parenting being a road to closer happy family relationships. Not fake happy but the group working together to the success of everyone and the family as a whole. This is Ideal and of course each family has the problems that have to be worked out.
So I see the Bible we all say we are using as a study book written by Jews and inspired by the Holy Spirit.But nonetheless written in Hebrew and Greek[ Even the Greek written by Jews in their cultural and traditional understandings] Now you put that into the hands of todays christians where a lot of the preachers are learning Hebrew from other Christians learning with our cultural slant in many instances and by varuious teachers interpreting various ways then it is no wonder that we have so many differences in beliefs. But this does not take from the fact that each individual is told to let the spirit teach us and to study for ourselves. Many people do not study for themselves they just take the interpretations of their peirs. Often times this attitude is from a fear of misintrepretaiton. So When we go and ask God for help in understanding sometimes we come up with a different understanding than the "crowd" but it does not mean we are understanding seperate from all christians.
We are in Good company when this happens because even some of the Jews religious leaders around Jesus time were locked into legalism and Jesus was trying to show them how they could have a better understanding. I can just see the disciples saying to Jesus who do you think you are all the important religious leaders are saying this and what gives you the right to contradict such learned men? This is of course all done with the overall understanding that your understanding should be confirmed by other scripture. I do not believe that we are to have off the wall interpretations that are contradicted by sound scriptures.
It is important to be discerning and careful in the changes in parenting and not to just jump into a belief untill it is truly what we believe. I have seen children become confused with people parenting style hopping. we are blessed to have a place to come and reason together.

[TulipMama]

This thread has veered quite a bit off topic, and no longer reflect the opening post's questions.

Discussions on the current topic would better fit in the "Intense Fellowship" folder.