Something very old: Susanna Wessley, the Mother of Methodism

[MariJo7]

Punitive parenting is nothing new. It is a long tradition of practices. When Pearl, Ezzo and Tripp are sufficiently refuted, new spanking experts will surface. They will do so, because the historical roots of the spanking movement lie so deep.

I have sometimes referes to Susanna Wessley, the mother of John and Charles Wessley, the founders of Methodism. She is also called The Mother of Methodism. I thought it might be interesting to see for ourselves how she wrote about child education, obedience and spanking. Here is a part of a letter she wrote to her son John on his request:

http://www.path2prayer.com/article/1042/revival-and-holy-spirit/books-sermons/new-resources/famous-christians-books-and-sermons/susanna-wesley-mother-of-methodism/susanna-wesley-child-raising-thoughts

It is not my purpose to put Susanna Wessley down. She did not have an easy life herself, and not everything she says is bad. She was in favour of good education, also for the girls. Her "house bylaws" also show some attenpts to fairnes, like this:

"That no child should ever be chid (scolded), or beat twice, for the same fault; and that if they amended, they should never be upbraided with it afterwards."

Punitive and adversative she was, however. At the age of 1 year old or even before, her children "were taught to fear the rod, and to cry softly; by which means they escaped abundance of correction they might otherwise have had; and that most odious noise of the crying of children was rarely heard in the house; but the family usually lived in as much quietness as if there had not been a child among them."

But see for yourselves. Some things she says sound ashtonishingly familiar.

[Hermana Linda]

Yes, I found that out from the book, Gentle Firmness. :yes2

Posted from my mobile phone by Tapatalk

[sweetpeas]

Yes, we read a biography on her awhile back (for homeschool) and she certainly didn't have an easy life, but I also very much didn't walk away from it thinking "that's the ideal way to parent" (which I'd heard some people in homeschool circles imply). It did allow for some good discussion about such things with my girls though :)

[MariJo7]

Certainly not the ideal way of parenting. :no.

[CelticJourney]

There is 'nothing new under the sun' - there has always been the pull between gentleness and grace vs punitive and authoritarianism. Sad to see so clearly though.

[Wild Asparagus]

How disappointing :(

[rjy9343]

I have to wonder if anyone read about her marriage and the sort of man her husband was if they would hold her up to be the paragon she has become. She was a good woman, but her husband was disgrace. I also tend to think she would have been a far more gentle mother if her marriage had been better. Her health and stress level was beyond belief. Nearly all of it was courtesy of her husband.

[sweetpeas]

I have to wonder if anyone read about her marriage and the sort of man her husband was if they would hold her up to be the paragon she has become. She was a good woman, but her husband was disgrace. I also tend to think she would have been a far more gentle mother if her marriage had been better. Her health and stress level was beyond belief. Nearly all of it was courtesy of her husband.

:yes

[MariJo7]

That's true, you are definitely right! :). She did not have an easy life at all and maybe she did not have much choice. I believe there are many women who would have been gentle mothers if they had not been under pressure from their husbands or from their churches. In fact, I know women who spank or let their baby cry out or use other very strange methods just because of that. Her DH may not even insist to spank or let the baby cry out, but he may insist that the house should be spotless and his shirts ironed and the food must be ready on very the minute he arrives from work. Or he wants the children only to be seen, not heard. And if she does not meet those demands, he lectures her for not being "diligent" or "submissive" enough and blames the children just for existing and demands them to be "straightened out" or "controlled". And in order to be accepted by him and to meet his demands, she resorts to some very questionable methods.
I'm very sorry for Mrs Wesley. I wonder if she really had the opportunity to enjoy especially her little ones. I think she has been robbed from many things we have been able to have. Still, much damage has been done by later generations who made her into a heroine and considered her as an authority in bringing up children and recommended her methods.
I also wonder how women like Anne-Marie Ezzo would do things if they had normal husbands. I can hardly imagine her being a very happy woman. Or that friend of mine who recommended all pregnant mothers in the church to feed formula right from the beginning, because it was so much easier to keep the baby on schedule with formula than with breastfeeding. The was not mean woman. She did not enjoy to let babies cry, and she used formula in order to avoid it. She did many things with her children that sound really horrible, just in order to be a better housekeeper and to save from extra time to help her husband in the "ministry". I don't believe she was happy to do those things, but she felt it was her duty to meet his demands.

[rjy9343]

I have often wondered if her father approved of the marriage. From what I remember, her father was rather modern in his attitudes towards women and would not have forced her to marry anyone if he could avoid it. But it has been fifteen or twenty years since I read about him.
I am not so sure about Anne Marie Ezzo, she has a background in pediatric nursing. She should know better than I do the dangers of what she is spouting. In addition to that, both of her children cut her out of their lives.
As harsh as Susanna Wesley was, all of her children spoke of her warmly and fondly. As punitive as my mother was/is, she has a very close and warm relationship with me and close relationship with my three brothers. Not to mention she is hands down the favorite grandparent of her all of her grandchildren. I think the difference is the attitude. SW and my mother both genuinely loved their children and did what they believed was needed to put them on the right path and keep them there. It was about control in the sense that they believed they needed to keep the children in line so that they did not turn into delinquents.
It was not about managing inconveniences and forcing the child to fit into the preconceived idea of what a child should be like. Nor was it ever about not letting a child change your life. I actually said something like that and my mother was horrified and told me to put the baby up for adoption if I was going to be so selfish as to force a child with no choice in her parents to accommodate me. I had a choice, she did not and I needed to respect that now or find her parents that would. ( I wonder why she is the favorite?)

[sweetpeas]

The biography we read of her life talked about her life pre-marriage and such. But it was a couple years ago. She was very close to her father. I'm going on memory, but I think her father didn't disapprove of the marriage (I don't remember if he "approved" per se, or just allowed it because it was what she wanted). Her father was a "forbidden" religion (Puritan or somesuch), she actually chose, as a teen, to join the Church of England, and her father didn't dispute her right to follow her own beliefs. So she also chose a husband of her religion, rather than her father's, all of that, alone is pretty amazing for the time period. Also, if I remember right, her life didn't become hard until they either moved away from the city where her father lived, or he died (I don't remember which happened first).

Her husband wasn't a monster, he wasn't a good provider though AND tended to get caught up in . . . whatever his latest "project" was and completely zone out on the fact that life requires work, so she was left to single parent, run the house, and manage messed up finances (she did generally have at least one servant however, and while she had lots of children, they were spaced rather widely apart.

I think to a large extent, she was a product of her time. Harsh, authoritarian discipline was the norm, and she provided kind authoritarian discipline, so she was "better than many". I still don't think she should be held up as a "role model" of how we should do things (and it was shocking to me, to read her story having previously heard her held up as "the perfect mother"), but I think she did the best she knew to do, and truly loved her children.

[rjy9343]

I think Laree and I are saying the same thing. Susanna Wesley was a very loving mother who did the best she could with what she knew. She was a gentle mother for her time, but a harsh one for ours. She loved her children and did what she thought best for them and God honored that. I really believe that your intent towards your children is the key. No matter how gentle or harsh, if your heart is towards God, he will honor the intent and keep your relationship intact.
I don't think her husband was a monster or anything like that. Just very immature and selfish. My husband has the same tendency to get in his head and forget about life on earth. But he more or less realizes that and has things in place to make sure his family does not suffer for it or at least the impact on Ivy and me is minimized. It may be my twenty first century mind set, but I really have a hard time sympathizing with him.
I really think that we on this board are similar to Susanna Wesley in that we are very gentle by the standards of today. But I don't think we need to pat ourselves on the back too much because in a few centuries we may very well be harsh and border on abuse for the things we do. And people will say they really loved their children and we so much more gentle than the mainstream parenting that was in vogue at the time, but they were really wrong in so many areas. ( I really don't want to think about the horrors that my great grandchildren will feel at some of Ivy's stories).