Retributive Punishment in Christian Parenting
And Why Pontius Pilate Is Not Exemplary for the Christian
CW: corporal punishment and abuse
Kelsey texted me this article from The Gospel Coalition this morning and so launched our very first Instagram Live conversation (which hopefully we will also be able to upload to our YouTube Channel for easier access).
And wow there is a lot to say—about this article in particular but also the way it is representative of a persistent insistence in Christian parenting literature that *painful discipline* is the point. Because that appears to be the thesis: in short, TGC here suggests that the primary if not most important component of “biblical” parenting is retributive discipline.
I’m going to develop the notes I jotted down during the Live here, so let’s get into it. First, it’s worth noting that “biblical,” along with so many other words in the piece, remains undefined. How it most frequently shows up in parenting literature is as recognizable insider-group language that comes with a heavy dose of spiritual authority, read: TGC is about to tell you what is biblical…and what isn’t.
The article opens with an anecdote (which, as is so often the case, includes a negative and reductionistic portrayal of a child) and three specific names associated with gentle parenting-ish teaching: Dr. Kennedy who has a degree in clinical psychology, Dr. Delahooke who is a pediatric psychologist, and Robin Einzig who has multiple degrees in human development, an Ed.M in human development and psychology from Harvard, a graduate certificate in international trauma studies, and has done doctoral work in applied child development. All three are also mothers.
I have theories regarding why a TGC article might lead by naming three well-educated women and hinting that they offer unbiblical parenting instruction, but for now it’s worth noting that academic credentials are often unimpressive to people who hold a “Christ against culture” framework. Note that the author of the article, Bernard N. Howard, is a pastor (credentials unknown) and father of two young children.
Bernard doesn’t spend much time on the purported teaching of the three named women and instead offers additional sample scenarios, claiming that gentle parenting is “hard to define.” This immediately sets readers at a disadvantage. How do you know if you are toying with “unbiblical” gentle parenting advice? Is it if you listen to the three named women? Follow the TikTok accounts he references in passing? Have tried out the methods described in the anecdotes?
I suppose you have to take Bernard’s word for it, because he is going to move on to name two things he finds clearly “unbiblical” in the relatively undefined umbrella term. This leaves readers in the problematic position of filling in the blanks; whatever their concept of “gentle parenting” is, whatever undesirable parent/child interactions they’ve witnessed—that becomes what Bernard is addressing.
In any case, my purpose here is not to defend gentle parenting (you know I’m an advocate of critically analyzing parenting philosophies, and GP is no exception!), but to examine the claims of the article, whether they are substantiated, and how.
The first of Bernard’s two main points has to do with the “sinfulness of sin.” This I took to mean an anthropological and hamartiological position on total depravity. Bernard claims that Dr. Becky’s “optimism” about a child’s goodness, as expressed in a sample script of how to empathize with a child having difficulty sharing a toy, is “incompatible with Scripture’s realism.”
What Bernard doesn’t address is why and how the verses he mentions (Jesus talking about hypocrisy in Mark 7 and Paul’s struggle with sin in Romans 7:19) apply to a child. This, too, is common in popular Christian parenting teaching—there is little consideration re: either child development or spiritual formation and instead a continual expectation for children to operate as adults in little bodies. The end result of this brief nod to sin nature is to teach parents to filter any and all undesirable behavior through a lens of rebellion.
Bernard does not spend much time here and instead moves on, indicating that “the rest of this article will focus on the place of punishment in biblical parenting.” (Note the subtle implication that his opinion will be definitively *biblical*). To be honest, I gave a wry laugh when I read these words. I am deep in the weeds with popular Christian parenting literature, but I tried to imagine the TGC editorial board gathering and suggesting: You know, I think Christian parents haven’t yet heard enough about the importance of punishing kids; this time, let’s focus on how important it is to make it hurt.
In any case, next comes a brief nod to the stowaway doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. This crops up all the time in popular Christian parenting teaching, and I find it mostly problematic because of the general theological illiteracy in Christian communities. This is not the fault of the parents, but it results in new parents looking for help picking up a book and walking away catechized into a certain theological strain of thought. It’s worth noting that PSA as commonly expressed is a relatively recent framework and certainly not the only one held by Christians throughout the ages.
Bernard acknowledges the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement in passing…
…and is faced with the unenviable task of explaining why parents must still punish their errant children. Christ took our place, Bernard says, but children must still be punished, because, essentially, that’s how the world works. He points to the apostolic instruction about civil authorities punishing wrongdoers and makes the unsubstantiated claim: “What’s true for the Christian in society is true for the child in a Christian home.” The argument being made appears to be:
God lovingly punishes us with painful circumstances (this is not explained, and I hope readers see the theological and pastoral problems with presenting it as a given).
Civil authorities punish people, and it is often painful (note that there is no consideration of whether the way worldly empires work might not be the pattern for Christians).
Parents must punish their children, and make it painful.
This is not a compelling argument.
I’d like to move on, however, to the portion of the article that is dangerous and irresponsible, to the extent that I hope TGC will amend it. Here we have an attempted disclaimer against “sadistic” punishment. However, the lack of the definition of terms simply enables abusers, because everything is subjective. What constitutes “serious wrongdoing” by a child? Who determines whether a parent is “using punishment rightly”? This is extraordinarily problematic in an article that again and again says punishment must be painful.
TGC—this will enable if not directly cultivate abuse.
Bernard spends a good bit of time on word studies. It’s worth noting that word studies are inherently limited due to realities of translation as well as a wide range of word meanings. For instance the biblical understanding of “discipline” can include instruction, teaching, correction, guidance, mentoring…"discipleship,” we might say. Bernard acknowledges the range of meanings and then goes on to stretch the grammar in an attempt to prove the importance of a punitive approach.
I won’t spend too much time here, but I want to note two key flaws.
Bernard argues that the Hebrew word “musar” has a primarily punitive sense. This is simply not so. I am not a scholar of biblical Hebrew, but I can evaluate the ways skilled English translation teams have translated this term across the biblical text. Please note that this sort of word-study approach should never be taken as definitive, especially without any immediate or literary context, but taking it at face value, the rarity of translator choice on “punishment” should give immediate pause.
Hunting up definitions and finding verses that match what we want to say lands us in a position of eisegesis, or reading our preferred interpretation into the text. For instance, noting that “musar” is translated as “instruction” twenty times, I could now write an article suggesting gentle parenting is “biblical”—referencing a few of those verses—because it seeks to instruct children in their feelings. That would be an unsound hermeneutical approach, as is Bernard’s.
Bernard goes on to argue that because 1 Timothy 1:20 is likely about excommunication, and because the verse includes a form of “paideia” which elsewhere is translated “discipline,” then “discipline” should be very painful.
This is unsound. If anything, the near-universal accepted translation of this word as “learn” would indicate that learning is an important component of discipline (rather than punishment).
Later in the article, Bernard says:
I agree with his first sentence; ironically, his word studies have indeed extracted and removed parts of meaning. And while perhaps it could be said that punishment *can be* a component of a biblical concept of discipline, his use of odd marital language indicates a primary and irrevocable union that is simply not evident in the Scriptures.
When I see this sort of thing, I often think of new parents or others hungry for help in what can be an overwhelming task. This kind of word-study barrage can come with a weight of spiritual authority, and rarely is a rebuttal offered. In many Christian parenting resources, there isn’t even an attempt at exegesis; rather things are noted as givens or verses are referenced in passing. This is deeply problematic, because it requires devout people to simply trust anyone who speaks with spiritual authority.
We’re coming to the end, now, where Bernard seems to want to really underscore that a child must experience the pain of punishment. In fact, he makes this astonishing statement: “From the Bible’s point of view, it’s impossible to shape a child’s character without demonstrating the seriousness of wrongdoing through retributory punishment.”
I find this to be a profoundly unChristian statement. It makes me think of Jesus’ invitation for His followers to…follow His example. Of His sending them out to do His healing and liberating work, saying, “Freely you have received; freely give.” Of the traditional Christian doctrines that identify sanctification occurring through the Holy Spirit’s inner work to transform us into the likeness of Christ. Attempting to address doctrines of sanctification is beyond the scope of my (or Bernard’s!) article, but I think one thing is clear: we are not beat or punished into sanctification.
Perhaps Bernard would agree with this, because his prescription of pain is, for unknown reasons, to be applied *only* to children. He writes, “It needs to be clearly stated that there’s no biblical justification whatsoever for the use of physical punishment in adult discipleship.” This is especially odd after a segment where he quotes verses about “folly” and “the rod” from the Proverbs, a book full of moments where the rod is used on the back of fools. What I find more interesting, though, is that no reason is given for why adults need to be reminded of this—is it an attempt to mitigate marital abuse or denounce “wife spanking”or just physical violence in general?—and it has the overall effect of indicating that children are subhuman. Safeguards available for other adults are not available for them.
Christian parents reading this article will be told that a child’s folly should be “driven out” through punishment. Though spanking is never named, corporal punishment or “alternatives to physical punishment that a child will recognize as painful punishment” are the means given to readers.
As is often the case, I find myself wondering how this lands with the parents who read it. Do they feel a sense of shame for having dabbled in kinder ways of parenting? Do they worry that they have somehow endangered their child’s soul by showing mercy instead of punishment? Or perhaps are they relieved to have a method that won’t place them in one of those embarrassing anecdotes, where a parent seems to be at the whim of a child. There’s a little line tucked into the conclusion that I find rather telling: “even the best-parented children can sometimes behave badly.” Perhaps parents fear that their child’s behavior is a reflection on them, a failing grade on the report card of “biblical parenting.”
And of course I think of the children. What is the incalculable impact of this kind of teaching on children? Because they are the ones who will be on the receiving end of painful punishment from devout (or otherwise) parents. They will be the ones who will be told their pain is a measure of their parent’s love. They will be offered the framework of a God who finds value in dealing out injury, whose capacity to bring about transformation is apparently reduced to the methods of human Empires.
Nothing underscores this quite as much as when Bernard writes about Pilate flogging Jesus. Ostensibly this is an example of why “biblical” concepts of discipline include pain.
I think, instead, it reveals that TGC’s idea of discipline aligns with methods employed by an enemy of Jesus.
It never fails to amaze me that the bulk of “Christian” parenting teaching neglects to mention Jesus Christ, His teaching, or His attitude toward children. Jesus who identified Himself with vulnerable children and said, “Whoever welcomes a little child in my name welcomes me.” “Jesus, who took a little child in His arms and said “become like this.” Jesus, who, when children were brought to Him, took them in His arms and blessed them. Jesus who had strong words for those who cause little ones to stumble.
And where do we see Jesus in this article? Mentioned in passing, a victim of cruel flogging by an oppressive authority. Perhaps this is heart-breakingly apt in an article that teaches parents to deal out cruel punishment on the children entrusted to their care for a short time.
Parents, let me speak plainly and with great compassion: it will not be TGC who will reckon with the cost of this erroneous parenting advice. It will be you navigating the losses and grief and pain of betraying your own children.
It is never too late to find an alternate course.
And to the adult children reading this, to those who know all too well the confusing pain of multiple betrayals blended with spiritual imagery? I am so very sorry.
*edited to correct typos post-publication.*
The conflation of inappropriate/“bad” behaviors and sin is interesting to me as a Catholic because we believe that children age 7 and under are below the “age of reason” and cannot sin. They can behave in ways that would be sinful for adults, but are not for children. It is very dangerous to see children as little adults, because so much misbehavior is just communication of a need. This is true for adults, too. St. Julian of Norwich wrote, “when God sees our sin, he sees our pain.” This is not to say that a person’s woundedness justifies their sinful actions, but that the Lord truly is gentle with us and desires our healing. Parents should also be gentle and desire to guide their children into being empathetic, respectful, and kind.
Thanks for your post. It was really helpful in the aftermath of reading the TGC article. It's so sad to see parents follow the same old stuff that has never worked. So many parents lean on the crutch of punishment. They refuse to do the hard job of actually connecting with their children and helping them grow to love Jesus and obey him from a place of love rather than fear.