I was raised in a non-Christian, single parent family and was smacked as a child. I swore I’d never do that to my children. I came to Christ at the age of 27 and a few years later came into this ‘spare the rod’ teaching. As a Christian I was taught to smack my children. We were baby believers in a cultish ‘church’ my husband and I hadn’t a clue. We ‘corrected’ our two children (one more than the other) for a few years. It was horrible for everyone but of course, life impacting for our child. When we finally began to question things and came out from under that hateful teaching I was heartbroken. I went to my children in tears and asked for their forgiveness, I’ve actually done this several times over the years as. I will take the sorrow of spanking them to my grave. Thank you so much for writing and sharing this.
You are so very welcome, Jacqui. There are so many layers of loss and grief in what you've named; thank you for sharing a bit of your experience. I'm so very sorry. I hear many stories like yours, and I think new parents and new believers in particular were very vulnerable to this kind of teaching. Especially if they came from a chaotic or abusive or controlling home. Of course they wanted to do it different and please the Lord, so when a pastor or friend or older parent offered them various resources, they trusted them.
I often say that these teachings betrayed entire families. Yes, the vulnerable children had not choice or agency to leave and experience the betrayal and pain in a unique way. And also, many parents were betrayed and themselves misused in high control spaces that robbed them of the joy and attachment and freedom that could have been theirs. There is much to grieve and be angry about.
The quotes from Tomczak regarding having multiple rod, making the child get the rod, and spanking immediately in public instead of waiting to go home all sound exactly like the Pearl's 'To Train Up a Child'. All these parenting 'experts' just seem to be plagiarizing one another. Also, the alliterative title of the book is really creepy - the slang term 'bod' is usually seen in sexualized contexts.
YES. As I was reading, Voddie Baucham's teaching on parenting also came to mind - even some of the same exact phrases like "delayed obedience is disobedience."
I don't know if it's just all in the atmosphere and they freely adopt different terms or what, but, yes. Sometimes it's just a slightly different writing voice for the same kind of content. There's always very similar examples of misbehaving children, too.
I’m 75. We did not spank our children. I learned when my son was 2 that it doesn’t work. I took Rudolph Dreikurs course, Children the Challenge. Some stuff might be outdated but that changed my parenting style. And “don’t shoo flies”. If you mean it follow through. We have 7 grandchildren. And to my knowledge none of them have been spanked. Great kids.
Thank you for sharing some of your experience here, Janis. I love hearing stories like these! If you don't mind me asking, did you experience pressure to "spank" when your children were small?
I also read that “rod” used with sheep was to guide not hit. Guiding children is important. And being good models. How parents talk to each other. How they treat each other. So important.
You mean from others? Or myself? My anger would make it hard not to do something but I learned to control it. But really our parents didn’t tell us how to raise our kids. We muddled through ourselves. And they turned out well. lol.
That's a helpful perspective! Yes, I was curious if you experienced community expectations to use corporal punishment from extended family relatives or church friends. I hear this from many current parents in conservative spaces.
It was from church we had a course on Children the Challenge book. Even though my husband didn’t attend the course read the chapter to him each week. We agreed to use these strategies.
I live in Canada. We did not attend a strict church. We were free to choose how we parent.
But I did teach elementary school in the days of the strap and hated it. That was before kids. Might have been what made me want a different way of teaching kids.
It’s interesting Tomzach left SGC right before I joined but left a wake of issues. I wonder if he was misusing Isiah 3 before MacArthur? It makes me wonder who influenced who.
You probably bring some unique insights to this! How long were you at SGC?
Great question re: Is 3 - reading his book it felt like SO much of it was things that just have been floating around in various resources for ages. Gothard and Adams and all of them - I kind of wonder if they all influenced each other. Esp for ppl like Larry - who didn't have outside training. Was he just going to his Bible alone? Or was he kind of doing self-taught studies via resources like that? IDK.
So I had my "second conversion" at New Attitude 1999 directly due to a message on "Legalism" by C.J. Maheny. Given my history in Gothard and participation in his paramilitary ALERT program this was pertinent for me. I then moved to Chesapeake and was a member of SGC Chesapeake where I had friends and had participated in their youth group previously. I was a member there till 2004 (ish?) and then moved across country and was a member of SGC Pasadena till 2008. Tomzach's legacy was felt all through those years but it was just kind of like a ghost influence. Like we KNEW of the things that were at issue but then the famed 'investigative report" on SGC that they paid for came out and they've used that as a "get out of consequence free" card ever since. I left before the BIG SPLIT where CJ was reinstated. What's fascinating about the Is passage is as I know only MacArthur has so used it eisegetically in 2019. As far as I've done quick research he MAY have used Is 3:12 as an argument against women's leadership perhaps as early as 1979 but the message I found didn't have a complete transcription. But as an exegete myself that interpretation is basically nonsensical. Again I wonder how much it was operating in Evangelical either because I don't know of any commentary that would make that stupid of a linguistic leap. I just found it interesting Tomzach seems to offer it in the 80s. Always if you want to know more just hit me up.
Thank you! That's so interesting. I haven't followed the SGC story much at all - so reading up on it this week was enlightening. Makes so much sense that it would be appealing and also familiar post Gothard.
I feel like I've heard the Is thing from dominionist leaders as well - pretty sure Nancy Campbell (and her husband Colin) talk about this idea of mens' passivity leading to women and children "leading" as a curse. Tomczak connects it to what he calls America's loss of Judeo-Christian values - so maybe some second-Israel kind of interp going on too. Thanks for this!
It really can vary. This one was published by Fleming H. Revell, which was a publishing company started by DL Moody (and is now under Baker) - so a mainstream Christian publishing house in its day.
Tedd Tripp published his own under his imprint shepherdspress - it still went on to sell millions and he started his own publishing company that went on to publish Ginger's book and other parenting resources.
Dobson's of course had a mixed range but Focus on the Family became their own producer of content. The Pearls' self-pubbed.
Several of them started out maybe with a small or independent press and then if they achieved success got picked up by mainstream publishers. Back in the day, many of the authors were pastors, so if they had been published for a pastoral work, then a publisher would take on their parenting book. These days, however, publishers approach influencers with large followings.
Interesting, especially about the self publishing. I wonder if mainstream publishers didn't (or, now, wouldn't) want to touch it. And if they then do, if there is an avenue there to bring these practices to public attention.
Right? I think contemporary Christian parenting experts have gotten much more adept at dodging the spanking issue. Many (even in the last 10ish or so years) don't speak directly to it at all one way or another.
Wow. YES! I was really reminded of Voddie Baucham's teaching on parenting when I read this book, too. It's uncanny how many little phrases or anecdotes are if not verbatim very similar. I don't know if they were trading notes or simply parrotting ideas or what, but the influence of even one of these resources is not to be discounted because as you've described here - various pastors or teachers developed their own resources off of it and spread it that way.
1. So spanking intersects with sexual assault because a parent gives his kid a hug afterwards? Would it be in a different category if the parent was cold and just sent his kid off to do chores afterwards? Corporal punishment has *nothing* to do with some kind of twisted sexual bent. This is what researchers are up to?
2. As I already stated, the word “rod” is used ten times in the Proverbs. The physical sense of the word is obvious from those texts and doesn’t require any labored interpretation: A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools (is this metaphor?); Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die (did those parents think their child would die from taking out the trash?).
If these uses are metaphorical, they don’t make any sense in the context. If they mean what they clearly say, then are you’re saying God is okay with caning a young man (a vastly more significant and painful and damaging punishment), but he’s not okay with the far less extreme use of spanking, which neither bruises nor cuts nor causes physical harm? The term for “child” in Proverbs 22:15 does indeed mean child.
3. America has been a uniquely Christian/Protestant experiment from its founding. And with that there was a much more stringent moral code and social enforcement of that code. I don’t think my claim about increasing rebelliousness is unsubstantiated. What Dobson was talking about in the 70s is the same exact root issue that I and others are talking about today. Many scholars — Schaeffer, Lewis, and Chesterton from the twentieth century, and guys like Carl Trueman today — have chronicled the shifts in religious and philosophical thinking. There was a major shift in the twentieth century, and everyone you mentioned was talking about the same thing. I have read Shrier’s work and think her case compelling. The advice our experts have given is harmful and is antithetical to Scripture. Yes, the kids have been given bad therapy.
Also, nobody has suggested that behavioral correction is the whole story. But surely you understand that it’s a part of the story, right? Have you worked at all with addicts? If utility is thrown out, there’s hardly any work that can be done. Behavior often times must come first. In the Screwtape letters, Wormwood is advised never to have his “patient” kneel in prayer, because then he’ll find that the heart may soon follow.
4. As a Bible scholar, I take perhaps my greatest issue with this point. The entire Bible is the story of a Father and his children. Theological minimalism has caused many to conclude, like you, that the only direct instruction is Ephesians and Colossians. But this ignores countless stories of fathers and sons, both good and bad. It ignores a large part of wisdom literature, which is a father’s instructions to his own son (!). It ignores that we are being called, in every area of life, to look and behave like the Father. Moreover, even in Ephesians, Paul says that he bows his knees before the Father from whom every family (literally, fatherhood) in heaven and on earth is named. In other words, human families find their context and meaning in God the Father alone. There is no legitimate kind of fatherhood besides the one God exemplifies. If you search the Scriptures for parental wisdom in so wooden a fashion, you will overlook so much of it.
5. God doesn’t hit or force compliance? Which is harsher — 70 years in captivity or a swift spanking and then a loving chat from mom and dad? Force is not the right word. You cannot force a horse to drink water. A parent cannot force his kid to do anything. But a parent certainly can be stronger willed. And a parent can deal out consequences. A parent can “drive folly far from him.”
Parents are not God, but they are the training ground for a child’s relation to God. Children are commanded by God to obey their parents in the Lord, just as bondservants were told to obey their masters, as though obeying the Lord.
Fathers *absolutely* represent God on a microcosmic scale. See Hebrews 12:10ff. And see Matthew 7:11. The entire concept of fatherhood finds its root in God.
I don't think parents should hit their children at all, but I do think hitting & then cuddling afterward set a problematic precedent. For some children, maybe it's a blip & "they turn out fine" - for others they learn that it's okay for someone to hit them & call it love & that they must reconcile & show affection to those who hurt their bodies.
2. A couple of things: (1) the Proverbs aren't imperatives - they are wisdom sayings & we interpret most of them as such (eg we don't hand out alcohol to those in despair a la 31:6 or put our knives to our throats if given to gluttony. We intuitively understand these are offering us wisdom to apply to life. (2) it matters, I think, what "the rod" is & what the author intended. What it most certainly isn't? A hand on a toddler's bum or a wooden spoon. So there is already interpretive work going on no matter how you cut it. Not sure what you mean by taking out the trash, but it raises a good point. Do ppl reading this literally think that their child will be immortal if they hit them with a rod? No, again. There is interpretive work going on. (3) I'm not attempting to speak for God. I do think the Proverbs and most ppl in the ANE were okay with caning - in fact in Leviticus we do have the idea of stoning a very rebellious son. It raises other questions, ofc, but so do many portions of Scripture. (4) Forcing it to mean "spanking" b/c it's more palatable is poor hermeneutics. (5) I don't think a metaphorical read is a problem - it's elsewhere used in Scripture metaphorically or even as a symbol of authority (think the scepter in Esther). The point of these Proverbs isn't methodology anyway - it's that wise parents are attentive to discipline (biblically speaking that's a broad concept that includes correction, instruction, teaching...discipleship) and negligent ones don't care enough about their children to do it. (6) naar can have a huge range of meaning from child to young adult male. To interpret it *as a toddler/preschooler* is least likely, esp since the original intended audience of Proverbs was...young men. (7) None of these are imperative mandates. But if ppl want to take them literally, they are stuck with the hitting sons (likely young men) on the back with rods (which would've been stout clubs usually used on enslaved or imprisoned ppl). So, since we are being literalists, Christian parents should not spank their daughters only their sons and do so with ANE rods - this would be criminal behavior in US.
3. I mean, this simply isn't provable. JC Ryle said something similar in 1880 about lenient parenting. Pinpointing something like "spanking" as the cause of all societal ills is silly for many reasons, not least that *most American parents still spank*
I agree with you that an all-or-nothing approach is fruitless, and I'm not suggesting it. The options for Christian parents aren't spank-or-do-nothing. There are many ways to disciple or correct children that don't involve hitting their bottoms (and again, just pointing out that all the prescriptives - the bottom, do it when calm, hug afterward - none of those are "biblical"
4. I don't disagree with any of what you've said here. The problem, I think, comes when ppl imagine: because I am a father, I am to act as God in the life of my child. Nowhere are we given that role as parents. In historic Christian teaching, God interacts with individuals directly - parents do not mediate. In a sense, we might say, parents bring children to Jesus, but He Himself takes them in His arms & blesses them.
So much Christian parenting teaching, however, tells parents that they are God's agents of authority or some such nonsense. They also are told to operate like God the Holy Spirit by diagnosing their children's hearts for sins. And that by their actions they can somehow secure salvation for their children via their efforts as comediators. These things are not stated directly - but the more prescriptive people get about what parents are to do, the more distorted. it gets. It has parents take on infallible-like roles - it's a lot of pressure and I contend it's idolatrous at its core. I disagree that the entire story of the Bible is that of a Father and His children - YES, that motif is throughout and verbiage is used, but it's not the only one, and even if we agree that it's central that does not mean human fathers are to be gods in their children's life. Even the choices about what the fatherhood of God looks like are selected. Do we hear much about human fathers behaving like the Prodigal Father (letting his wayward son take the inheritance and leave?) of Jesus' parables of the two sons & the one with delayed disobedience? Of God's kindness leading us to repentance or God as the father of all good gifts? Or do we self select according to our human understanding of fatherliness & write that back on to God? (I'm not saying you are or would do these things - just saying this is what I see in the resources).
I, too, love the Scriptures & like that you've pointed out the vast majority of them come to us as narrative and story form - this gives us much to think about and underscores (I think) the freedom for the Christian parent. We can see truths applied in various contexts - but we have few direct commands.
5. Captivity/exile was not *primarily* a punishment. It was a consequence of the moral pollution of the land. They were permitted to return after a time (not b/c they had somehow atoned or been purified or done something to do so). It's all and always been God's kindness and grace. That being said, seeing God interact in a certain way in a portion of a biblical narrative does not mean *we* have license to do that in the life of another human being.
We are given clear instructions from Jesus: Love God, love neighbor (including our littlest ones). The all or nothing mindset will get us stuck here, too, I think. Consequences, punishment, discipleship, teaching, teaching wisdom from folly - none of these *must* come through corporal punishment.
I thoroughly disagree with your last statement that parents are the training ground to relate to God. Why is a training ground needed? God relates directly to children - we see this in Scripture multiple places - we see it most clearly when Jesus takes children directly in His arms & is angry (the only time He is indignant with His followers is when they keep the vulnerable from getting to Him) that ppl would interfere. Children can relate directly to God. As wonderful as a loving fatherly role is, children do not need this to have access to God or do not somehow need to practice with human fathers first.
Hebrews 12 does not say that fathers represent God to children. That is an inversion of what is going on. In an epistle written to the suffering church about to undergo intense martyrdom & persecution (cf chpt. 11), the author of Hebrews directs Christians' attention to Jesus. The *encouragement* he offers to the suffering is that the God who raises the dead, who can bring resurrection out of Christ's suffering/death can bring maturation out of their own sorrow and suffering. That is a very different thing than saying God is *the author* of evil and suffering and death. Or that God *must* use evil to teach us.
And in that motif, the author reaches for something they understand - using the lesser (human fathers) to help them understand the greater (the love and mystery of God). Suggesting that fathers represent God to children is an inversion of that. I think something similar is going on in Matthew 7. Neither are prescriptive passages for parents.
My argument here and elsewhere is rather modest all things considered. I'm not saying don't correct your children or teach them or that parents should neglect to instruct them. My main goal is to say: Christian parents, stop hitting your children.
Spanking is *a choice* and not a particularly effective one at that. That's all it is. It's not required. It's not a ritual that guarantees success. And it arguably comes with negative impact. Yes, some children were spanked and as adults say: I turned out fine - it wasn't a big deal. Others do not. It's quite the gamble to take as a parent. At the very least, those who advocate for spanking bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why they believe it is okay to so treat the children entrusted by God to their care for a short time. It is to Him Whom they will give account, and Jesus Himself had strong words for those who cause children to stumble.
The very concept of fatherhood is rooted in the eternal Father, God (Ephesians 3:14-15). Quite literally, fatherhood has no context without God. And so, there are a great many Scriptures that correlate earthly fathers/sons with the Heavenly Father and his children (Matthew 7:11; Hebrews 12:7-11; Proverbs 3:11-12 are a few). It’s hermeneutically sound for parents to learn the rules of parenting principally from God.
The parent is the authority, given by God, to whom children must obey. How do you think God relates to little children? It’s absolutely true that God wants the children in his presence, but don’t you see that this is impossible apart from parents who enforce it? A kid won’t know Jesus’ name apart from his parents. Neither will he be discipled. A child absolutely learns obedience from his parents. A rebellious child who never learned to obey his father will not learn how to obey God. Read Paul’s argument in Romans 1. The end result of a people who reject God is children who are disobedient to the parents. Paul literally makes that point. How does this work? If we reject our authority (God), our children will reject their immediate authority (parents). I didn’t make a false connection — you denied the one that the Scriptures clearly make.
There’s so much more I could say, but I’ll refrain because hermeneutically you’re in a different world than I. I’d just caution you about making the connection between spanking and sexual assault. It’s that kind of argumentation that could lead to good Christian parents being labeled as sexual predators. And that’s simply an awful thing to do.
Here's the thing, Daniel. We could go back and forth about our theological understandings of fatherhood or discipleship, but that is really a distraction from what I think is the crux of the matter is: Do Christian parents have to "spank" their children? Is there something specifically Christian about hitting a toddler's bottom? No. That itself is not biblically supportable.
And as far as sexual predation, well, I think it's worth asking: why are we defending a practice that - if done to a teenager or adult - would be instantly recognizable as assault? (And by "practice": I'm meaning, the ritualized steps described in parenting manuals).
To be honest, the way Christian parents ardently defend something that is at best adiophora is beginning to convince me it's a stronghold of some kind. There are many other ways to disciple, discipline, correct, father, etc. that do not involve this behavior.
That point just doesn’t hold any water. There are tons of ways that we interact with toddlers that would be inappropriate as they mature into adulthood — changing diapers, giving baths, etc.
You associated spanking with sexual abuse, and that connection is extremely novel. I serve in a pastoral role in a large congregation, and I interact with all kinds of people and their broad experiences. Never once have I ever heard anyone who endured spanking make the connection you have. You are grasping at straws there.
If you are bent on disproving spanking as an adequate method, then keep the terms there. Don’t invent new connections with literally the worst kind of human behavior that exists. The shock factor may make some people withdraw from the method, but not for any good reason. I literally know dozens of parents who spank, who were spanked by their parents, and who think nothing of what you’re claiming.
Lastly, you misunderstood my argument from hermeneutics a couple of comments back. I argued that if the Scriptures approve of caning (your term) — a far worse punishment — then why would the same Scriptures prohibit a punishment that pails in comparison to it? The argument is from the greater to the lesser. And it’s perfectly logical.
This is not a novel connection, and it is not invented. I recommend reading the three part series I linked earlier in which I discuss the strengths/limitations of research. Things like self-reported data as well as multiple confounding factors make it difficult. Most of what we have is anecdotal, which is why it is important to listen to the vast range of reported experiences. It could be that one reason you have not heard any cases personally is that this is something that carries much shame and confusion for people in Christian contexts.
You are right that there are many people who were spanked that do not indicate it caused long term harm. Which is why several times, I have reiterated that I am not attempting to claim that *all* spanking falls in this category. However, there are adults, a surprising number, who do claim that it led to long lasting harm. They experienced spanking as unwanted sexual contact, arousing, etc. Here is a sampling of adults who name just that: https://www.instagram.com/p/C4LkDrEL0vH/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
I am bent on disproving spanking as a "biblical" method. And the burden of proof rests on those like yourself who advocate for it. Outside of that, the research is remarkably clear that it's not a particularly effective method of discipline and ends up being a net negative as far as behavior management. Christians primarily hold onto it because they believe it to be specifically biblical.
Your final point attempts to make an argument from silence. If the Scriptures don't say anything about spanking toddlers, pastors shouldn't tell parents they do. I also do not think the Scriptures approve of caning. The fact that caning would be the literalistic interpretation of a Proverb (which is by definition metaphorical) is not "approval."
I'm not sure further conversation here is going to be productive. You are welcome to visit the playlist on youtube or other things I've written which examine these things in more depth. Thanks for taking the time to consider an alternate perspective.
For many of us the idea of physical assault on children’s little bodies is horrifying. Wonder if those 700 pastors on the SBC list of confirmed pastors who raped and molested spanked their kids?
The bizarre story of the author you cited and his own moral failures aside, I can’t imagine how you’ve generally conflated spanking with sexual abuse. That’s a pretty wild connection.
The term for “rod” is used ten times in the Proverbs, and the overwhelming indication is that of physical/corporal punishment. I’m far more interested in sound exegesis than your opinion on the matter.
The irony is, with the advent of gentle parenting and a flood of self-proclaimed parenting “experts” (whatever that means — most of them being rootless cosmopolitans with no kids or life experience), behaviors in children have literally only worsened. I’ve discussed behaviors with numerous school administrators who’ve been in the field for decades — and kids are way more poorly behaved than they once were. There are vastly more “experts” than there ever were in history, and you’d think we’d be in the golden age of well-mannered kids. But it’s just the opposite.
The Scriptures actually do provide a clear blue print for parenting. And I’d say that since God is the perfect Father, yes, we *should* learn from his methodology.
“Our earth fathers disciplined us as it seemed best to them” (Hebrews 12). “There is a way that seems best to a man, but it’s end is death” (Proverbs 14:12).
Thanks for weighing in Daniel. A couple of thoughts:
1. I'm not suggesting spanking is *always* CSA - simply that both researchers and adults who were spanked name ways it intersects with CSA or fell into that category. I certainly think what's described in many Christian parenting manuals (bare bottom spanking, hugs afterward, no upper cap, I do this b/c I love you & God wants me to, etc. etc.) blur the lines with CSA. It's also worth noting: what makes something cross the line to CSA? Why is it that something an employer/teacher would do to, say, a teen would be criminal assault and yet parent to 5YO is "spanking"?
2. I agree with you that for Christians, the question remains: is the practice biblically sound? I contend that it is not & that nowhere in Scripture are parents commanded to "spank" their children. I've done a three part series on this here on substack and have a playlist devoted to discussing this on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSG_NaGVGw-YIIizoyUfB6U_8jWtgOjjv if you're interested in further reading. The short version is: we can interpret "the rod" verses literally (in which case this is caning young men) or figuratively (in which case this symbolizes parental authority & discipline). Neither contains any hint of hitting small children, as in contemporary practices of "spanking"
3. It's nearly impossible to substantiate the claim you attempt to make here. Every generation going back to Greco-Roman times has people claiming that the younger generation is more rebellious and more problematic - and often they blame parenting methods. There simply isn't a way to substantiate this. Dobson in the 70s, Tripp in the 90s, were saying the same thing as Shrier and others today. Parents are too lenient, we need more discipline/authority, etc.
It's also rather utilitarian to imagine that a method should be utilized by Christians simply b/c it produces a desired behavioral result. With corporal punishment, that's not really accurate either as the studies we do have (admittedly difficult to negotiate for the same reasons I've named here & in my three part series if you check it out) generally indicate spanking is a net negative and not particularly effective.
4. The Scriptures have very little to say about parenting methodology. In fact, there is tremendous freedom for the Christian parent. The only direct instruction Christian parents have is found in Ephesians and Colossions, repeated twice: Fathers, do not provoke/embitter your children (and bring them up in the instruction of the Lord) in Eph. So really the question we ought to be asking IMO is: is it possible to "spank" a child w/out embittering them? I contend: no, it's not. We also ofc have all the NT one-another verses as well which indicate an attitude of loving our children as neighbors.
None of this equals permissive parenting. It simply means maybe Christians ought not to hit their children into compliance and imagine it's godly.
5. God does not hit or force children into compliance. We can certainly attempt to follow the example of Jesus, but parents do not take the role of God in the lives of their children. So that is probably also worth considering.
In any case, I'm glad you've engaged here! I hope you'll browse the things I've written here or on instagram under three spanking highlights.
I was raised in a non-Christian, single parent family and was smacked as a child. I swore I’d never do that to my children. I came to Christ at the age of 27 and a few years later came into this ‘spare the rod’ teaching. As a Christian I was taught to smack my children. We were baby believers in a cultish ‘church’ my husband and I hadn’t a clue. We ‘corrected’ our two children (one more than the other) for a few years. It was horrible for everyone but of course, life impacting for our child. When we finally began to question things and came out from under that hateful teaching I was heartbroken. I went to my children in tears and asked for their forgiveness, I’ve actually done this several times over the years as. I will take the sorrow of spanking them to my grave. Thank you so much for writing and sharing this.
You are so very welcome, Jacqui. There are so many layers of loss and grief in what you've named; thank you for sharing a bit of your experience. I'm so very sorry. I hear many stories like yours, and I think new parents and new believers in particular were very vulnerable to this kind of teaching. Especially if they came from a chaotic or abusive or controlling home. Of course they wanted to do it different and please the Lord, so when a pastor or friend or older parent offered them various resources, they trusted them.
I often say that these teachings betrayed entire families. Yes, the vulnerable children had not choice or agency to leave and experience the betrayal and pain in a unique way. And also, many parents were betrayed and themselves misused in high control spaces that robbed them of the joy and attachment and freedom that could have been theirs. There is much to grieve and be angry about.
The quotes from Tomczak regarding having multiple rod, making the child get the rod, and spanking immediately in public instead of waiting to go home all sound exactly like the Pearl's 'To Train Up a Child'. All these parenting 'experts' just seem to be plagiarizing one another. Also, the alliterative title of the book is really creepy - the slang term 'bod' is usually seen in sexualized contexts.
YES. As I was reading, Voddie Baucham's teaching on parenting also came to mind - even some of the same exact phrases like "delayed obedience is disobedience."
I don't know if it's just all in the atmosphere and they freely adopt different terms or what, but, yes. Sometimes it's just a slightly different writing voice for the same kind of content. There's always very similar examples of misbehaving children, too.
I’m 75. We did not spank our children. I learned when my son was 2 that it doesn’t work. I took Rudolph Dreikurs course, Children the Challenge. Some stuff might be outdated but that changed my parenting style. And “don’t shoo flies”. If you mean it follow through. We have 7 grandchildren. And to my knowledge none of them have been spanked. Great kids.
Thank you for sharing some of your experience here, Janis. I love hearing stories like these! If you don't mind me asking, did you experience pressure to "spank" when your children were small?
I also read that “rod” used with sheep was to guide not hit. Guiding children is important. And being good models. How parents talk to each other. How they treat each other. So important.
You mean from others? Or myself? My anger would make it hard not to do something but I learned to control it. But really our parents didn’t tell us how to raise our kids. We muddled through ourselves. And they turned out well. lol.
That's a helpful perspective! Yes, I was curious if you experienced community expectations to use corporal punishment from extended family relatives or church friends. I hear this from many current parents in conservative spaces.
YES. Model and guide.
It was from church we had a course on Children the Challenge book. Even though my husband didn’t attend the course read the chapter to him each week. We agreed to use these strategies.
I live in Canada. We did not attend a strict church. We were free to choose how we parent.
But I did teach elementary school in the days of the strap and hated it. That was before kids. Might have been what made me want a different way of teaching kids.
It’s interesting Tomzach left SGC right before I joined but left a wake of issues. I wonder if he was misusing Isiah 3 before MacArthur? It makes me wonder who influenced who.
You probably bring some unique insights to this! How long were you at SGC?
Great question re: Is 3 - reading his book it felt like SO much of it was things that just have been floating around in various resources for ages. Gothard and Adams and all of them - I kind of wonder if they all influenced each other. Esp for ppl like Larry - who didn't have outside training. Was he just going to his Bible alone? Or was he kind of doing self-taught studies via resources like that? IDK.
So I had my "second conversion" at New Attitude 1999 directly due to a message on "Legalism" by C.J. Maheny. Given my history in Gothard and participation in his paramilitary ALERT program this was pertinent for me. I then moved to Chesapeake and was a member of SGC Chesapeake where I had friends and had participated in their youth group previously. I was a member there till 2004 (ish?) and then moved across country and was a member of SGC Pasadena till 2008. Tomzach's legacy was felt all through those years but it was just kind of like a ghost influence. Like we KNEW of the things that were at issue but then the famed 'investigative report" on SGC that they paid for came out and they've used that as a "get out of consequence free" card ever since. I left before the BIG SPLIT where CJ was reinstated. What's fascinating about the Is passage is as I know only MacArthur has so used it eisegetically in 2019. As far as I've done quick research he MAY have used Is 3:12 as an argument against women's leadership perhaps as early as 1979 but the message I found didn't have a complete transcription. But as an exegete myself that interpretation is basically nonsensical. Again I wonder how much it was operating in Evangelical either because I don't know of any commentary that would make that stupid of a linguistic leap. I just found it interesting Tomzach seems to offer it in the 80s. Always if you want to know more just hit me up.
Thank you! That's so interesting. I haven't followed the SGC story much at all - so reading up on it this week was enlightening. Makes so much sense that it would be appealing and also familiar post Gothard.
I feel like I've heard the Is thing from dominionist leaders as well - pretty sure Nancy Campbell (and her husband Colin) talk about this idea of mens' passivity leading to women and children "leading" as a curse. Tomczak connects it to what he calls America's loss of Judeo-Christian values - so maybe some second-Israel kind of interp going on too. Thanks for this!
Sheila Gregoire and Rebecca Lindenbach have a podcast episode and a few blog posts discussing a recent meta-analysis of the research on spanking. Heres one link: https://baremarriage.com/2020/08/what-does-the-research-say-about-spanking/
And Here’s the meta-analysis they covered: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992110/
Yes! I so appreciate their work on this!
Thank you thank you for your work. I am wondering who publishes these books. Are they all published by church affiliated presses?
You are welcome! What a great question!
It really can vary. This one was published by Fleming H. Revell, which was a publishing company started by DL Moody (and is now under Baker) - so a mainstream Christian publishing house in its day.
Tedd Tripp published his own under his imprint shepherdspress - it still went on to sell millions and he started his own publishing company that went on to publish Ginger's book and other parenting resources.
Dobson's of course had a mixed range but Focus on the Family became their own producer of content. The Pearls' self-pubbed.
Several of them started out maybe with a small or independent press and then if they achieved success got picked up by mainstream publishers. Back in the day, many of the authors were pastors, so if they had been published for a pastoral work, then a publisher would take on their parenting book. These days, however, publishers approach influencers with large followings.
So it's kind of a mixed bag.
Interesting, especially about the self publishing. I wonder if mainstream publishers didn't (or, now, wouldn't) want to touch it. And if they then do, if there is an avenue there to bring these practices to public attention.
Right? I think contemporary Christian parenting experts have gotten much more adept at dodging the spanking issue. Many (even in the last 10ish or so years) don't speak directly to it at all one way or another.
This book was on my parents’ bookshelves growing up, but I didn’t realize that my childhood cult leaders quoted Tomczak almost word for word: https://web.archive.org/web/20101205194438/http:/momandus.com/2008/06/04/a-few-more-questions-on-discipline/
Wow. YES! I was really reminded of Voddie Baucham's teaching on parenting when I read this book, too. It's uncanny how many little phrases or anecdotes are if not verbatim very similar. I don't know if they were trading notes or simply parrotting ideas or what, but the influence of even one of these resources is not to be discounted because as you've described here - various pastors or teachers developed their own resources off of it and spread it that way.
1. So spanking intersects with sexual assault because a parent gives his kid a hug afterwards? Would it be in a different category if the parent was cold and just sent his kid off to do chores afterwards? Corporal punishment has *nothing* to do with some kind of twisted sexual bent. This is what researchers are up to?
2. As I already stated, the word “rod” is used ten times in the Proverbs. The physical sense of the word is obvious from those texts and doesn’t require any labored interpretation: A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools (is this metaphor?); Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die (did those parents think their child would die from taking out the trash?).
If these uses are metaphorical, they don’t make any sense in the context. If they mean what they clearly say, then are you’re saying God is okay with caning a young man (a vastly more significant and painful and damaging punishment), but he’s not okay with the far less extreme use of spanking, which neither bruises nor cuts nor causes physical harm? The term for “child” in Proverbs 22:15 does indeed mean child.
3. America has been a uniquely Christian/Protestant experiment from its founding. And with that there was a much more stringent moral code and social enforcement of that code. I don’t think my claim about increasing rebelliousness is unsubstantiated. What Dobson was talking about in the 70s is the same exact root issue that I and others are talking about today. Many scholars — Schaeffer, Lewis, and Chesterton from the twentieth century, and guys like Carl Trueman today — have chronicled the shifts in religious and philosophical thinking. There was a major shift in the twentieth century, and everyone you mentioned was talking about the same thing. I have read Shrier’s work and think her case compelling. The advice our experts have given is harmful and is antithetical to Scripture. Yes, the kids have been given bad therapy.
Also, nobody has suggested that behavioral correction is the whole story. But surely you understand that it’s a part of the story, right? Have you worked at all with addicts? If utility is thrown out, there’s hardly any work that can be done. Behavior often times must come first. In the Screwtape letters, Wormwood is advised never to have his “patient” kneel in prayer, because then he’ll find that the heart may soon follow.
4. As a Bible scholar, I take perhaps my greatest issue with this point. The entire Bible is the story of a Father and his children. Theological minimalism has caused many to conclude, like you, that the only direct instruction is Ephesians and Colossians. But this ignores countless stories of fathers and sons, both good and bad. It ignores a large part of wisdom literature, which is a father’s instructions to his own son (!). It ignores that we are being called, in every area of life, to look and behave like the Father. Moreover, even in Ephesians, Paul says that he bows his knees before the Father from whom every family (literally, fatherhood) in heaven and on earth is named. In other words, human families find their context and meaning in God the Father alone. There is no legitimate kind of fatherhood besides the one God exemplifies. If you search the Scriptures for parental wisdom in so wooden a fashion, you will overlook so much of it.
5. God doesn’t hit or force compliance? Which is harsher — 70 years in captivity or a swift spanking and then a loving chat from mom and dad? Force is not the right word. You cannot force a horse to drink water. A parent cannot force his kid to do anything. But a parent certainly can be stronger willed. And a parent can deal out consequences. A parent can “drive folly far from him.”
Parents are not God, but they are the training ground for a child’s relation to God. Children are commanded by God to obey their parents in the Lord, just as bondservants were told to obey their masters, as though obeying the Lord.
Fathers *absolutely* represent God on a microcosmic scale. See Hebrews 12:10ff. And see Matthew 7:11. The entire concept of fatherhood finds its root in God.
1. No. I encourage you to read this if you want to consider further what the recommended practices on the Right Way to spank actually entail. https://mburtwrites.substack.com/p/dragging-what-happens-behind-closed
I don't think parents should hit their children at all, but I do think hitting & then cuddling afterward set a problematic precedent. For some children, maybe it's a blip & "they turn out fine" - for others they learn that it's okay for someone to hit them & call it love & that they must reconcile & show affection to those who hurt their bodies.
2. A couple of things: (1) the Proverbs aren't imperatives - they are wisdom sayings & we interpret most of them as such (eg we don't hand out alcohol to those in despair a la 31:6 or put our knives to our throats if given to gluttony. We intuitively understand these are offering us wisdom to apply to life. (2) it matters, I think, what "the rod" is & what the author intended. What it most certainly isn't? A hand on a toddler's bum or a wooden spoon. So there is already interpretive work going on no matter how you cut it. Not sure what you mean by taking out the trash, but it raises a good point. Do ppl reading this literally think that their child will be immortal if they hit them with a rod? No, again. There is interpretive work going on. (3) I'm not attempting to speak for God. I do think the Proverbs and most ppl in the ANE were okay with caning - in fact in Leviticus we do have the idea of stoning a very rebellious son. It raises other questions, ofc, but so do many portions of Scripture. (4) Forcing it to mean "spanking" b/c it's more palatable is poor hermeneutics. (5) I don't think a metaphorical read is a problem - it's elsewhere used in Scripture metaphorically or even as a symbol of authority (think the scepter in Esther). The point of these Proverbs isn't methodology anyway - it's that wise parents are attentive to discipline (biblically speaking that's a broad concept that includes correction, instruction, teaching...discipleship) and negligent ones don't care enough about their children to do it. (6) naar can have a huge range of meaning from child to young adult male. To interpret it *as a toddler/preschooler* is least likely, esp since the original intended audience of Proverbs was...young men. (7) None of these are imperative mandates. But if ppl want to take them literally, they are stuck with the hitting sons (likely young men) on the back with rods (which would've been stout clubs usually used on enslaved or imprisoned ppl). So, since we are being literalists, Christian parents should not spank their daughters only their sons and do so with ANE rods - this would be criminal behavior in US.
3. I mean, this simply isn't provable. JC Ryle said something similar in 1880 about lenient parenting. Pinpointing something like "spanking" as the cause of all societal ills is silly for many reasons, not least that *most American parents still spank*
I agree with you that an all-or-nothing approach is fruitless, and I'm not suggesting it. The options for Christian parents aren't spank-or-do-nothing. There are many ways to disciple or correct children that don't involve hitting their bottoms (and again, just pointing out that all the prescriptives - the bottom, do it when calm, hug afterward - none of those are "biblical"
4. I don't disagree with any of what you've said here. The problem, I think, comes when ppl imagine: because I am a father, I am to act as God in the life of my child. Nowhere are we given that role as parents. In historic Christian teaching, God interacts with individuals directly - parents do not mediate. In a sense, we might say, parents bring children to Jesus, but He Himself takes them in His arms & blesses them.
So much Christian parenting teaching, however, tells parents that they are God's agents of authority or some such nonsense. They also are told to operate like God the Holy Spirit by diagnosing their children's hearts for sins. And that by their actions they can somehow secure salvation for their children via their efforts as comediators. These things are not stated directly - but the more prescriptive people get about what parents are to do, the more distorted. it gets. It has parents take on infallible-like roles - it's a lot of pressure and I contend it's idolatrous at its core. I disagree that the entire story of the Bible is that of a Father and His children - YES, that motif is throughout and verbiage is used, but it's not the only one, and even if we agree that it's central that does not mean human fathers are to be gods in their children's life. Even the choices about what the fatherhood of God looks like are selected. Do we hear much about human fathers behaving like the Prodigal Father (letting his wayward son take the inheritance and leave?) of Jesus' parables of the two sons & the one with delayed disobedience? Of God's kindness leading us to repentance or God as the father of all good gifts? Or do we self select according to our human understanding of fatherliness & write that back on to God? (I'm not saying you are or would do these things - just saying this is what I see in the resources).
I, too, love the Scriptures & like that you've pointed out the vast majority of them come to us as narrative and story form - this gives us much to think about and underscores (I think) the freedom for the Christian parent. We can see truths applied in various contexts - but we have few direct commands.
5. Captivity/exile was not *primarily* a punishment. It was a consequence of the moral pollution of the land. They were permitted to return after a time (not b/c they had somehow atoned or been purified or done something to do so). It's all and always been God's kindness and grace. That being said, seeing God interact in a certain way in a portion of a biblical narrative does not mean *we* have license to do that in the life of another human being.
We are given clear instructions from Jesus: Love God, love neighbor (including our littlest ones). The all or nothing mindset will get us stuck here, too, I think. Consequences, punishment, discipleship, teaching, teaching wisdom from folly - none of these *must* come through corporal punishment.
I thoroughly disagree with your last statement that parents are the training ground to relate to God. Why is a training ground needed? God relates directly to children - we see this in Scripture multiple places - we see it most clearly when Jesus takes children directly in His arms & is angry (the only time He is indignant with His followers is when they keep the vulnerable from getting to Him) that ppl would interfere. Children can relate directly to God. As wonderful as a loving fatherly role is, children do not need this to have access to God or do not somehow need to practice with human fathers first.
Hebrews 12 does not say that fathers represent God to children. That is an inversion of what is going on. In an epistle written to the suffering church about to undergo intense martyrdom & persecution (cf chpt. 11), the author of Hebrews directs Christians' attention to Jesus. The *encouragement* he offers to the suffering is that the God who raises the dead, who can bring resurrection out of Christ's suffering/death can bring maturation out of their own sorrow and suffering. That is a very different thing than saying God is *the author* of evil and suffering and death. Or that God *must* use evil to teach us.
And in that motif, the author reaches for something they understand - using the lesser (human fathers) to help them understand the greater (the love and mystery of God). Suggesting that fathers represent God to children is an inversion of that. I think something similar is going on in Matthew 7. Neither are prescriptive passages for parents.
My argument here and elsewhere is rather modest all things considered. I'm not saying don't correct your children or teach them or that parents should neglect to instruct them. My main goal is to say: Christian parents, stop hitting your children.
Spanking is *a choice* and not a particularly effective one at that. That's all it is. It's not required. It's not a ritual that guarantees success. And it arguably comes with negative impact. Yes, some children were spanked and as adults say: I turned out fine - it wasn't a big deal. Others do not. It's quite the gamble to take as a parent. At the very least, those who advocate for spanking bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why they believe it is okay to so treat the children entrusted by God to their care for a short time. It is to Him Whom they will give account, and Jesus Himself had strong words for those who cause children to stumble.
The very concept of fatherhood is rooted in the eternal Father, God (Ephesians 3:14-15). Quite literally, fatherhood has no context without God. And so, there are a great many Scriptures that correlate earthly fathers/sons with the Heavenly Father and his children (Matthew 7:11; Hebrews 12:7-11; Proverbs 3:11-12 are a few). It’s hermeneutically sound for parents to learn the rules of parenting principally from God.
The parent is the authority, given by God, to whom children must obey. How do you think God relates to little children? It’s absolutely true that God wants the children in his presence, but don’t you see that this is impossible apart from parents who enforce it? A kid won’t know Jesus’ name apart from his parents. Neither will he be discipled. A child absolutely learns obedience from his parents. A rebellious child who never learned to obey his father will not learn how to obey God. Read Paul’s argument in Romans 1. The end result of a people who reject God is children who are disobedient to the parents. Paul literally makes that point. How does this work? If we reject our authority (God), our children will reject their immediate authority (parents). I didn’t make a false connection — you denied the one that the Scriptures clearly make.
There’s so much more I could say, but I’ll refrain because hermeneutically you’re in a different world than I. I’d just caution you about making the connection between spanking and sexual assault. It’s that kind of argumentation that could lead to good Christian parents being labeled as sexual predators. And that’s simply an awful thing to do.
Here's the thing, Daniel. We could go back and forth about our theological understandings of fatherhood or discipleship, but that is really a distraction from what I think is the crux of the matter is: Do Christian parents have to "spank" their children? Is there something specifically Christian about hitting a toddler's bottom? No. That itself is not biblically supportable.
And as far as sexual predation, well, I think it's worth asking: why are we defending a practice that - if done to a teenager or adult - would be instantly recognizable as assault? (And by "practice": I'm meaning, the ritualized steps described in parenting manuals).
To be honest, the way Christian parents ardently defend something that is at best adiophora is beginning to convince me it's a stronghold of some kind. There are many other ways to disciple, discipline, correct, father, etc. that do not involve this behavior.
That point just doesn’t hold any water. There are tons of ways that we interact with toddlers that would be inappropriate as they mature into adulthood — changing diapers, giving baths, etc.
You associated spanking with sexual abuse, and that connection is extremely novel. I serve in a pastoral role in a large congregation, and I interact with all kinds of people and their broad experiences. Never once have I ever heard anyone who endured spanking make the connection you have. You are grasping at straws there.
If you are bent on disproving spanking as an adequate method, then keep the terms there. Don’t invent new connections with literally the worst kind of human behavior that exists. The shock factor may make some people withdraw from the method, but not for any good reason. I literally know dozens of parents who spank, who were spanked by their parents, and who think nothing of what you’re claiming.
Lastly, you misunderstood my argument from hermeneutics a couple of comments back. I argued that if the Scriptures approve of caning (your term) — a far worse punishment — then why would the same Scriptures prohibit a punishment that pails in comparison to it? The argument is from the greater to the lesser. And it’s perfectly logical.
This is not a novel connection, and it is not invented. I recommend reading the three part series I linked earlier in which I discuss the strengths/limitations of research. Things like self-reported data as well as multiple confounding factors make it difficult. Most of what we have is anecdotal, which is why it is important to listen to the vast range of reported experiences. It could be that one reason you have not heard any cases personally is that this is something that carries much shame and confusion for people in Christian contexts.
You are right that there are many people who were spanked that do not indicate it caused long term harm. Which is why several times, I have reiterated that I am not attempting to claim that *all* spanking falls in this category. However, there are adults, a surprising number, who do claim that it led to long lasting harm. They experienced spanking as unwanted sexual contact, arousing, etc. Here is a sampling of adults who name just that: https://www.instagram.com/p/C4LkDrEL0vH/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
I am bent on disproving spanking as a "biblical" method. And the burden of proof rests on those like yourself who advocate for it. Outside of that, the research is remarkably clear that it's not a particularly effective method of discipline and ends up being a net negative as far as behavior management. Christians primarily hold onto it because they believe it to be specifically biblical.
Your final point attempts to make an argument from silence. If the Scriptures don't say anything about spanking toddlers, pastors shouldn't tell parents they do. I also do not think the Scriptures approve of caning. The fact that caning would be the literalistic interpretation of a Proverb (which is by definition metaphorical) is not "approval."
I'm not sure further conversation here is going to be productive. You are welcome to visit the playlist on youtube or other things I've written which examine these things in more depth. Thanks for taking the time to consider an alternate perspective.
For many of us the idea of physical assault on children’s little bodies is horrifying. Wonder if those 700 pastors on the SBC list of confirmed pastors who raped and molested spanked their kids?
Ooof, yes. Heartbreaking and nightmarish to think about the ways these practices enable abuse.
The bizarre story of the author you cited and his own moral failures aside, I can’t imagine how you’ve generally conflated spanking with sexual abuse. That’s a pretty wild connection.
The term for “rod” is used ten times in the Proverbs, and the overwhelming indication is that of physical/corporal punishment. I’m far more interested in sound exegesis than your opinion on the matter.
The irony is, with the advent of gentle parenting and a flood of self-proclaimed parenting “experts” (whatever that means — most of them being rootless cosmopolitans with no kids or life experience), behaviors in children have literally only worsened. I’ve discussed behaviors with numerous school administrators who’ve been in the field for decades — and kids are way more poorly behaved than they once were. There are vastly more “experts” than there ever were in history, and you’d think we’d be in the golden age of well-mannered kids. But it’s just the opposite.
The Scriptures actually do provide a clear blue print for parenting. And I’d say that since God is the perfect Father, yes, we *should* learn from his methodology.
“Our earth fathers disciplined us as it seemed best to them” (Hebrews 12). “There is a way that seems best to a man, but it’s end is death” (Proverbs 14:12).
Thanks for weighing in Daniel. A couple of thoughts:
1. I'm not suggesting spanking is *always* CSA - simply that both researchers and adults who were spanked name ways it intersects with CSA or fell into that category. I certainly think what's described in many Christian parenting manuals (bare bottom spanking, hugs afterward, no upper cap, I do this b/c I love you & God wants me to, etc. etc.) blur the lines with CSA. It's also worth noting: what makes something cross the line to CSA? Why is it that something an employer/teacher would do to, say, a teen would be criminal assault and yet parent to 5YO is "spanking"?
2. I agree with you that for Christians, the question remains: is the practice biblically sound? I contend that it is not & that nowhere in Scripture are parents commanded to "spank" their children. I've done a three part series on this here on substack and have a playlist devoted to discussing this on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSG_NaGVGw-YIIizoyUfB6U_8jWtgOjjv if you're interested in further reading. The short version is: we can interpret "the rod" verses literally (in which case this is caning young men) or figuratively (in which case this symbolizes parental authority & discipline). Neither contains any hint of hitting small children, as in contemporary practices of "spanking"
3. It's nearly impossible to substantiate the claim you attempt to make here. Every generation going back to Greco-Roman times has people claiming that the younger generation is more rebellious and more problematic - and often they blame parenting methods. There simply isn't a way to substantiate this. Dobson in the 70s, Tripp in the 90s, were saying the same thing as Shrier and others today. Parents are too lenient, we need more discipline/authority, etc.
It's also rather utilitarian to imagine that a method should be utilized by Christians simply b/c it produces a desired behavioral result. With corporal punishment, that's not really accurate either as the studies we do have (admittedly difficult to negotiate for the same reasons I've named here & in my three part series if you check it out) generally indicate spanking is a net negative and not particularly effective.
4. The Scriptures have very little to say about parenting methodology. In fact, there is tremendous freedom for the Christian parent. The only direct instruction Christian parents have is found in Ephesians and Colossions, repeated twice: Fathers, do not provoke/embitter your children (and bring them up in the instruction of the Lord) in Eph. So really the question we ought to be asking IMO is: is it possible to "spank" a child w/out embittering them? I contend: no, it's not. We also ofc have all the NT one-another verses as well which indicate an attitude of loving our children as neighbors.
None of this equals permissive parenting. It simply means maybe Christians ought not to hit their children into compliance and imagine it's godly.
5. God does not hit or force children into compliance. We can certainly attempt to follow the example of Jesus, but parents do not take the role of God in the lives of their children. So that is probably also worth considering.
In any case, I'm glad you've engaged here! I hope you'll browse the things I've written here or on instagram under three spanking highlights.