Smacking - Where does the church stand?

[Dave Roberts]

Here is thought starter that examines some of the issues

Picture the scene in your local supermarket. Imagine a young child. What is happening? How are the child’s parents responding? How are other adults reacting? If the child was being delightful then perhaps no one noticed. If the child was fractious then maybe someone caught the child’s eye and winked or spoke sympathetically to the parent. Someone else may have tutted and muttered ‘What that child needs is a good smack’. – Isn’t it interesting that we talk of a good smack, six of the best, a loving smack? (Dec 02)

Smacking is an emotive subject. As the debate in General Assembly in 1999 revealed, when a resolution was passed agreeing that the United Reformed Church become a member of the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance, we all have stories from our own experience of our treatment as children, how we discipline our children and what we observe around us. Views can be expressed that ‘Spanking doesn’t teach about Jesus’ [David Harris, Church Times] ‘Hitting people is wrong – and children are people too.’ [Global Initiative to End all Corporal Punishment & Save the Children, Sweden 2002] ‘The Bible says in the Book of Proverbs, ‘He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.’ The Bible clearly mandates the physical punishment of children. The use of implements by parents is also regarded as legitimate by the Bible.’ [Christian Institute in response to the government consultation on physical punishment of children 2000-2001] ‘

Much more here

[Ruth Thomas]

WHY are so many people in society, and even some in the church, so hung up about the most minor of physical punishments? I know I'm far from unique in having been far more badly hurt as a child, and with far more long-lasting consequences, by things my parents said -- sarcasm, uncaring words, words suggesting a lack of love -- than ever I was by physical punishment. (And that's a reflection on some generally very good parents.) It's scientifically proved that emotional pain is far more long-lasting than physical pain: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7587780.stm. So why do folk try to undermine parents for the sake of protecting children from what ultimately matters so little, without doing anything to help parents avoid inflicting much more serious emotional damage?

[Peter Shields]

The "spare the rod" is frequently misunderstood and misapplied. [cf. with Ps23, "Your rod comforts me" ... not necessarily to beat with with, but - like a sceptre - a sign of authority].

Yet I'm a firm believer in the wise use of corporal punishment. As the last commenter has pointed out, the real damage to children is the caused by what is said, and by what is NOT done to train, discipline & correct children. The effects of divorce are also far more serious, long lasting & damaging. Going after smacking is going for the easy target. Saying to people, don't get divorced, don't stick your children into daycare, don't pursue your career at the expense of your children's nurture, don't bottle feed your baby ... when the NSPCC starts those campaigns then they will regain my some of the support & confidence they lost with their anti-smacking agenda.

[Steph Tindall]

I'm a mother of 5 children between the ages of 6 and 12.(Mad i know!) I was smacked as a child and my husband and I have on occasion smacked our childen in the past. However, I now work for a Christian Children's Charity providing parenting programmes and support for our local authority including social services. I have managed to develop a neutral opinion on the subject but would however like to share it with Children Matter! In my experience the neccessity of a smack is not down to a child's behaviour but our skills as parents at dealing with a situation and having the ability to stay in control. Very often unruly behaviour is not due to lack of smacking but a lack of clear boundaries, routines, structure, rules and communication. God is a God of order and so should our parenting be. God takes a similar approach as our Father in our Spiritual lives, we need boundaries, structure and rules and he communicates these to us clearly. He doesn't punish us when we disobey him but lovingly accompanies us through the consequences of our actions with forgivness and love. I know someone whose child is classed as "out of control" and recently another mother said to me, "what that child needs is a good smack" when actually what the child needs is some rules and boundaries put into place. A smack is a punishment, discipline is a process. Very often a smack is not a result of a child's behaviour but a result of our stress levels. As I've said I am not against smacking and I believe in parental rights on the subject but there are more postive and nuturing ways of discipline available to us as parents. Although abusive situations are obviously in the minority, when you work as I do with childen who are on the at risk register, who at 3 years old get a slap for asking to be fed, you can see both sides of this arguement.

[Ruth Thomas]

Steph -- 5 children between 6 and 12 -- how do you survive?!
I'd agree that smacking is frequently not the best response to the "situations" parents find themselves in, and yes, some parents are abusive. If we had sufficient quality and quantity of social workers and police, I'm sure that the current law would be adequate to cope with those situations of abuse; the problem is not the law but the shortage of people able to support parents or step in when necessary (and sometimes the near-impossibility of knowing what to do for the best in complex situations).
Here's another thought on the clamour for smacking to be made illegal, which the UN now seems to be joining. Presumably parents who smacked would then be fined or imprisoned and their children taken into care. Would this really make the children's lives and life chances so much better? Our record of providing care for children who have to grow up away from their natural parents isn't what you'd call wonderful...

[Ruth Thomas]

On the subject of whether smacking bans in other countries have helped, the evidence seems to be at best mixed. The report at www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sweden_smacking.pdf is probably from a biased position, but it seems that all research into the subject always comes from groups with an already entrenched position one way or the other so it's very difficult to trust anything! It certainly rings true from my own experience at school that when children feel themselves to be "untouchable" they are more likely, not less, to be violent towards other children.
One problem is that at present in the UK, those parents who refuse to smack on principle are pretty much all middle-class, white and well off. By contrast, many families where smacking is commonplace are poor and live in situations of general deprivation where violence of all kinds is normal. In such circumstances it's hardly surprising if children grow up violent, and it's difficult to extract the effect of smacking from the general effect of the environment.
In other words, no big surprise: you can prove whatever you like from statistics!

[Ruth Thomas]

I'm certainly not saying that all white middle-class folk oppose smacking! But my perception is that the large majority of those who do are white and middle class. I haven't got statistical evidence on that though. I live in a fairly poor and very ethnically mixed neighbourhood and I often see parents smacking their children (usually in a fairly restrained manner). It's also a neighbourhood in which at least one toddler has been murdered in the last few years. Some of the kids here will grow up violent, but I'm not sure that smacking is the cause.
I have read some of the report from "Children are unbeatable". The trouble is, most of the children's comments apply to any punishment. By definition, a punishment must be unpleasant or it has no effect -- and there are occasions when parents must punish their children one way or another (as Steph says, children need rules and boundaries and these only exist if there are sanctions for breaking them). Standing on the "naughty step" may be just as unpleasant, embarrassing or demeaning. Being constantly labelled by one's parents as "naughty" or "bad" may well hurt you inside and can leave serious emotional scars. And as I said right at the top of this discussion, sarcasm or withdrawal of love can cause damage that lasts a lifetime. Other things such as those mentioned by Peter above (divorce, institutionalisation, unnecessary bottle-feeding) also damage children. Does anyone care about any of that pain? My impression is that no childcare charity or social worker could give a d*** about any of it, they are quite happy for children to be wrecked emotionally provided the parents don't smack. I can only hope I'm wrong.

[Ruth Thomas]

Sorry if I upset you Jennie, I am very happy to accept your assurance that you do care about all the different kinds of pain children experience! I'm sure there are many others like you. But the message I constantly hear from the big anti-cruelty charities and childcare institutions is that if only we stopped parents smacking, somehow the world would become perfect and no child would ever suffer again.
I quite agree that children's voices should be heard, but discipline is an area in which we should not always act on what we hear. Practically all children will say, quite sensibly, "I don't like being punished". But all the children's comments at www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk/pages/views.html could be applied equally to smacking or any other punishment. It is most unlikely that anyone who hasn't yet reached adulthood (or at least adolescence) will be able to see that having been disciplined as a child, which must include some unpleasant sanctions, was essential for them to grow into balanced adults who aren't in prison and are able to build friendships and hold down a job. I love my children and try to listen to them, but on matters of discipline I don't take too much notice of their opinions!

[Peter Shields]

Sorry, but the whole premise of the childrenareunbeatable campaign is ridiculous. Follow their arguments to their conclusion and children shouldn't have compulsory education [adults don't], can't be grounded [adults can't be falsely imprisoned], shouldn't be denied any goods or services [adults aren't], shouldn't have to do chores [adults don't have enforced labour], don't have to take their medicine [adults can't be forced to receive treratment] etc etc

Anti-smacking is just a smoke screen for those who would love to undermine all parental rights and let the nanny (aka totalitarian) state take it's place. I'd put good money on where all the social services' resources would get spent - chasing perfectly adequate parents who administer smacks. Much quicker and easier results than trying to tackle the genuine abuse cases where the "carers" can never be tracked down, and where the pitbulls and the latest boyfriend scare the s*** out of the social worker. (Yes, I know it's a stereo-type, but you get the picture).

[I'm intrigued to know what "d***" is?!! Sorry I can't work it out!]

[Peter Shields]

For generations we had a sensible, balanced law that worked and was enforceable. "Reasonable chastisement" stopped the excesses that people use as examples against smacking but gave parents liberty to do what they thought best [even if it's not what you or me or the "experts" might think is best].

Is smacking the best method of disciplining? No. In fact, punishment of any sort is not the best way of disciplining - just one of the tools in the box. Is smacking often administered thoughtlessly or inappropriately - almost definitely. Is smacking the worst method of punishing - no, not by a long way. Verbal abuse & withdrawal of emotion are far worse (and just as widely practised). And worst of all is no recourse at all, or idle threats & promises.

My own experience is that my children would rather have a smack that is over and done with in moments than a long protracted punishment such as grounding [which parents rarely carry through anyway ... what does that communicate to the children], the "humiliation" of having to sit on the step for ages, "imprisonment" in their rooms etc. Like many of my generation I was not only smacked but smacked with an implement [a wooden spoon in my case]. It hurt, it caused me pain, I disliked in intensely, I'm sure I didn't always deserve it - but even by the age of about 14 I could appreciate it's benefits.

As has been pointed out by Ruth, all punishment is by definition painful. Frequently, the least worst option is a planned, well administered smack.

We seem to live in a world where the word "abuse" is banded about quite liberally: smoke in front of the children - abuse; given them a junk food diet - abuse; teach them a religious faith - abuse; a disciplinarian - abuse; All has the effect of belittling & debasing the word in the instances of genuine abuse.

Here's some things that are proven to have a detrimental effect on children's mental, physical and/or emotional welfare far far greater than smacking - divorce, bottle-feeding, absent fathers. I only we could get people as passionate about those things ... but they're too close too home for a lot of people, in the church as well as outside.

The Bible - from what I can tell - advocates no particular method of punishment for children. The "spare the rod" talks about not exercising your authority. So many of these agencies want to take away the authority of parents over their children ... it's a very disturbing trend. And also their are a large of number of parents who seem unwilling to take authority over their children.

OK, that's my lot!!