( Part 1 ) ( Part 2 ) ( Part 3) (Part 4) (Part 5)

This will be the conclusion of this series in which we have explored and discovered some of the origins of spanking children within Christianity.  It was my goal to show that spanking is from man and not God, as so many well-meaning Christians have believed throughout the ages.  In this paper, I will show how the idea of controlling children dates back to the early church in the ancient world, look at how Catholicism has advocated and used physical punishment with children, show the likely origin of the “Christian rules of how to spank children,” and will conclude with explaining Behaviorism and how physical punishment falls under that very old and outdated branch of Psychology.

The Origins of the Christian Need to Control Children

Many Christian advocates of spanking as well as the parents who follow these advocates are often quite concerned with controlling their children’s behavior, and really, one could say controlling their children.  Advocates such as James Dobson, the Ezzos, the Pearls, and others teach parents that they must be in control of their children from birth.  They claim that newborn infants must be taught that their parents are the bosses, not them.  If this sounds familiar, it is because control and breaking children’s wills go hand and hand.  We’ve seen how breaking the child’s will has been advocated for and done by Christians throughout history despite there being no biblical grounds for doing such a thing (See Parts 1, 2, & 3 for more info on breaking children’s wills).  This need for adults to control their children dates back to New Testament times.  In fact, certain verses of the New Testament are used to try and justify controlling one’s children.

1 Timothy and Titus are known as the Pastoral Epistles.  However, like Ephesians and Colossians, these books have passages about family relations.  Unlike Ephesians and Colossians, 1 Timothy and Titus have qualifications that leaders of the church must meet in order to be considered for such leadership positions.  In particular, 1 Timothy 3:4-12 and Titus 1:6 say that leaders of the church must manage their family well and “see that his children obey him” 1 Timothy 3:4a.  At this point, we must look at a bit of historical context in which all four of these books, written by the Apostle Paul, were written.  In the New Testament period after Jesus ascended into Heaven, followers of Christ began gathering in homes in order to worship Jesus and be taught from The Word as the disciples and apostles wrote the letters and books that now comprise the New Testament.  Some books and letters were written for certain groups, churches, and people based on the circumstances of the time and geographical locations.  The books of Ephesians and Colossians are clearly written to be read aloud to congregations that would meet in homes of certain people to worship “as we are reminded by Colossians 4:16: ‘Once this letter has been read among you, see that it is read also to the church at Laodicea, and that you in turn read my letter to Laodicea.’  Each group in these ethical lists—husbands, wives, children and slaves—was addressed because these people were present in the meeting for worship and would hear the letter being read out” (Strange, 2004, p. 73-74).  Ephesians and Colossians clearly expected every group of people regardless of age and occupation to be present at worship meetings.  Therefore, the teachings of these two books for the Christian household address both sides of these relationships.  And as I’ve pointed out throughout my series entitled “Spanking is NOT God’s Will,” the verse in Ephesians that prefaces the Christian household teachings is 5:21 which states, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”  It is clear that Paul had Christ’s radical teachings about everyone being equal and the great being last and the servant being first in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:30; Mark 9:35) when he wrote Ephesians and Colossians because although there is a hierarchical order in each of these relationships, there is also mutuality.  Husbands are not to dominate their wives just as parents are not to dominate their children.  There’s a sense of equal responsibility to each other in each relationship.    “In at least some congregations, therefore, children were not merely passive spectators on the edge of what was going on, but were taught and encouraged alongside adults during the course of the church’s meeting for worship… Significantly also, Colossians and Ephesians make the responsibilities of parents and children mutual (Emphasis added by Steph).  If children owe their parents the duty of respect, no less do parents their children of consideration.  This was quite a radical idea in the culture of the time, where a far more one-way relationship would be the norm” (Strange, 2004, p. 74).

I would like to point out another great example of Jesus teaching equality when it comes to the Kingdom of Heaven.  Let’s look at Matthew 20:1-16.  In this parable told by Jesus, a landowner goes out and finds servants that have not been hired.  The first servants are hired early in the day and agree to do a full day’s work in the fields for a denarii.  As the day goes on, the landowner continues to hire servants to work in his fields, each agreeing to work for a denarii.  At the end of the day, all of the hired servants come to be paid by the landowner.  Every servant received a denarii for his work.  When the servants that had worked all day in the field saw that the servants that had only worked for a few hours or less in the field received the same amount of pay as them, they were quite frustrated with the landowner and questioned him about this.  Look how the landowner answered the servants: “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? ¹⁴ Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. ¹⁵ Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’” Matthew 20:13-15.  It is clear that Jesus does not favor those who have been following Him longer.  Nor is anyone a worse sinner than another.  Yes, we will all be judged and receive different rewards based on our own relationship with God, but He views and loves everyone equally.   Jesus has called us into a new way of living in which family life are no longer absolute, “but moulded by the demands of the kingdom (Strange, 2004, p. 75).  As we have seen in Part 7 of “Spanking is NOT God’s Will” and some in Part 5 of this series, fathers had unlimited authority during the first century and more than likely in the previous centuries leading up to the first century.  Discipline was often heavy-handed with the use of physical punishment (Bunge, 2001; Strange, 2004).  But Christ changed all of that when He came.  His message was one of peace, mercy, and forgiveness instead of violence.  “Here in Colossians and Ephesians, we see a practical expression of Jesus’ vision for the family and the kingdom of God.  Here the family is no longer an autocratic institution, but a place for all members to grow together in their common life in Christ.  Something similar could be said about the way the relationship of masters and slaves is made mutual in Colossians and Ephesians (Col. 3:22-4.1, Eph. 6:5-9)” (Strange, 2004, p. 75).  Christ values mutuality over dominance.

Sadly, it seems that many Christians do not understand this, as throughout the centuries paternal control over the family is what is often emphasized in most fundamental and even some evangelical churches.  I believe that the Scriptures that these churches tend to focus on outside of the Old Testament to justify paternal control of the family are the verses I mentioned above, 1 Timothy 3:1-15 and Titus 1:6.  Since 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus were also written by the Apostle Paul, we might begin to wonder if Paul is contradicting himself because these books have a very different feel when it comes to instructions for the Christian family.  The answer to this question is no.  Why?  Because 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus were written for pastors and other leaders of the church.  That is why these books are referred to as the Pastoral Epistles.  They were not read aloud to the congregation during worship meetings as Ephesians and Colossians were.  These books were also more in line with the cultural norms of the first century as well as were meant to aid in the management of the church.  “It is often remarked by commentators that the Pastoral Epistles conform to the received ethical opinions and dominant social expectations of the surrounding culture of the day… Of the two ways of understanding the Christian family, it was that of the Pastoral Epistles which predominated in early Christianity” (Strange, 2004, p. 77).  Just as the view of how the Christian families were dominant in the ancient world, they still are dominant today.

People, in general, seem to have a superiority complex.  It wasn’t until the 1960s that we had the Civil Rights Movement making Black and White people equal when it came to the U.S. laws.  It wasn’t until 1990 that the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in order to protect people with disabilities from discrimination.  And although this country has made great progress in providing people with equal rights, we have a long way to go as racism, discrimination, and ageism are still very much alive in this country and all over the world.  Due to our sinful nature, we have a tendency to want to be in control.  Therefore, it is understandable that some Christians tend to ignore what Ephesians and Colossians have to say about family life except for the verses that tell children to obey their parents and focus on what 1 Timothy and Titus say about how a Christian family should be run.  In 1 Timothy and Titus, dominance over the people lower on the hierarchical chain is now emphasized rather than a mutual relationship.  Children are left out of the pictures except for how leaders of the church are to manage them.  “In 1 Timothy 3:4f. we are told that the bishop or overseer must control his children without losing his dignity, and that the way he manages his household is a mark of his ability to manage a congregation.  A similar quality is also required in a deacon (1 Tim. 3:12), and, as Titus lays down, in an elder (Tit. 1:6)” (Strange, 2004, p. 75).  While this type of management works well within the church itself, it is quite harmful for individual Christian families as each member of that family should have a respectful, mutual relationship with each other.  I am in no way implying that the husband is not the head of the household, he certainly is (Ephesians 5:23).  While the church is God’s household as 1 Timothy 3:15 states, it is important to remember that “the letters themselves are in the form of an address to church leaders, rather than to the whole congregation” (Strange, 2004, p. 76).   These passages should not be used to place children under their parents’ discipleship nor justify parental control as some Christians try to do.  “Children’s discipleship, which was given its own place in Colossians and Ephesians, was absent from the Pastoral Epistles.  Children have become part of their parents’ discipleship; they make their appearance only on the margin as objects of control and as problems requiring proper management” (Strange, 2004, p. 76).  Taken alone, it is quite easy to misuse these passages to justify the need to control children.  This is why we must understand the context in which they were written and for whom they were written.

Shepherds must control their herds.  Control in this context means to oversee, guard, and steer the flock to abundant food and water.  This is exactly what our church leaders as well as parents should be doing.  Shepherds also protect their flocks from harm.  Jesus does this with us if we allow Him (John 10:1-5).  He even laid down His life for us.  We must follow His example.   Acts 20:28-30 states, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”  And most importantly 1 Timothy 3:2-5 says that while a church leader must manage his family well and see to it that his children obey him, he must also be “above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. ⁵ (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?”  I have bolded two important phrases that some Christians seem to ignore.  The leader is to be gentle and see that his children obey him in a way that is worthy of respect!  Somehow I don’t think spanking a child or using other forms of harsh punishment meets these particular qualifications.

Over the centuries, people have always seemed to equate respect with fear as if these two words are interchangeable.  The Bible often says to fear the Lord (see Part 5 of “Spanking is NOT God’s Will” for more information regarding what fear the Lord actually means).  I would like to look at the definitions of fear and respect.  Dictionary.com defines fear as “a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.”  The definition of respect according to Dictionary.com is “esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability.”  And “to hold in esteem or honor.”  As we can clearly see, fear and respect have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  What I find even more interesting is that the definition for fear contains the words “evil” and “pain” whereas respect does not.  This makes sense because fear is not from God as 2 Timothy 1:7 states, “For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline.”  It makes me wonder why so many Christians believe that fear and respect are one in the same.  People, especially children, that fear someone will often do something not because they want to or respect the person, but because they are afraid of the person and want to avoid painful punishment.  Sadly, some parents do not care why their children obey them just as long as they do.  Unfortunately, parents who use fear and punishment to make their children obey them are actually teaching their children to be selfish as the child is not thinking about doing something for another person but rather to protect him/herself from punishment.  We should not be teaching our children to only do things to avoid punishment, as the Bible says, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves” Philippians 2:3.  Also, as we shall see in my next series entitled, “The Effects of Spanking,” not only does spanking hurt the parent-child relationship, it also causes children to become more rebellious especially as they get older.  Craig Hart is the author of the article called, “Three Essential Parenting Principles” that was published in the Spring 2003 issue of BYU Magazine.  He is quoted in Janet Heimlich’s book, Breaking Their Will, which states, “’While coercion often leads to immediate conformance by the child, research indicates it rarely results in a long-term solution and often leads to the child’s being more defiant, depressed, aggressive or withdrawn, and manipulative in the home and with peers,’ writes Hart” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 86).

In conclusion, while the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus are important for how churches are to be run and provide some guidance on family life issues, they should not be our sole references of how families should be run.  Sadly, since ancient times, Christians have had a need to control their children.  Christian advocates have taught parents to do this through harsh treatment and punishment of children despite Christ’s radical teachings regarding family and children.   “The Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles (date uncertain, but probably early second century) speaks to parents about the need not to ‘withold your hand’ [in punishment] from your son or daughter, but to bring them up in the fear of the Lord (Didache 4.9).  Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c. 69-c. 155), wrote to the Philippians with moral instruction, which, like Clement’s before him, spoke to the men about how they were to instruct their wives.  Among the wife’s duties was ‘to educate the children in the education of the fear of God’ (Polycarp, Philippians 4.2)” (Strange, 2004, p. 77).  I believe the following passage from Strange (2004) sums up the cultural and Christian origins of the need to control children and minorities:

“The modern observer is likely to have little sympathy with what can be seen the way in which the second-century church treated its women and children members.  The emergence of the patriarchal structure which we see in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius) may look, from our point of view, like a decline—both from the teaching and example of Jesus and from the insights of Paul about the child’s inclusion among God’s people.

But before we dismiss the course taken by the church, we should bear two things in mind.  The first is that the church adopted a form of existence which would allow it to work with the grain of the surrounding culture, which, as we saw in chapter one, was markedly patriarchal.  This adaptation, which seems to have well under way by the time the Pastoral Epistles were written, was perhaps a necessary evolution for the church to maintain its witness.  Further, as a matter of principle, we recall that Jesus’ own ministry to children was through their parents.  The second century church was therefore developing in a line with the precedent of Jesus’s own ministry” (p. 82).

We have been focusing on Fundamentalist Protestant Christians throughout this series on the Christian history of spanking children.  However, Fundamental Christians are not the only ones to have a long history of control, fear of Hell and satan, and the breaking of the will through the use of physical punishment with their children.  As we will see in this next section, Roman Catholics also contribute to the dark history of hitting children in the name of God.

Catholicism and Spanking

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of using physical punishment with children.  This should not be surprising considering how violent the first century Romans were (see Part 7 of “Spanking is NOT God’s Will for more information).  In fact, it wasn’t until 1980 that most Catholic schools banned the use of corporal punishment.  Unfortunately, some Catholic schools as well as some public schools still permit the use of corporal punishment.  These schools are primarily in the Southern states.  The use of spanking children in schools dates back to Colonial times as the Puritans were not the only ones that took Native American children from their families in order to “civilize” them.  In fact, there was a Catholic mission boarding school called St. Francis located in South Dakota that had a long history of using harsh physical punishment as well as other abuses with the Native American children that were literally torn from their families and forced to attend this school.  In an article published in 1990 in Lakota Woman called, “Civilize Them with a Stick,” one Native American woman describes her family’s experiences in St. Francis:

 “They used a horse buggy whip on my grandmother then she was put back into the attic— for two weeks.

My mother had much the same experiences but never wanted to talk about them, and then there I was, in the same place. The school is now run by the BIA— The Bureau of Indian Affairs— but only since about 15 years ago. When I was there, during the 1960s, it was still run by the church. The Jesuit fathers ran the boys wing and the sisters of the Sacred Heart ran us—-with the help of the strap. Nothing had changed since my grandmother’s days. I’ve been told recently that even in the 70s they were still beating children at that school. All I got out of school was being taught how to pray. I learned quickly that I would be beaten if I failed in my devotions or, God forbid, prayed the wrong way, especially prayed in Indian to Wakan Tanka, the Indian Creator” (Dog & Erdoes, 1990, p. 565-566).

Most Christian parents, Catholics included, spank their children for the remissions of sins, meaning that the spanking is to cleanse the child from the sin that they have committed by disobeying their parents.  After a child is spanked, the child is supposedly free from the guilt of his/her sin since he/she has paid the penalty for his/her sin and can be forgiven by his/her parents and God.  In an article written by Crystal Lutton, author of the book, Biblical Parenting, she suggests that one of the origins of the practice of spanking may be with the Catholics.  In her article entitled, “The History of Spanking,” Crystal Lutton (2011) states, “There is an interesting history of spanking. From its earliest practice, in Ancient Greece, spankings were administered to adults. It was a pagan practice for increasing fertility in barren women who were spanked by the pagan priests and later was introduced into the Catholic Church as a means of adult women having their sins removed through the spankings of the priest after confession” (http://aolff.org/spare-the-rod/the-spanking-files-2/history-of-spanking).  While I trust Crystal Lutton’s vast knowledge in this area, I personally have no other references that say the same thing, therefore, hesitate to guarantee this as absolute fact.  At the same time, I do believe that we must consider this as a possibility.  At the very least, this shows how far back spanking goes in the history of Catholicism.

The Catholics have their own version of the Bible in which they tout as God’s Word.  The Catholic Bible contains all of the books of the Holy Bible in which Protestants use, but it also contains some other books that are not in the Protestant Holy Bible.  One such book is Sirach.  Sirach seems to be quite similar to the book of Proverbs and is located in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible.  Like Proverbs, there is a verse in Sirach that seems to strongly advocate for the use of physical punishment with young children.  Sirach 30:12 states, “Bow down his neck while he is young, and beat his sides while he is a child, lest he grow stubborn, and regard thee not, and so be a sorrow of heart to thee” (DRA 1899 American Version).  The next verse in Sirach seems to indicate that a child should not play but be put to work in order to control his behavior.  “Instruct thy son, and labour about him, lest his lewd behaviour be an offence to thee” (DRA 1899 American Version).  As an Evangelical, Bible-based Christian, I don’t know if Catholics take these verses literally or what exactly is meant by them.  Given the fact that Catholicism has a long history of using physical punishment with children both at school and in the home, I would guess that the majority of Catholics have taken these verses as well as the rod verses in Proverbs literally.  At many of the Catholic schools, children have been hit with rulers.  Their hands, heads, and bottoms are some of the locations in which children have been hit with rulers as a form of  “discipline” at school.   “Not willing to wait for God or the devil to get us, the Church had its own brand of punishment. Humiliation tactics were a specialty of the Church. Corporal punishment was quite common. Anyone who ever went to a Catholic grammar school can vouch for that. Guilt and anxiety were always favorites of the Nuns. As if the fear of God they laid on you was not enough, the Nuns took matters into their own hands. More than a few children were hoping the devil got to them before the Nuns and their Rosary’s did” (Cooney, 2003, http://fspp.net/Articles/crumbling_walls.htm).  How sad that, again, children were turned off to God due to how they were treated.  Not only that, children were often hit in these Catholic schools for every little act that was consider an act of defiance as we saw in the Native American woman’s description.  “According to Irwin A. Hyman, author of Reading, Writing, and the Hickory Stick: The Appalling Story of Physical and Psychological Abuse in America’s Schools, Catholic schools have a long history of using physical punishment for just about every perceived act of defiance on the part of students.  Speaking about disciplinary methods that were widespread decades ago, Hyman notes, ‘No restraint was considered prudent in the vigorous application of the yardstick on open hands, across knuckles, and to derrieres in an effort to save the souls of errant youth’” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 89).  And while corporal punishment, as I mentioned previously, has been banned in most Catholic schools, children attending the more conservative Catholic schools in the South are at a higher risk of being spanked while in school.

Much like Fundamental Christians, Catholics have often feared Hell and the devil when it comes to one of the reasons they spank their children.  They have often believed that they could “beat the devil” out of their children.  As we have seen throughout this series, fear of Hell and satan is a common thread among Christian pro-spankers.  “For a very long time, Christians have associated demons and the devil with sinfulness.  In the late 1500s, each of the seven deadly sins was paired with a demon.  Many Christians speak of sin as what separates believers from God—a separation that makes a person vulnerable to being possessed by Satan or demons.  Therefore, some Christians believe that when a child misbehaves—thereby exposing his or her sinfulness—a proper remedy is to drive out the evil forces that might have taken over the child’s soul” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 103).  In case one is wondering what exactly are the seven deadly sins, they are wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.  It seems that the Catholic Church divides these sins into two categories: Venial and Mortal Sins.  Sacraments are often used to restore the relationship between a Catholic who has committed one of these sins, especially if he/she committed one in the Mortal Sins category, and God.  Otherwise, a Catholic may face eternal damnation according to the Catholic Church.  The Protestant Holy Bible mentions 7 things that God hates and detests in Proverbs 6:16-19.  And interestingly, the opposite of the fruits of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:19-21 seem to highly correspond with these seven deadly sins.

The fear of satan is exactly what drove Matt’s mother to use physical punishment with him when he was a child.  Janet Heimlich interviewed 60-year-old Matt in her book, Breaking Their Will.  His story is a perfect example of how Christian parents can allow fear from satan dictate how they raise and treat their children:

 “She would take me into the utility room, her domain, and pull this big belt off of the wall which she had hung in the closet.  I think it was my uncle’s Marine belt—one of those big wide leather belts with the big brass buckle on it—and she’d whale on me, on my bottom and the backs of my thighs.  Every once in a while she would ask me to pull down my pants and do it on my bare skin.  I do remember a couple of times that she was hitting me so hard and flailing so hard that she lost control of the belt, and the buckle hit me a couple of times and made these gashes in my skin.  Generally, I’d start crying and yelling, and then she’d say ‘OK, go to your room.’  And I’d go to my room, and not only would I close the door to my room, but I’d go in my closet, and I’d close the door to my closet so I had double protection.  And then I would cry, and say things like, ‘Nobody loves me,’ and ‘I hate my mom.’

Matt’s mother likely had a problem controlling her anger, yet there was another force at play: her religious beliefs.  The woman was a devout Catholic and was petrified of the devil” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 75).

Sadly, many Christian parents who are trying so hard to save their children from the devil by using physical punishment with them don’t realize that they are playing right into satan’s hands.  Satan knows our weaknesses.  He also knows that children believe in God at birth, and therefore, wants to do everything he can to destroy their natural faith in God by having their parents teach a wrong and distorted view of who God truly is through hitting the children in His Name.  We must remember that satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), and that “devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8).

This leads me to a well-known ritual practiced primarily by Catholics, but is also practiced by some Protestant groups, called exorcism.  “What is exorcism?  Dictionary.com defines it as ‘to seek to expel (an evil spirit) by adjuration or religious or solemn ceremonies’” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 269).  When we think of exorcism, we usually think of Jesus commanding an evil spirit or demon to come out of a person as well as a Catholic Priest doing the same thing.  We also think of the movie, The Exorcist.  We usually don’t think of anything physical being done to the person with the evil spirit except for maybe being restrained so the demon doesn’t throw the person around and/or the laying of hands on the person in order to bless them.  I never thought beatings could be a part of an exorcism.  I also didn’t know exactly how many children have undergone exorcisms until I began researching physical punishment in the Roman Catholic Church.  Sadly, physical punishment seems to be done during exorcisms in which a child is involved because, as I have been pointing out all throughout this series, many pro-spankers truly believe that spanking and beating children can purify their souls.  “For this matter, repeated corporal punishment designed to ‘beat the devil’ out of children…can constitute a form of ritual abuse” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 269).

Many children have had an exorcism done due them for any number of reasons including typical developmentally appropriate behaviors, challenging behavioral problems, certain physical conditions or disabilities such as Epilepsy, mental or emotional problems or conditions, and even sleepwalking.  Of course, children with special needs and behavioral problems are at a much greater risk for both physical punishment and exorcism.  “We should also be concerned that children with special needs or behavioral or psychological problems are not getting help because they are mistakenly viewed as being possessed by demons.  In these cases, children may be denied access to specialists and undergo exorcisms” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 275).  Unfortunately, being beaten during an exorcism not only causes physical and psychological harm to children, but in some cases it has caused death.

“On April 14, 2008, authorities said that twenty-five-year-old Nelly Vasquez-Salazar of Waukegan, Illinois, confessed to brutally slashing to death her 6-year-old daughter, Evelyn Vasquez, because she believed that the child was possessed by the devil.  The child reportedly had been stabbed eleven times.  What apparently led the mother to suspect demons was her daughter’s habit of sleepwalking.  According to police, Vasquez-Salazar told her mother that she would wake up and find Evelyn standing by her bed.  Her mother then reportedly told her that the child was possessed” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 268).

Now before we shrug this off as one of the more extreme cases, another example of a child dying from an exorcism is Terrance Cottrell.  Terrance had autism and had undergone many exorcisms in order to rid him of the supposed evil spirit causing his autism.  Autism causes children to usually not want to be touched or to make eye contact with another person.  Therefore, we can imagine how upset Terrance would get during exorcisms with people touching him, surrounding him, chanting and praying.  During his final exorcism, the pastor sat on Terrance’s chest in order to restrain him, “which led to his being suffocated by the pastor” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 275).  It is important to note that these parents who physically punish and have their children go through exorcisms, for the most part, truly believe that what they are doing is truly right and good.  As I’ve said throughout all my series, parents want to obey God in order to raise godly children.  It’s just too bad that “experts and authorities” that use their weaknesses to gain these parents’ trust are leading these parents down the wrong path.  It is also too bad that our focus isn’t more on God’s Word and Its true meaning.

What I find even more interesting when it comes to exorcism is the following verse found in Matthew 8:16 which states, “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.”  Jesus drove out demons not by beating the person with the demon, but as the verse says, with a word!  And we see this all throughout the New Testament that demons and evil spirits are rebuked and driven out verbally!  Also, while there are demons and evil spirits on this Earth reeking havoc for satan, we must be cautious in determining whether someone is absolutely possessed by a demon because God is the only One truly “trained” and able to cast out demons and evil spirits.  He will guide the correct person to expel the demon out with a word if absolutely necessary.  Therefore, it is quite clear from Scripture that “beating the devil out of them” is not biblical.  As I’ve shown, “Parents who frequently spank their children due to beliefs that this treatment can rid a child of evil spirits can cause serious, even deadly, injury…The tragic death of Josef Smith, the eight-year-old boy who died from having been physically abused by his parents…As it turns out, the parents’ fear of Josef being possessed by a demon likely played a role in his death” (Heimlich, 2011, p. 275).

In conclusion of this section about Catholicism and the use of physical punishment with children, I would like to take a brief look at St. Augustine as he had a major influence over some of the people that I have discussed in this series.  St. Augustine (354-430) was a great theologian.  He was extremely interested in children, especially infants.  He believed in original sin and that every child was born with a sinful nature.  “Augustine watched infants closely and attempted to put into words this world without language.  Augustine described tenderly the smiles of sleep and the comfort of nursing, but juxtaposed these occasions of serenity with a newborn’s jealous rage when, even after it had been fed, it saw another infant at a nurse’s breast” (Stortz, 2001, p. 83 & 84).  Despite his belief in a child’s sinfulness beginning at birth as well as his being physically punished as a child, St. Augustine did not believe that children ought to be spanked by adults.  “While children in this age of life can exhibit temper tantrums and extreme acts which many modern Christian smacking advocates have urged parents to repress with corporal punishment, Augustine gave no such advice” (Martin, 2006, p. 159).  Also, Augustine didn’t like the inequity between adults and children as they both sinned, but yet, children were the ones getting punished for it.  “That basic inequity between children and adults marked his childhood: ‘The schoolmaster who caned me was behaving no better than I was.’  Though childhood was full of reprehensible actions, Augustine did not favour punishing children as severely as adults” (Martin, 2006, p. 160).

It is clear from what we’ve seen throughout this section that the Roman Catholics have a dark history of using fear, control, and physical punishment in the Name of God just as Fundamental Christians do.  We have also seen a possibility that the origins of spanking for the remissions of sins may have begun with ancient Catholicism.  And finally, we’ve seen that using physical punishment to rid children of evil spirits has been done throughout history even though it has no biblical basis.  While not all Catholics have advocated for nor used corporal punishment with children, sadly, a great deal have.

In the next section, we will discover the origins of the “rules” for “lovingly” spanking.

From Where the “Rules” for a “Loving Christian Spanking” Come

I have often wondered where the current as well as historical Christian advocates of spanking came up with the rules of a “loving, godly” spanking.  After all, there are supposedly two types of spankings in our current culture—the godly spanking versus the cultural spanking.  According to many Christian pro-spankers, the cultural spanking is when non-believers spank their children out of anger or frustration.  Of course, Christians are capable of spanking their children out of anger or frustration.  According to the Christian advocates of spanking children who claim to be biblical and child “experts,” spanking in anger is what causes all the adverse effects of spanking in children.  They claim that a “godly” spanking done without anger and “lovingly” is not harmful to children in any way.  In fact, James Dobson (1996) states, “For example, a dime sized bruise on the buttocks of a fair-skinned child may or may not indicate an abusive situation. It all depends. In an otherwise secure and loving home, that bruise may have no greater psychological impact than a skinned knee or a stubbed toe. Again the issue in not the small abrasion; it is the meaning behind it” (p. 25).  Therefore, as long as the child is physically punished in the “correct and loving way,” that even if the spanking leaves marks and bruises on the child’s bottom, legs, or hands (the most common places for children to be spanked) it will not do any psychological or emotional harm to the child.  We’ll come back to this in the upcoming series called, “The Effects of Spanking.”

So, what exactly are some of these “rules” for a “loving, godly, Christian” spanking?  They are:

1. Never spank in anger.
2. Always spank lovingly.
3. Spank only for outright disobedience or harmful behavior.
4. Tell the child exactly why he/she is being spanked before and after the spanking.
5. Explain to the child that Jesus wants the parent to discipline him/her because the child sinned by disobeying the parent.
6. Hug and comfort the child after the spanking

Of course, there are different variations of these rules depending on which Christian pro-spanking advocate one consults.  Another “rule” that often varies among Christian advocates of spanking is whether or not to use one’s hand or an object to spank the child because for some, the hand is part of the parent and should symbolize love and care to the child.  However, what I find quite interesting is that there are no such “rules” on how to correctly spank a child.  God always provides instructions on important subjects such as prayer, marriage, sex, and forgiveness for us to follow.  Jesus has provided us with numerous parables that illustrate the numerous important topics about which He spoke.  Since spanking a child is very important, why are there no specific instructions or examples for how to appropriately spank children?  Some Christians use Psalm 4:4 and Ephesians 4:26 which states, “In your anger do not sin” in order to say that these “rules” for spanking children are indeed biblically based.  However, this verse is not a direct instruction of how to spank.  Yes, it can be applied to spanking but this is the only verse, besides the rod verses, that can be applied as the rest of Scripture is more against than for spanking.

To answer our original question of where do the “rules” for the “loving and godly” spanking originate, I recently read a wonderful article by Dulce de Leche entitled, “Spanking in Anger-What Does it Matter?”  In her article, she discovers one of the origins of these “rules” for spanking.  There is a book that was written by Dorothy Spencer that was published in 1936 that explains domestic adult discipline.  It is called The Spencer Spanking Plan.  As part of the domestic adult discipline, husbands are instructed in how to appropriately spank their wives.  “Finally, the origin of the “never spank in anger” directive is actually based in domestic spankings—the Spencer Spanking Plan.  Yes, it was meant to describe husbands never spanking their wives in anger.  The instructions are very specific: 1. Explain what actions will merit a spanking. 2. Be careful not to cause injury or leave welts or bruises.  It should only cause just enough pain to be effective.  3.  It must never be done in anger.  4. After the spanking, the wife will kiss her husband and thank him.  Her offense is now forgiven and friendly relations are re-established” (Dulce de Leche, 2011, http://dulcefamily.blogspot.com/2011/06/spanking-in-anger-what-does-it-matter.html).  (For more info see http://untotheleast.blogspot.com/2006/12/spencer-spanking-plan.html).  Isn’t it interesting that these “rules” for spanking wives are quite similar to the “rules” for spanking children in a “Christian” way?  It seems very obvious to me that the Christian advocates of spanking children such as Dobson, Tripp, the Pearls, Lessin, and the like have adapted these Spencer rules to rules for spanking children.  And yet, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that resembles these rules.  In fact, if we are to take the rod verses in the book of Proverbs literally, we are to beat children across the back, not bottom, legs, or hands, with a staff/walking stick.  It does not provide us with any more instructions than that.  Man has interpreted these verses in a way that works for them.  They try to cover their guilt by making up rules and using objects that they deem appropriate to inflict harm on their children in Jesus’ Name.

Just as spanking is man made, so are the “rules” for a “Christian, godly, loving” spanking.  There is no biblical support for such rules just as the Bible does not support using control and fear to break children’s wills.  In the final section of this piece, we shall see how spanking and harsh punishment was, and still is, put under the guise of one of, if not the, first offshoot of the field of Psychology.

The Guise of Behaviorism

In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the field of Psychology began to be of interest to many people.  They wanted to know the science behind animal and human behavior such as what caused or stopped behavior.  This brought a great deal of experiments with both animals and humans in order to understand the human mind better.  Behaviorism was, if not, the, first branch of the field of Psychology.  Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and B. F. Skinner were among the first Behaviorists, though, as we’ve seen throughout this series that Behaviorism has been practiced throughout the centuries, and observed that behavior can be controlled through rewards and punishments.  “Behaviorism is the view that behavior should be explained by observable experiences, not by mental processes” (Santrock, 2008, p. 227).  As one can see, Behaviorism is very black and white as it focuses solely on what is seen and totally ignores what is unseen.

For example, Behaviorists believe that to get a toddler to stop throwing temper tantrums negative reinforcement or punishment such as spanking must be used to stop the child from having a fit.  On the other hand, if one wants a toddler to keep picking up his/her toys, then according to a Behaviorist, positive reinforcement or reward must be administered to the child such as praise or candy.  E. L. Thorndike was another one of the early Behaviorists and he summed this idea up into what is known as The Law of Effect.  “The Law of Effect says behaviors that are followed by pleasant consequences are more likely to occur in the future while behaviors that are followed by unpleasant consequences are less likely to occur in the future” (Preston, 2011, http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/defense_of_spanking/why_punishment_is_needed.html).  Behaviorists, in general, do not take into account children’s emotions, ages, developmental stages or abilities, or anything else going on within the child or family when it comes to behavior.  “For the behaviorist, these thoughts, feelings, and motives are not appropriate subject matter for a science of behavior because they cannot be directly observed” (Santrock, 2008, p. 227).  Behaviorism aims to externally control all behavior without taking into account or looking for the root of the behavior.  As we shall see in an upcoming series that will be entitled, “Discipline IS God’s Will,” children act up for a variety of reasons, and there is usually a need behind the behavior being exhibited.  If we can address the need behind the behavior, the behavior will usually go away.  Also, Behaviorists don’t seem to take into account that children may not know the appropriate way to behave and/or may just be learning the appropriate behavior.  As I continue to point out throughout all of my work, punishment aims to stop behavior, it does not teach more appropriate behavior.  People argue that they always tell the child how to appropriately behave next time after the spanking or other punishment, but they fail to realize that the child is too busy trying to recover from the spanking or other punishment that are not capable of truly hearing the parent or of doing any learning—especially if the child is in pain.

Spanking has been hidden under the guise of Behaviorism for 50-100 years now.  Because of this, many pro-spankers such as James Dobson, who claims to be a Psychologist, use the fact that it has been proven by Psychology that spanking and other forms of punishment work to control children’s behavior.  This helps justify hitting and shaming children because a branch of Psychology claims it is necessary.  As I said in the section about the origins of control in this piece, spanking is all about control, and not about how to truly teach children how to behave!  And spanking has been shown to lead to even more unwanted behavior.  “All too often, aversive stimuli are not effective punishments, in that they do not decrease the unwanted behavior and indeed sometimes increase the unwanted behavior over time.  One recent study found that when parents used spanking to discipline 4- to 5-year-old children, the problem behavior increased over time (McLoyd & Smith, 2002).  Another recent longitudinal study found that spanking before age 2 was related to behavioral problems in middle and late childhood (Slade & Wissow, 2004)” (Santrock, 2008, p. 240).

Unfortunately, Christian advocates such as Dobson and others claim that studies such as these are biased and inaccurate.  They truly believe that using Behaviorist methods in order to control children, as long as they are done in a “loving, godly way,” are a great way to keep sin and satan out of children.  We must remember that Behaviorism is outdated and only another guise to promote the harsh, unbiblical act of spanking children.  As we shall see in the next 2 series, we know a great deal more about the human mind, especially when it comes to child development.  We must not base childcare and rearing on a quite old, narrow-minded branch of Psychology!

Conclusion

Throughout this series, we have explored where different concepts such as breaking a child’s will, fear of death and Hell, control, and Behaviorism originated and how they have influenced Christians to spank their children.  We have also looked at historical figures that have advocated for spanking children, and have tested their theologies against what the Bible actually says regarding the treatment of children.  And finally, we have read some horrific true stories about Christian parents harming, and even killing, their children in order to do their best to raise their children in a godly manner.  Most of them were trying to do so out of love.  It is my hope that as people have read this series as well as “Spanking is NOT God’s Will” that God is showing that hitting and punishing children was never what He intended.  Please be open to His true Will.

I would like to end this series on a positive note.  While there have been many throughout history who have spanked and advocated for spanking, there also has been many who have not such as D. L. Moody, Martin Luther, St. Augustine, and Martin Luther King Jr.  They understood that the rod verses do not mean to hit children, but to use proper authority in order to discipline them in a way that will lead them to Him.  I conclude this with the following passage from the book called, Children in the Early Church by W. A. Strange:

“Here is the advice of the so-called Teaching of the Apostles (Didascalia Apostolorum), a Syrian Christian church order of the early third century, on the subject of disciplining children:

‘Do not hesitate to reprove them [your children], reasoning with them and chastising them and arguing; for you will not kill them by chastising them, but rather give them life, since this is his hope; beat him with a rod, you will free his soul from hell [Prov. 29:17; 25:14].  Our ‘rod’ is the word of Jesus Christ, as Jeremiah saw a branch of an almond tree [Jer. 1:11].   Everyone therefore who hesitates to speak a word of chastisement to his son, hates his son.  (Didascalia 4.11; Funk 1906 1 230, 232)” (Strange, 2004, p. 78).

May we discipline our children with the Word of our living God!

References

Bunge, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). The child in Christian thought. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Cooney, T. (2003). The crumbling walls of the Roman Catholic Church.   http://fspp.net/Articles/crumbling_walls.htm

Dobson, J. (1996). The new dare to discipline.  Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Dog, M. C. & Erdoes, R.  (1990). Civilize them with a stick.  Lakota Woman, 28-37, 38-39, and 40-41.

Dulce de Leche. (2011). Spanking in anger-what does it matter? http://dulcefamily.blogspot.com/2011/06/spanking-in-anger-what-does-it-matter.html

Heimlich, J.  (2011). Breaking their will.  Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Lutton, C.  (2011). The history of spanking.  http://aolff.org/spare-the-rod/the-spanking-files-2/history-of-spanking

Martin, S.  (2006). Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.  Jerusalem, Israel: Sorensic.

Preston, P.   (2011). Why punishment is needed. http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/defense_of_spanking/why_punishment_is_needed.html

Santrock, J.  (2008). Educational psychology (Illinois version).  Boston, MA: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Strange, W. A.  (2004). Children in the early church.  Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.