( Part 1 ) ( Part 2 )

Jonathan Wesley (1703-1791) is known as the founder of Methodism, and for the effects he had (and still has) on the education of children and adults.  In Part 2, I looked at the child-rearing practices of his mother, Susanna Wesley, whom many Christian advocates of spanking hold up as a model for Christian mothers.  Susanna gave John special attention as he almost died in one of the house fires.  John deeply loved his mother, and it has been said that he didn’t think he could ever find a woman like his mother to marry.  Now, before we say that his mother’s child-rearing practices couldn’t have been that bad if he loved her that much, it is well documented that abused children that have been taken away from their abusive parents will cry and ask, “If I’m really good tomorrow, can I go home to my mommy and daddy?”  As I point out in Part 5 of my series called, “Spanking is NOT God’s Will,” children have a very forgiving nature and love their parents no matter what.  That’s how I was with my dad despite his physical abuse.  He said he was sorry many times throughout my childhood, and I always forgave him.  Now some pro-spankers may argue that there’s a line between abuse and spanking.  My dad never left marks on my body, but it was indeed abuse as he’d hit and be rough with me for things out of my control.  My mom only spanked me once, and though she never apologized, I forgave her within the week.  Though both my parents were wrong for hitting me, I’ve long forgiven both of them and have a great relationship with my mom.  So, for all those who claim spankings didn’t hurt them, I must ask that they truly think about how they felt right before, during, and afterwards because when children are hurt by the closest people in their lives, it does harm and hurt, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much denial and controversy over using physical punishment with our children!  And if spanking (hitting) children was ordained by God, then there would be NO questions or controversy among Christians and the secular world regarding the amount of harm spanking a child does as Scripture clearly states, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Romans 8:28 Or that all things work together for good to those who love God, who; or that in all things God works together with those who love him to bring about what is good” (NIV, www.biblica.com).   Therefore, it is no surprise that John Wesley loved his mother and chose to care for her during her final years of life.

I want to remind us that my purpose in digging into the history of spanking is not to point fingers or make anyone look bad.  My purpose is to show where some of the topics I brought up in Part 1 of this series come from—particularly that they are not from God!  Spanking is from man.
John Wesley did much good in his lifetime.  It has been said that he would go out into the country and proclaim Christ to the people who lived in those rural places, winning many souls to Christ.  He also started Methodism.  And many credit him for the creation of Sunday school.  He created schools for children in which they studied many of the traditional subjects as well as the Bible.  He made sure poor children were able to be educated in his schools as well as girls.  Sadly, John followed in his mother’s footsteps when it came to his beliefs regarding child rearing and the education of children.  Though John didn’t have any children of his own, we will see these practices in how he ran the schools and in his sermons about children.

First, I want to briefly take a look at common Puritan belief and Calvinism because Susanna and John Wesley’s beliefs seem to fit into this belief system.  The use of catechisms was the primary way that the Puritans as well as some other Christian sects taught doctrine during the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  They put a high importance on Scripture as authority, which is absolutely correct, as the Bible is an absolute authority given by God.  This made literacy training a must for all children.  However, “The Puritans accepted the Calvinistic interpretation of total depravity.  This belief carried over to their view of children.  Out of concern for the souls of little ones, Puritan ministers sometimes preached sermons particularly for and to children.  The aim of these children’s sermons was to replace childhood vanity with ‘early piety’” (Reed & Prevost, 1993, p. 275).  Now, I’ve pointed out throughout my series that, yes, children are born with a sinful nature as “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23.  However, children do not completely understand sin, nor do they purposely sin until they reach a certain age—that age is different for every child.  Plus, in the 18^th century children were expected to act like adults as soon as possible.  People didn’t have the knowledge and research of typical child development that we do today.  Therefore, developmentally appropriate behaviors of young children were seen as sinful.  This usually led to the harsh treatment of children despite Jesus never calling for such treatment.  People thought young children went to Hell.  (See Part 3 and  Part 7 of “Spanking is NOT God’s Will” and Part 1 of this series for more information).  While children should indeed be introduced to piety at an early age, to expect that developmentally appropriate behaviors be replaced by piety is completely unrealistic and will lead to unnecessary frustration in the child and parent.

Also, during this time period using physical punishment with wives and slaves as well as children was completely acceptable and legal by society.   White males were dominant, and anyone weaker or different from them were under their rule and authority.  In essence, wives, slaves, children, and servants were considered property of the white male.  “We no longer permit the hitting of servants, apprentices, wives, prisoners, and members of the armed forces.  All of these were legal until the late nineteenth or early twentieth century… Research on corporal punishment of children can result in information that may speed up the process of bringing children to the same protection members of the military, employees, servants, wives, and prisoners now have” (Straus, 2006, p. 10).  Even up until the 1960s, it was totally legal for husbands to hit their wives as long as they didn’t leave a mark or injure her.  “Before the late 1960′s, a husband’s slap of his wife was not regarded as an act of abuse. Today, that same act is unquestionably viewed as abusive (society still has a long way to go before wives are equally regarded as batterers for assaulting their husbands). The “spanking” of children is viewed in the same light today as wife hitting was viewed before the 1960′s: NOT abusive by legal standards. Additionally, if an employer “spanked” the buttocks of an employee, it would be grounds for sexual assault” (Couture, 2007, http://stophitting.blogspot.com/2006/01/back-in-good-ol-days-and-other.html).  Thus, it appears that children are still considered as property of their parents since parents still have the right to spank them as long as they don’t leave marks on the children.  I find it sad that so many Christians seem to have completely missed the message Jesus Christ brought to us.  “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” Matthew 7:12.  It is interesting that throughout history we Christians have failed miserably in applying the Golden Rule; especially when it comes to how children are treated!

I do not believe that the Wesleys took the Golden Rule into account with their child rearing beliefs and practices.  This seemed to have delayed John’s salvation as he did not consider himself a born again Christian until the date of May 24^th, 1738.  “Upon arriving back in England, John became involved in a Pietist society organized by Peter Boehler, a Moravian.  In 1738, during a meeting on Aldersgate Street in London, John became convinced that salvation came only through faith in Jesus Christ.  He called this his conversion, and it profoundly changed his life” (Reed & Prevost, 1993, p. 275).  Since so many Christian advocates of spanking hold Susanna Wesley’s child rearing philosophy as a model for Christian mothers, I must wonder why John didn’t actually receive Christ until he was 35 years old.  If such a harsh way of parenting our children is supposed to lead them to Christ, or at least make it more likely for them to come to Christ, why did John not feel Christ’s Love until the age of 35?  Yes, every child is different, and no matter what we do the child may not come to Christ.  But so many Christian pro-spankers seem totally convinced that by spanking children that it will teach them to respect authority and to be fearfully reverent to God and their parents.  That if they learn to submit to authority then they will find it easier to submit to Christ.  However, submitting to Christ and authority out of fear is much different than submitting out of love, respect, and reverence!  While some children who grow up and were “lovingly spanked” by their Christian parents do receive Christ completely, I know of others who seemed to accept Christ at an early age but the minute they left home, they rebelled and fell away from their faith.  For example, I once knew a great Christian family who did their best to raise their three children in the Lord.  They were quite strict with them.  As teenagers they were not allowed to go to movies, dances, or wear two-piece swimsuits.  As children they were “lovingly” spanked.  They went to church every Sunday, and the children were involved in youth church activities.  They prayed and studied God’s Word as a family regularly.  These parents did everything in their power to raise their children in the way of the Lord.  And while all three of the children accepted Christ as children and were baptized as believers, all three absolutely rebelled against God the minute they left home.  Two of them became pregnant the first year after leaving home.  One became an alcoholic after leaving home.  And what’s worse is that they totally abandoned their faith.  Today they’re all married with children, and have semi-returned to their faith as they go to church and occasionally ask for prayer, but Christ is not the center of their lives.  I mean we all are sinners and rebel, but to completely abandon our faith as they did the second we leave home sounds like we weren’t spiritually healthy.  We are supposed to be free in Christ.  Why then do so many children raised in strict Christian homes feel the need to exercise their new founded freedom through rebellion?  Could it be that their parents didn’t accurately teach their children what Jesus meant when He proclaimed, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” John 8:31b-32?

This seemed to be the case with John Wesley as well even though he did not rebel against his faith or his parents.  Nevertheless, it is clear from his letters that he wrote to his family while at college and graduate school before his conversion that he did not have an accurate understanding of the freedom Christ offers.  In a letter to his mother concerning a conversation he had had regarding Christian Liberty, John Wesley (1734 [1915]) states,

“2.  For Liberty as to Rites and Points of Discipline.  So Mr. Whiston says: ‘Though the Stations were constituted by the Apostles, yet the Liberty of the Christian Law dispenses with them on extraordinary Occasions.’

3.  For Liberty from denying ourselves in little things; for trifles ‘tis commonly thought we may indulge in safely, because Christ hath made us free.  This notion I a little doubt, is not sound…

5.  Christian Liberty is taken by some for a Freedom from Restraint as to Sleep or Food.  So they would say, Your drinking not one glass of Wine, or my rising at fixed hours was contrary to Christian Liberty.

Lastly, it is taken for Freedom from Rules.  If by this he meant making our Rules yield to extraordinary occasions, well: If, the having no Prudential Rules, this Liberty is as yet too high for me, I cannot attain to it” (p. 54).

It seems John believed that in order to be a good Christian, one had to have strict “Prudential Rules.”  This undoubtedly came from how his mother raised and taught him.  This is, as I pointed out in Part 2 of this series, legalism and Jesus warned the Pharisees and Teachers of Law about legalism time and time again during his ministry.  As I point out throughout my “Spanking is NOT God’s Will” series, we are free from the Law of Moses.  We are now under the Law of Grace thanks to Jesus’ sacrifice for all of our sins.  “For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. ²⁵ Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. ²⁶ Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷ Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, ²⁸ so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” Hebrews 9:24-28.  We are free in Christ!

Just four years after John wrote the above to his mother, he came to know Christ.  Just a few months before his conversion, John wrote about struggling with darkness and bitterness.  “He contrasts it with an earlier day, January 8.  Then he was ‘in the midst of the great deep’ and ‘bitterness of soul.’” (Eayers, 1915, p. 60).  In a letter to his brother and sister where he describes his conversion experience to them, John Wesley (1738 [1915]) states, “But that is all past, and serves only as a dark background for the brightness and beauty of the evening of May 24, when a light shone from heaven upon him” (p. 61).  I speculated in Part 2 of this series that all of the Wesley children may have suffered from emotional problems as adults due to how they were treated.  I think what John Wesley described in his letter is proof that he was struggling with emotional problems.  Yes, we all battle our own demons, but being raised in such an abusive, controlling, and harsh environment has been proven to put people at a higher risk for emotional problems.  “For a child who can barely walk or talk (the age at which most children are most likely to be hit), it can truly be traumatic if the most loved and trusted figure in the child’s life suddenly carries out a painful attack.  The consequence can be a post-traumatic stress syndrome that creates deep, lifelong psychological problems such as depression and suicidal thinking” (Straus, 2006, p. 10).  Now, many parents say that their child is perfectly happy after they’ve been spanked.  Children are usually resilient.  They don’t dwell on things too long.  Therefore, it can be quite difficult to tell exactly how a young child is truly feeling.  And children usually act out in order to try to show us how they are feeling which is misinterpreted as bad (sinful) behavior by parents leading to more punishment for the child.  I once had a good Christian friend who had two young children.  One day while I was visiting, her 18 month old happened to touch something that was dangerous.  She told him no, but being a typical toddler, he smiled and did it again.  She calmly took his hand and swatted it and said, “Dangerous!”  He looked at her then at his hand and then smiled and did it again.  So she calmly took his hand again, swatted it a little harder than before, and said, “Dangerous!”  I could tell that this swat hurt more than the first, but he didn’t cry.  He looked confused at his mom, got up, walked a little ways, sat down on the floor and looked as if he was trying to process what had just happened.  It broke my heart, and it was all I could do not to say anything.  I wonder what his mom was actually thinking watching this.  Did she see his confusion, or did she see that hitting got the job done as he didn’t touch the dangerous item again?  Since she was very pro-spanking, I wonder if she was in denial about the harm she was doing to her children.  Also, the toddler only sat looking confused for about a minute or less before he was up happily playing again.  While I knew them, the children seemed happy.  The older child was a bit aggressive at times which concerned me as he was spanked and research shows that children who are spanked have higher rates of aggressive behavior (Straus, 2006; Brazelton, 2006).  I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up having some emotional problems now that they are older just as John Wesley seemed to have before his conversion.  The children’s parents may never know as teenage and adult children don’t always feel comfortable talking to their parents about the emotional problems that they are having.  “Many people who have experienced suffering as children are able to live productive lives. However, these people may harbor self-destructive tendencies, and interpersonal difficulties in that aren‘t apparent to onlookers. Adults who were mistreated in childhood are often insecure, mistrusting, defensive, authoritarian, passive, withdrawn, apathetic, in denial or quick to sarcasm. Those who transcend childhood suffering are often highly resilient people who have sought to process and understand how their childhood history currently impacts their lives” (Couture, 2007, http://stophitting.blogspot.com/2006/01/back-in-good-ol-days-and-other.html).

After his conversion, John Wesley seemed to really grasp the concept of grace.  The night of his conversion, he went quite unwillingly to Aldersgate Street to hear William Holland read a preface written by Luther to the book of Romans.  In a letter describing his whole experience that night to his brother and sister John Wesley (1738 [1915]) writes,

“With regard to my own character, and my doctrine like-wise, I shall answer you plainly.  By a Christian I mean one who so believes in Christ as that sin hath no more dominion over him: and in this obvious sense of the word I was not a Christian until May the 24^th last past.  For till then sin had dominion over me, although I fought with it continually; but surely, then, from that time to this it hath not—such is the free grace of God in Christ.  What sins they were which till then reigned over me, and from which, by the grace of God, I am now free, I am ready to declare on the house-top, if it may be for the glory of God…

My desire of this faith I knew long before, though not so clearly till Sunday, January the 8^th last, when, being in the midst of the great deep, I wrote a few lines, in the bitterness of my soul, some of which I have transcribed; and may the good of God sanctify them both to you and me” (p. 62).

The rest of John’s letter regarding his conversion is absolutely beautiful and heartwarming.  For the first time in his life, he truly felt and fully grasped God’s love and grace for him!

Sadly, I must question why this knowledge of God’s grace, love, and mercy that John Wesley gained the night of May 24, 1738 was not applied to his beliefs about child rearing or to the schools he created?  He did not have children of his own, but he touched the lives of many children through his Methodist schools and his sermons regarding children.  In his sermons, which date all the way to 1783, long after his conversion, he discussed the need for children’s wills to be broken beginning in infancy just as his mother did.  Because he was a preacher, I expected to see more references to Scripture in order to at least try to back some of his beliefs up with the Word of God, but he used the same verse as his mom, “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it” Proverbs 22:6 (2011 NIV).  Most of us know this verse as “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”  Obviously, Bible scholars believe that “start” is more accurate to what God is saying than “train” is.  John Wesley does not use any other verses to back up what he says in his sermon titled “On the Education of Children”  (1783) in which Wesley states, “To humour children is, as far as in us lies, to make their disease incurable. A wise parent, on the other hand, should begin to break their will the first moment it appears. In the whole art of Christian education there is nothing more important than this. The will of the parent is to a little child in the place of the will of God. Therefore studiously teach them to submit to this while they are children, that they may be ready to submit to his will when they are men. But in order to carry this point, you will need incredible firmness and resolution; for after you have once begun, you must never more give way. You must hold on still in an even course; you must never intermit your attention for one hour; otherwise you lose your labour” (http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/95/).  Yes, we must teach our children to submit to our authority, but to break a child’s will is not biblical.  (See Part 1 of this series for more information about breaking children’s wills).  John Wesley goes on in this same sermon to explain how his mother broke their wills as infants.  Wesley (1783) states, “My own mother had ten children, each of whom had spirit enough; yet not one of them was ever heard to cry aloud after it was a year old. A gentlewoman of Sheffield (several of whose children I suppose are alive still) assured me she had the same success with regard to her eight children. When some were objecting to the possibility of this, Mr. Parson Greenwood (well-known in the north of England) replied, “This cannot be impossible: I have had the proof of it in my own family. Nay, of more than this. I had six children by my former wife; and she suffered none of them to cry aloud after they were ten months old. And yet none of their spirits were so broken, as to unfit them for any of the offices of life.” This, therefore, may be done by any woman of sense, who may thereby save herself abundance of trouble, and prevent that disagreeable noise, the squalling of young children, from being heard under her roof” (http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/95/).  Again, nowhere in Scripture does it say to break a child’s will.  Children are already humble when it comes to believing in Christ or Jesus would not have held them up as models for adults in Matthew 18:1-4.  As I continue to point out in all of my series, Ephesians 5:21 says that we are to “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”  Wives are to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22, 24), and yet, this does not give husbands the right to treat their wives harshly.  Just as Ephesians 6:1-2 says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ² “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— ³ “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth” does not give parents the right to treat children harshly.  God must have known that humans would have a tendency to treat the weaker (or perceived weaker) one harshly as in both cases He warns that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25), and for parents not to exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:3).  Why didn’t John Wesley understand this?  Maybe because he couldn’t stand to go against what his beloved mother’s teachings.  He wasn’t strong enough to break the cycle of abuse despite having the power of Christ within him.

John Wesley ran the schools that he created much like his mother ran her home when he was a child.  The children at his schools were on an extremely strict schedule, and were never allowed to play.  “What others noticed, however, and what is most often remembered, is the strong element of religion, and the rigor of the schedule and discipline.  The rules for the children at Kingswood meant rising at four A.M. and retiring at eight P.M.; starting the day with two hours of private and public devotion and an hour of public evening prayers; having no time during the day for play; and spending from seven to eleven A.M. and one to five P.M. ‘in school.’  Students at all times be in the presence of a teacher and never be allowed to roam free or have contact with the colliers’ children in the neighborhood” (Heitzenrater, 2001, p. 288).  This sounds more like a military base than a school for children.  And if a child broke a rule or misbehaved, he or she was physically punished.  As I pointed out in Part 2 of this series, research shows that young children learn best through play and concrete (real) experiences.  How did Jesus teach?  He used stories and parables that people who were open to Him could understand and relate to for the most part.  He also taught through concrete experiences and miracles.  One example that comes to mind of Jesus using a miracle to teach His disciples faith is when Jesus fed five thousand people with a five loaves of bread and a couple of fish (John 6:1-15).  His disciples said that no one had enough money to buy enough food for all the people, and yet when a boy brought up a basket of food, Jesus blessed the food and all five thousand people had more than enough to eat.  This taught exactly what faith in the Lord can do.  Jesus also taught by asking open-ended questions to make people think.  He was a gentle Teacher.  He also enjoyed boat rides and hanging out with people.  Jesus even went to weddings and turned water into wine (John 2:1-12).  Heaven will be one big wedding and party!  I can imagine Jesus smiled at children running around playing, otherwise why would He have gotten so angry at His disciples for trying to prevent parents from bringing their children to Him?  Also, why did God create children with such a playful nature if He did not intend for children to play?  And the Bible continually talks about the joy we are to have in the Lord.  Therefore, I do not believe that it was biblically accurate for the Wesleys to require children to follow a very strict schedule.  Yes, routines are very important for children as they need to know what will happen next in their days.  Children thrive on routines because routines are flexible in order to meet the children’s needs.  Schedules are not designed to meet children’s needs.  They are more for adult’s convenience, and to keep children under control.  While there are stories of revivals and salvation that occurred in John Wesley’s schools, I can’t help but question whether the good out weighed the potential harm that was done to the children.

John Wesley didn’t see children as human beings, but instead, saw them as “a unit for salvation. Gross views Wesley’s concept of salvation: “He never considered a child as a child, but rather as a unit for salvation, bred in sin, apt to evil, and altogether as a ‘brand to be plucked out of the burning’” (Towns, 1970, p. 323).  However, John seemed to contradict himself at times as to whether children were inheritably evil or innocent.  Heitzenrater (2001) states the answer John Wesley gave regarding infants suffering, “Why do infants suffer?  What sin have they to be cured thereby?  If you say, ‘It is to heal the sin of their parents, who sympathize and suffer with them’; in a thousand instances this has no place; the parents are not the better, nor any-way likely to be the better, for all the sufferings of their children.  Their sufferings, therefore, yea, and those of all mankind, which are entailed upon them by the sin of Adam, are not the result of mere mercy, but of justice also.  In other words, they have in them the nature of punishments, even on us and on our children.  Therefore, children themselves are not innocent before God.  They suffer; therefore, they deserve to suffer” (p. 294).  While it is true that infants are born with a sinful nature, they are in no way capable of purposely sinning.  To say that infants, or anyone for that matter, deserve to suffer is very un-Christ-like in my opinion.  God made infants and provided crying as their way of communicating with us.  This is not sinful!  John Wesley was also heard saying that children are also innocent.  “Take, for example, his observation at the home of an English gentleman and his family in Holland: ‘Here were four such children (I suppose seven, six, five, and three years old) as I never saw before in one family: Such inexpressible beauty and innocence shone together’” (Heitzenrater, 2001, p. 294).  I wonder if John based this observation either on their outward appearances and/or their behaviors.  If the children would have been behaving as typical children, would he have commented on their beauty and innocence?

Overall, from what I have read from and about John Wesley, the impression I get is that he mostly believed that children were evil from birth.  As I’ve pointed out throughout this paper, he believed that children were capable of having a religious life, but that it required that they be strictly educated and harshly punished.  “As it has introduced a new state of things, and so fully informed us of the nature of man, and the end of his creation; as it has fixed all our goods and evils, taught us the means of purifying our souls, of pleasing God, and being happy eternally; one might naturally suppose that every Christian country abounded with schools, not only for teaching a few questions and answers of a catechism, but for the forming, training, and practicing children in such a course of life as the sublimest doctrines of Christianity require” (Wesley, 1783, http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/95/).  I wonder what he meant by “sublimest doctrines of Christianity require” because while we are required to teach our children God’s Word from a very young age (Deuteronomy 6:6-8), we are not required to be harsh with them.  In fact, we are required to teach in a loving, kind manner (Colossians 3:16.)

Since John Wesley believed that infants were sinful from birth, he felt that infant baptism was an absolute must in order to wash their sins away and save their souls from Hell if they should die.  “Infants are in a state of original sin and they cannot be saved ordinarily unless this is washed away by baptism. They are included in the covenant with God and capable of solemn consecration to him. This consecration can only be made by baptism. They have the right to come to Christ, to be ingrafted into him and ought to be brought to him for that purpose. Baptism regenerates, justifies and gives the infant all the privileges of the Christian religion” (Towns, 1970, p. 322).  While many Christians do believe in infant baptism, the Bible seems very clear that baptism is for people who have accepted Christ into their hearts; receiving the gift of salvation offed by Christ.  Baptism symbolizes the person’s death to sin and his/her rising with Christ as a new person in Christ.  “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” Romans 6:4.  (See also Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21).  Infant baptism does absolutely nothing as far as salvation is concerned.  And I have repeatedly said in this series and my “Spanking is NOT God’s Will” series, infants and young children go to Heaven if they die since they are not capable of purposely rejecting Christ.  They know Him and easily believe in Him!  Just as infant baptism does nothing to save children, neither does spanking and controlling them do anything to save them.  From all of the research I’ve pointed out in this paper, and from what we know about John Wesley’s life, I think it is safe to say that spanking children puts them at higher risk for rejecting Christ as they are not receiving an accurate portrayal of Christ’s love and grace for them.

Jonathan Wesley did much good for the Kingdom of God.  Many poor children were able to be educated because of him.  He also helped a great deal of people come to know Christ as their Savior.  However, among all of the truly good things that he did throughout his life, I think it is wise to ask how much harm did he also do?  After all, he did not seem to rely on God’s Word for his beliefs on how children should be treated and educated.  For this reason, John Wesley should not be used as a role model for Christians and Christian education.  While none of us is perfect, we must remember that the pedestal in which he is often placed among Christians is cracked.  Children should be taught through love, gentle firmness, concrete experiences, and much grace!  “What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?” 1 Corinthians 4:21.

“Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” 1 Peter 3:4.

Not a complete list of references:

Eayrs, G. (ed.)  (1915).  Letters of John Wesley.  London, England: Hodder and Stoughton.

Towns, E.  (1970).  John Wesley and religious education.  Articles.  http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/towns_articles/16.

Wesley, J.  (1783).  Sermon 95.  On the education of children.   http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/95/.

*** A full reference section on all my work will follow.

(Continued)

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.