This Little Light of Mine: A Plea for Christians to Stop Hitting Children

This Little Light of Mine: A Plea for Christians to Stop Hitting Children
by Victor I. Vieth

The concept of hitting a child as a means of discipline is foreign to me. Although I was raised in a conservative protestant family, my mom and dad never hit me. As a father, I never hit my son or daughter. For a long time, I did not appreciate how unique my upbringing was.

Several studies suggest that conservative Protestants are more inclined to accept and practice corporal punishment. I found this to be true with most of my friends being hit by their parents and many of them growing up to hit their own children. In the years ahead, I came to see how much this costs our church and our children.

When I became a child abuse prosecutor, I saw the potential and actual damage of corporal punishment as cases of physical abuse crossed my desk. Children bruised, bleeding, scarred—with parents often claiming the blows were administered in Christian love.

Although the protestant pastors of these parents would sometimes visit my office and concede a parishioner had gone too far, they were also quick to claim Christian parenting must involve some level of violence. Of course, the pastors wouldn’t call corporal punishment an act of violence. They would call it smacking, swatting or spanking. I’m not sure any of the injured children who came to my attention understood this distinction. The insistence on hitting children in the name of God also has a spiritual toll. Long after bruises fade and wounds heal, the blows may continue to influence the child’s view of God causing some children to struggle, even abandon their faith.

If children truly matter to the church, then we need to speak candidly about the medical, mental health, and spiritual impact of hitting them. This involves more than an examination of pertinent research on corporal punishment. It involves an examination of the scriptures in an effort to determine whether it is God or man that insists on a practice that has proved so harmful to so many children.

Protestant writers on corporal punishment

Some Protestant writers, such as Michael and Debi Pearl, have advocated for the switching of children, including infants. In their book, To Train Up a Child, the Pearls contend that “when your baby is tired and sleepy enough to become irritable, don’t reinforce irritability by allowing the cause and effect to continue…. Get tough. Be firm with him. Never allow him to get up…To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down. It will become as easy as putting a rag doll to sleep.”

Other Protestants are more moderate but nonetheless maintain that hitting some children can be effective. In an editorial published in USA Today, Jared Pingleton of Focus on the Family writes:

Parents have many tools at their disposal to discourage negative behavior — loss of privileges, time outs, etc. But for younger children (never infants or adolescents), sometimes the most effective means of guiding them toward positive attitudes and actions, specifically when dealing with willful disobedience, can be a mild spanking. The idea is to help them learn to associate that a brief sting on the bottom now can help them avoid severe pain in their life later.

Whether holding extreme or moderate views on corporal punishment, protestant proponents of the practice contend, or at least suggest there is a Biblical basis for their beliefs. Many respected Biblical authorities, including conservative protestant scholars, beg to differ. According to these scholars the Bible may not authorize and, at the very least, does not require parents to discipline their children by hitting them.

Corporal punishment and scripture

The Bible was written over the course of 15 centuries. Although the scriptures were penned at times in which extreme acts of corporal punishment was inflicted on adults and children, there are relatively few passages providing instruction on this practice. The verses most often cited in support of the practice are contained in the wisdom literature of King Solomon. These Proverbs include:

“Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them’ (Pr. 13:24).

“Folly is bound up in the heart of a boy, but the rod of discipline drives it far away” (Pr. 22:15).

“Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod you will save their lives from Sheol [the grave or premature death]” (Pr. 23:13-14).

“The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a mother is disgraced by a neglected child” (Pr. 29:15).

Many respected theologians and Bible commentaries, past and present, have noted these phrases to be figures of speech referencing practices common to that era. For example, The Lutheran Study Bible, published by the conservative Protestant Missouri Synod includes the following language in their commentaries: “Flogging was a common form of punishment. The ceremonial scepter held by rulers symbolized their authority to judge and discipline.” The commentary goes on to quote Martin Luther’s Large Catechism which finds that children are “best trained with kindness and delight. For children who must be forced with rods and blows will not develop into a good generation.” The NIV Study Bible, which has sold over 7 million copies, notes that parents are “encouraged to apply the rod of punishment to drive out folly” but also contends the rod is “probably just a figure of speech for discipline of any kind.”

This is also consistent with Catholic and Jewish interpretations of the Proverbs. For example, the Catholic Study Bible contends the reference in Proverbs to beating children is an attempt at “sardonic humor” which “means the exhortation is not to be taken literally” or as “an argument for corporal punishment.”

In an article Corporal Punishment of Children in Jewish Law, Benjamin Shmueli writes that halakhic sources “reveal that, in practice, recourse to corporal punishment has been subject to a complex system of qualifications that diminish its scope, prevent arbitrariness, and make physical punishment difficult to resort to.”

In his book Corporal Punishment in the Bible, seminary professor William Webb contends the Bible requires discipline but not necessarily corporal punishment. In support of this argument, Webb points out that there are many references in the Proverbs to the corporal punishment of adults (i.e. “a rod is for the back of one who lacks sense” Pr. 10:13) but notes we do not have whipping posts in our church basements nor do we insist the criminal justice system utilize corporal punishment.

Instead, we recognize the verses are referencing punishments in place at the time they were written and we strive to apply the wisdom to our era. In other words, while a thief may have been whipped in biblical times, a jail sentence is perfectly fine today. The underlying wisdom of the verses is simply that misdeeds result in consequences.

Since the underlying wisdom in the Proverbs is simply to discipline our children, Webb argues that parents utilizing disciplinary approaches more effective than corporal punishment are actually operating closer to the heart of the text.

Although Webb argues the Bible does not require corporal punishment, some clergy contend the Bible may not even authorize hitting children as a means of discipline. In an article published in the Lutheran Forum, Eric Andrae analyses the corporal punishment texts in their original languages and concludes the type of “rod” referenced in pertinent proverbs pertains to “shepherding, protecting, guiding and supporting.” According to Andrae, a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor, “using the Scriptures, and especially Proverbs 13:24, for specific and divine permission to hit one’s child is hermeneutically suspect and exegetically dubious, at best.”

Four reasons to abandon the practice of hitting children

 If it is true the Bible does not authorize or, at the very least, does not require corporal punishment, the church can freely decide whether or not to encourage hitting children as a means of discipline. There are at least four reasons parents, including conservative Protestant parents, should stop hitting their children.

First, there are medical risks associated with administering blows to a child’s body. In 2012, CNN aired a series of newscasts detailing the deaths or significant injuries of children hurt at the hands of parents claiming they were administering Christian discipline. These are not isolated events. Each year, as many as 2,000 children die from physical abuse and thousands more are hospitalized or require medical attention. When placed in the hands of dysfunctional or low-functioning parents, or in the hands of a parent who has simply lost control of their emotions, corporal punishment can have significant consequences, including death.

This is one reason the American Academy of Pediatrics discourages parents from venturing down the path of hitting children as a means of discipline. Members of the clergy who insist that parishioners hit their children must understand that this may result in some children severely injured, some children dead, and some parishioners in prison. This is particularly problematic when clergy insist that parents hit babies or preschool children whose bodies can be easily damaged with an excessive blow.

Second, there are mental health risks associated with corporal punishment. The large body of research on corporal punishment is often misunderstood. The research does not say if a child receives corporal punishment that the child will grow up to have poor outcomes in life. Instead, the research describes corporal punishment as a risk factor and notes the more a child is hit and the harsher the discipline, the greater the risk factors for poorer mental health including depression, anxiety, anger management and inability to sustain healthy relationships.

It may be best to view the research on corporal punishment as similar to the research on smoking. Although no reputable study concludes that smoking is wise, one cigarette taken as a dare in the back of the school house when a child is still in their teens will not likely result in death or disease.

However, smoking three packs a day for decades will dramatically increase the risk for cancer or death.

Given the risks associated with smoking, many clergy discourage their parishioners from smoking at all. In the same vein, there are documented risks associated with corporal punishment and we should encourage parents to find less risky, more effective means of disciplining their children.

Third, the law is contracting. A quarter of a century ago, many parents hit their children with tree branches, belts or other objects and rarely faced prosecution even when injuries resulted. This is no longer the case.

Although the law still allows parents to hit their children, the definition of reasonable force is contracting and will likely continue to contract in the decades ahead. In 44 countries, all forms of corporal punishment, including parental hitting of children, is now banned. As the legal definition of acceptable blows to a child’s body continues to contract, clergy will be forced to decide whether or not to encourage parishioners to commit unlawful acts. The Apostle Paul encourages Christians to abide by the law, contending that those who rebel against the government are “rebelling against what God has instituted” (Romans 13:11).

This brings to a head the theology of corporal punishment. If, as Webb and others argue, the Bible does not require parents to hit their children as a means of discipline, clergy will urge parents to engage in conduct that does not break the law. In the United States, this means severely limiting the practice of hitting children and, in many countries, it means completely abandoning the practice.

Fourth, there are spiritual consequences to hitting children. Martin Luther lamented the beatings he received from parents and teachers and openly worried that harsh discipline would drive children away from the church. As we approach the 500th anniversary of the reformation, Luther’s words appear prophetic. There is a large and growing body of research on the spiritual impact of child abuse. According to 34 major studies, involving more than 19,000 abused children, a great many children are spiritually damaged from maltreatment. This happens when religion is used in the abuse of a child, when a church ignores the needs of a maltreated child, or simply because a child has unresolved spiritual questions about the abuse. According to this body of research, many of these children grow up to leave their church and, in some instances, to abandon their faith.

I recently spoke to a man who said that if he fidgeted in church, his parents would force him to take a branch from a tree. His parents then used the branch to inflict whippings that scarred his body. The physical pain, though, pales in comparison to the spiritual damage. The man told me he cannot so much as look at a church without having shivers of fear. As a result, he never again set foot inside a house of worship—but he prays daily and hopes that, somehow, God will find him.

For the church, this may be the darkest legacy of hitting children. Intentionally or unwittingly, we have insisted on a practice that does little good and, when exercised harshly, often drives children away from their faith.

Jesus scolded his disciples for keeping children away from Him (Luke 118:15-17). Given the role hitting children has played in sending children away, the church may wish to chart a different course—a course my parents took so many years ago. I don’t think my mom and dad view themselves as reformers of the Church and yet their simple decision not to hit me as a means of discipline began a pattern that continues in my family. My daughter eventually became a Christian school teacher who models effective discipline of a great many children—without the need to hit any of them.

In many churches this Sunday, children will join in the refrain “this little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine.” As we join our children in this song, let us dedicate ourselves and our church to the proposition we will never run the risk of snuffing out this light through blows to their bodies. The power to implement this reformation rests in the hands of every parent.  

Victor Vieth is a former child abuse prosecutor and the director of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, a program of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). He worked with the NDAA and Winona State University in creating the National Child Protection Training Center, which is now a program of Gundersen Health System. Mr. Vieth serves on the board of directors of the Academy on Violence & Abuse (AVA), GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) and on the advisory board to Male Survivor. Through GRACE, he serves on a national committee to develop a model seminary course on child sexual abuse. He is also the author of “From Sticks to Flowers: Guidelines for Child Protection Professionals Working with Parents Using Scripture to Justify Corporal Punishment” published by the William Mitchell Law Review. 

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us