“Biblical” Parenting, Part Four: A Parent Who Tries to Change Minds and Hearts through Spanking
Also in this series: Part One: Introduction | Part Two: A Parent Who Assumes The Worst | Part Three: An Extremely Controlling Parent | Part Four: A Parent Who Tries to Change Minds and Hearts through Spanking | Part Five: A Parent Who Isolates In Order to Control | Part Six: Concluding Thoughts
Part Four: A Parent Who Tries to Change Minds and Hearts through Spanking
To briefly review, my first criticism of Reb Bradley’s book “Child Training Tips” discussed the way his advice pushed parents toward the worst possible interpretation of their child’s behavior at the expense of mercy and understanding. My second criticism looked at the extreme level of control that parents are urged to have over their child’s mind and body, which can prevent the child from maturing and can put the parent at risk of developing abusive habits. Now here is my third criticism.
Criticism #3: Parents are instructed to use spanking as their primary tool of discipline, not only for behavior modification but also to force the child to change their opinions or feelings.
Spanking is one of those hot button issues; some parents are strongly against it in all cases, while others find it a useful last-resort parenting tool. However, whatever your feelings on spanking, I think that we can all come together to condemn the abusive spanking instructions that are given to parents in this book.
You see, Reb Bradley views spanking not as one of many parenting tools, but as the only tool.
Before giving parents his specific instructions on how to spank, he reminds them, “Spanking is incorrectly used if it is a last resort rather than the first response for rebellion” (p. 71). He adds, “Beware of trying to cure rebellion with ‘creative alternatives.’ Any alternative to chastisement [spanking] is an alternative to Scripture — God offers no better solutions to subduing rebellion outside the Bible” (p. 74). What are those creative alternatives to spanking that he’s referring to, that are apparently un-Biblical?
- “When your authority is not sufficient to motivate your child to pick up their toys, you make a game of it, so that their desire for fun will gain their cooperation.” (p. 61)
- “When they will not obey your specific direction to go into their room for a nap, you become animated, playful, and silly, and make the walk to their room look like a lot of fun.” (p. 61)
- “Instead of giving them a direct order to go to bed, manipulate them by saying, ‘Which do you want to take to bed with you right now — the teddy bear or the doll?'” (p. 61)
- “When they will not cooperate, you create a contest to gain compliance, i.e.: challenging them to get their room clean within a time limit.” (p. 61)
- “A three year old who is throwing a fit, may forget that he was upset if an animated parent points out the window and exclaims, ‘What could that be?’ However, the calming effect of the distraction does not subdue his will and should not be a substitute for chastisement [spanking].” (p. 62)
- “The parent who is unaware of his authority sometimes resorts to offering bribes to his children to evoke obedience: ‘If you behave in the grocery cart, I’ll get you a treat when we check out.’ ‘If you get into bed for your nap, I’ll read your favorite story.’ ‘You may have cake for dessert if you eat your vegetables.'” (p. 57-58)
From his examples of un-Biblical techniques, we see that a parent is not allowed to do anything to diffuse tension, increase positive motivation, or add humor to the moment. Reb Bradley claims that these parenting techniques are unBiblical even though they are clearly not forbidden in the Bible, and even though the Bible clearly doesn’t claim to be an exhaustive child training manual.
Ironically, these so-called unBiblical techniques are much more in line with verses such as Ephesians 6:4 “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger,” and Colossians 3:21 “Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.”
Reb Bradley’s advice, in contrast, seems much more likely to provoke, embitter, and discourage the child, since he urges parents to treat everything as a power struggle and to use only direct confrontation and physically-aggressive punishment to deal with it. In addition, the techniques that Reb Bradley deems unBiblical are the ones that the child could most benefit from seeing modeled; offering positive motivation, diffusing tension, and using humor to promote cooperation are techniques that are useful in peer relationships and adult relationships, where spanking is less socially acceptable.
So spanking is the only tool a parent can use against rebellion, but what is Reb Bradley’s definition of rebellion? As I’m sure you can imagine, an extremely controlling parent has many opportunities to see rebellion in the child’s behavior, especially when the parent thinks the goal of parenting is to completely subdue the child’s will. It’s no surprise, then, that Reb Bradley has many strange and sad examples of rebellion to give us, which he separates into two categories: active rebellion and passive rebellion.
Active rebellion is defined as purposeful or premeditated disobedience, although it oddly includes things such as any form of sass and back-talk (p. 75), a toddler crying uncontrollably over not getting their way (p. 76), a child moving away from a parental hug or touch (p. 76), a child who attempts to get off the parent’s lap without verbal permission (p. 77), and a toddler who arches his back against a seatbelt (p. 77).
Even worse are the examples of passive rebellion, which is “less conscious and premeditated than active rebellion…requiring parents to work harder to expose to them their rebellion” (p. 78):
- “Consistent forgetfulness: When they can remember to set their alarm and dress themselves for soccer practice, but habitually forget to take out the garbage, they are demonstrating they can be capable when they choose to be. They just need greater motivation” (p. 78).
- “External obedience with a bad attitude: They cooperate with your directions, but talk, complain, or whine about it the entire time, i.e.: The three year old who lets his mother shower him, but is permitted to complain throughout the shower: ‘But I don’t want a shower. I don’t want a shower.'” (p. 79).
- “Obeying only on own terms: Does not come exactly when called; walks slowly…Dictates to parents when they will obey: ‘I’m getting a drink first,’ or ‘I’ll be there in a minute.'” (p. 79).
- “Doing what is required, but not how it should be done: Does chores, but not by parents’ established standards, i.e.: dishes are not quite clean, bed is not made properly, bedroom is not ordered as required” (p. 79).
- “Violating unspoken, but understood rules: The toddler who is caught in the bathroom unrolling the toilet paper, may not have been specifically forbidden to unroll the tissue, but the tears he sheds, and the haste with which he continues his deed as he sees his mother approaching, verify that he knows he is doing wrong” (p. 80-81).
In other words, the child can never do anything less than instant, cheerful obedience to a parent’s spoken and unspoken commands. The child’s obedience must be up to the parents’ standards at all times in both speed and quality. Anything less can be interpreted as rebellion.
Please keep in mind that, according to Reb Bradley, the only appropriate parental response for active and passive rebellion is to administer a spanking.
It’s no wonder that children raised with this mentality often have trouble relating to the grace and love that Jesus demonstrated, since they learned instead to evaluate themselves by impossible standards and habitually feel deserving of punishment.
With all this in mind, let’s look now at Reb Bradley’s instructions on how to spank, which he calls chastisement: “Chastisement is a calm, controlled spanking on the bottom…uses a light-weight rod….is done after the first offense, while the parent is still calm” (p. 70-71). He continues by explaining a common spanking mistake that parents make: “Many parents implement chastisement with their children, but are frustrated because it does not seem to subdue their wills. The most common reason for this is incomplete chastisement — it is administered as discipline for rebellion, but is ended before its goals have been accomplished. What are the goals of chastisement? 1. To cause children to be humble before their parents’ authority. 2. To cause them to take responsibility for what they have done. 3. To cause them to submit to the consequences of their actions” (p. 71).
What does incomplete chastisement look like? Here are a few of the many horrifying examples that Reb Bradley lists:
- “No obvious sign of brokenness or humility” (p. 72)
- “Refuses to hug the discliplining parent” (p. 72).
- “Cries out for the non-disciplining parent” (p. 72).
- “Extended or extra loud crying (venting anger — not pain or sorrow)” (p. 72).
- “Expresses no remorse to God in prayer, and refuses to ask for forgiveness of those they offended” (p. 72).
In other words, if the child doesn’t appear broken, doesn’t want to be hugged right after being hit, cries in the wrong way, or doesn’t seem sorry enough in prayer to God, then “the chastisement obviously did not work, and should be repeated a second time,” or perhaps even a third time, although Reb Bradley apparently rarely hears of a third time being necessary (p. 73).
It would seem that Reb Bradley has mentally adapted the verse, spoken by Jesus, from “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them” (Luke 18:16), to a crusade-like mentality of “Beat the little children until they come to me and confess their sins with appropriate sorrow.”
Reb Bradley also seems to believe that a parent can and should beat their child into demonstrating love through a hug, which is an absolutely disgusting attitude for a parent to have.
As if that’s not horrifying enough, there is also a list of behavior during chastisement that “merits extra discipline” because they indicate resistance to parental authority (p. 73-74).
- “Moving away from the rod” (p. 74).
- “Putting their hand in front of their bottom” (p. 74).
- “Pleading for mercy; making vehement promises of repentance” (p. 74).
- “Requesting limited number of swats” (p. 74).
- “Extra loud, angry crying” (p. 74).
Why is it ok for me to ask God for mercy, but a child requesting mercy from a parent deserves more punishment? Why is it ok for people like King David and Job to express strong negative emotion, sometimes even toward God, but a child who feels anger when hit by a parent deserves to be hit more? And how is a child expected to override the subconscious physical reflexes that help prevent bodily injury?
If you are wondering what this type of spanking can be like from the child’s point of view, here is a truly heartbreaking first-hand account. Clearly, even calm parent using an “appropriate” rod can be abusive in their attempts to follow these guidelines of chastisement.
Reading this book, you notice right away that almost everything is a strong assertion that is not backed up by evidence, not even Biblical evidence.
The lack of support throughout the book makes the few verifiable claims stand out even more; unfortunately for Reb Bradley, the verifiable data from his book is easily disproved by a few simple google searches. For instance, he claims, without citing his source:
“That society which does away with corporal punishment will raise undisciplined, self-consumed young people, who lack the security that comes from being required to stay within firm limits. Sweden and Denmark, famous for their prostitution, drugs, and child pornography, are the world’s first countries to have outlawed spanking. Not surprisingly, since their first generation of undisciplined children has grown up, these two countries are now reported to have the highest teen suicide rates in the world. Eliminating the rod is not a sign of a civilized society, but of one in moral decline” (p. 69-70).
In mentioning prostitution, drugs, and child pornography, perhaps Reb Bradley is thinking of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, where spanking was actually legal until 2007; Amsterdam, after all, has the famous Red Light District and legalized marijuana. Sweden and Denmark, on the other hand, are certainly not famous for these things. In regards to spanking, Denmark didn’t outlaw spanking until 1997, after this book was written, and at least five other countries had already outlawed spanking before Denmark did.
So let’s look at the three countries that first outlawed spanking: Sweden, where spanking was outlawed in 1966; Finland, where spanking was outlawed in 1983; and Norway, where spanking was outlawed in 1987.
According to Reb Bradley, these countries should now be showing increased rates of teen suicide. However, the opposite is true.
In Sweden between 1969-1979, the suicide rate for teens aged 15-19 was 8.69 per 100,000 people. That number had decreased to 6.30 by the 1990s. In Finland between 1980-1989, the suicide rate for teens aged 15-19 was 24.54 per 100,000 people. That number had decreased to 15.51 by the 1990s. In Norway between 1980-1989, the suicide rate for teens aged 15-19 was 15.71 per 100,000 people. That number had decreased to 12.12 by the 1990s.
Although Reb Bradley doesn’t mention crime rates, they are worth looking at too. Currently, the homicide rate in the USA is 4.2 per 100,000 people; in contrast, the homicide rate in Sweden is 1.0, in Finland it’s 2.2, and in Norway it’s 0.6. Murder rates in all four countries are on a downward trend, regardless of the legality of spanking.
This basic data certainly doesn’t prove anything about whether spanking should be legal or illegal. What is does show, however, is that spanking is not a necessary part of a harmonious society with low rates of suicide and homicide. It also shows that Reb Bradley is extremely negligent in his research.
In conclusion, Reb Bradley’s tells parents that hitting a child with a rod is their only possible response to perceived rebellion, and that the spanking should be used to control the child’s behavior, mind, feelings, and even relationship with God.
In giving these instructions, he shows a severe misunderstanding of the Bible and serious scholarly negligence.
To be continued.