Archive for the opinion Category
May 22, 2009
Two editorials appeared in South Island newspapers yesterday which indicate that the mainstream media understand the real issues behind the Jimmy Mason “face-punching” case, and its connection to the referendum.
The Timaru Herald said,
Mason became the poster boy for opponents to the amendment of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which outlawed the use of “reasonable force” by parents, after he was charged with assault by police. His case was taken up by Family First, who believed it was a test case for police trying to deal with the impact of the so-called “anti-smacking” legislation. Mason was a victim of a silly law, according to the lobby group that believes it is okay to discipline children by hitting them…
The police did the right thing by bringing the case. Members of a civilised society do not teach their children road traffic rules by flicking their ears and punching them in the face. They teach them by leading by example, by patiently explaining to them, by warning them and by coaching them. When all else fails there is a range of remedies open to them. Beating them is not one of them.
And the Southland Times concurs:
The Christchurch musician was shaping up for a while there as a martyrish figure for the smackers’ rights brigade who had been warning so darkly that the change to Section 59 of the Crimes Act would lead to a parade of parents being criminalised for lightly smacking their children.
Have you noticed? That hasn’t happened. Police report that the impact of the law change, which has applied since June 2007, has been minimal…
The law change supported, after compromises, by both Labour and National did reduce so-called parental rights, but only to the extent an act of violence that would be flat-out illegal had Mason done it to your child or mine is no less illegal because it was inflicted on his own.
On most levels, the law change has not made much of a difference. We had been getting just a few cases where parents who beat their children with whips and pieces of wood were invoking parental discipline rights and getting acquitted. Now they won’t.
We look forward to these publications’ colleagues further north joining in their judgement that the current law is working well.
May 21, 2009
On 19 May 2009 a Christchurch father was found guilty of assaulting his son by flicking his ear and punching him in the face. While there has been a lot said about whether the father would have been prosecuted and found guilty under the old law, or should have been prosecuted at all, there has been no examination of case from a parenting perspective.
Dr Joan Durrant, in her book, Positive Discipline: What it is and how to do it, tells us that positive discipline is a way of thinking that focuses on identifying long term goals for children, providing warmth and structure, understanding how children think and feel and teaching problem solving. Key long term goals include encouraging the development of self-discipline and learning to take responsibility. A parent’s role includes guiding the child’s behaviour and modelling appropriate behaviour.
Were the Christchurch children shown by the father what he expected of them at the park and were safety issues explained and demonstrated to them? We don’t know. When the children behaved in a risky fashion and were “corrected” did they understand why their father was so angry? What did they learn from the experience? Perhaps just that when you are really angry its ok to hurt someone. Were they better informed about how to keep themselves safe in the future? Did they feel secure in their relationship with their father? These are relevant questions to ask ourselves when we think about how to respond to our children’s behaviour.
May 20, 2009
The guilty verdict in the Christchurch child assault case was always likely. Why would the bystanders have called the police and why would the police have taken a prosecution unless there had been a serious assault? The ear flicking label was given by the father and taken up by the media and the child-beating lobby. It was always an unlikely story.
The trouble is that this has supported the father in his self-justification instead of helping him to find a way of dealing with the violence in his relationship with his children.
Sections of the media seem determined to trivialise this issue. They have run with the ‘anti-smacking bill’ headline for four years. Why did they take at face value the father’s ear-flicking story when witnesses were saying it was a punch in the face? There is a difference.
I’m glad the judge has signalled that he intends to impose a supportive sentence – perhaps an anger management course. I don’t want to join the punishers. A man who has the kind of relationship with his children where he erupts in anger and loses control, in broad daylight, in a busy city precinct needs some help.
This case is not primarily about Section 59. A punch in the face wouldn’t have been seen as ‘reasonable force’ under the old law. Even the child-beating lobby admit it’s going too far.
The case does underline the point though, that the high-sounding phrase, ‘reasonable force by way of correction’ is often just an excuse for lashing out after having lost your temper. The problem is not so much losing your temper – most of us have done that with our children – as believing this entitles you to strike them. In 2007, the new Child Discipline Law removed this excuse.
A Yes Vote supports this law, and sends a clear message to parents that there are better ways of disciplining children.
–
Ian Hassall is a paediatrician and children’s advocate. He was New Zealand’s first Commissioner for Children and before that Medical Director for the Plunket Society. He is Senior Research Fellow for the Institute of Public Policy at AUT, and part of the Every Child Counts campaign to place children’s interests at the centre of government. He teaches the undergraduate paper, Children and Public Policy.
May 18, 2009
In Support of the ‘Yes Vote’ for the NZ Referendum on Child Discipline 2009
Lauren Porter
The intention of most parents who use physical discipline is to correct behaviour and help their children become people who will make good choices, manage their actions, relate well to others and refrain from harming, destroying or upsetting the environment and people around them. In other words, their intentions are based in caring about their children.
The smacking issue, then, is not one of good versus bad parents. Nor is it one of ‘good’ use of physical discipline versus ‘harmful’ use of physical discipline. As with most issues affecting child development, this issue must be seen through the eyes of the child, and with a critical look at how smacking can interfere with the creation of healthy parent-child relationships and the adult relationships in that child’s future.
Many decades of research in the fields of attachment theory, neuroscience, child development and infant mental health have taught us that a healthy parent-child relationship is built on sensitivity and responsiveness, a foundation that allows the parent to come to know the child for who she really is and for the child to come to know herself – and her parent – within a safe and loving environment. A cornerstone of this process is called regulation. Basically, regulation is the ability for us to recognise our feelings, make sense of them and manage them. This is not only a key to the parent-child relationship, but to all mental health.
Children learn to regulate their feelings through interaction with their parents and other caregivers. These ‘co-created states’ allow a calm and loving adult to help the child learn the regulation ropes. For example, when a loud noise startles an infant and he begins to cry, most parents reflexively pick up the baby and give him a cuddle, usually speaking in soft soothing tones. This demonstrates how parents who have never heard of the word ‘regulation’ simply know that a young baby is unable to regulate himself. He needs help to calm down and when he is very young we must do the bulk of the work for him.
Imagine teaching a child to dance. At first they may stand on your feet, holding your hands and getting the feel of how their body moves. Later, as they get more comfortable, they can stand beside you on the floor, watching your feet but doing the steps themselves. Finally, after many lessons and much time, they will dance on their own whether or not you are in the room. But if the music changes they may again need a lesson to learn new steps and increase their repertoire. Eventually they will have dancing in their bones, knowing how to move with each piece of music they hear.
Teaching a child regulation is the same process. At first we do it for them, then with them, then they learn to do it on their own. But this takes a few years at least and even then when the going gets tough they need our help. We are no different – when adults go through crises we need loved ones to lean on to help us manage and get through.
A healthy attachment relationship teaches regulation with each step. When a baby succumbs to frustration or fear, when a toddler veers toward a meltdown, when an exhausted child reaches tears, the parent is there to comfort and teach. The teaching isn’t explicit. It comes from within the trusting relationship, from within the unspoken knowledge that the parent knows how to be calm and can model this for the child.
When a parent – regardless of how well intentioned – adds the ingredient of physical discipline to the relationship they unintentionally add fear to the equation. Fear is the key feature of disorganised attachment. In this most-worrying attachment style, the relationship is overshadowed by the child’s association of fear with the parent. This puts the child in an impossible situation: the person they love most is also a person to be feared. This impedes the ability to fully trust, to be vulnerable, to be emotionally present.
As you can imagine, this means that learning regulation is near-impossible. Not only can the child not feel safety and trust that allows this emotional learning, but the parent is regularly demonstrating that they do not have the regulation skills to teach. A parent who is angry or hitting is not a model of healthy regulation.
It is no surprise that attachment and psychological research show that children who experience physical discipline have higher levels of aggression, disobedience, anxiety, depression and addiction, as well as insecure attachment. Their ability to learn to manage their feelings and their ability to form a consistently warm and loving relationship with their parent has been impaired.
It is critical to remember that the rewards-and-punishments paradigm of behaviour management was invented by psychologist BF Skinner and his colleagues in the 1930’s and 1940’s. They learned – through work with rats and pigeons – that by rewarding certain behaviours and punishing others you could create ‘operant conditioning.’ In other words, you could train an animal (or child) to do certain things and not do other things via this method. Skinner became quite famous and this methodology, which still lingers in our culture today, was embraced by many. Behaviourism was not and is not concerned with anything other than training a being toward particular ways of acting. It omits deeper concerns like the effects on relationships, on mental health, on the development of compassion and empathy.
Neuroscience and attachment offer a solution. Empathy is learned through loving regulating relationships beginning in infancy and lasting through childhood and beyond. If we as a society want to develop something more – something that includes the ability to teach and learn empathy – we must forgive ourselves for our mistakes, let go of outdated ways of thinking, and embrace a new way of being with our children.
—
Lauren Porter is a principal at the Centre for Attachment. She is a member of the External Advisory Group for the NZ Government Taskforce on Child Maltreatment, a member of the Attachment Parenting International Research Group (API-RG) and an Infant Mental Health Association Aotearoa New Zealand (IMHAANZ) Executive Committee. She is the mother of two children.
Tags: attachment ,attachment theory ,centre for attachment ,child development ,empathy ,lauren porter ,mental health ,neuroscience ,physical discipline ,regulation ,skinner
May 18, 2009
Like many other religions rooted in nationhood, Judaism is not simply a treasure trove of ritual holidays and life cycle events. Judaism is a way of life. Our sacred texts inform our way of being in the world, not only our gestalt (world view) but also our daily conduct. The relationship between parent and child is no exception.
The Talmud, our largest compendium of case law, instructs (Kiddushin 29a):
What are a parent’s obligations regarding a child?
They must bring them into the faith community, teach them values and appropriate conduct, lead them to learn a trade and start families of their own. And there are those who say parents are also required to teach their children to swim in the river.
It is not all that difficult for us to accept this set of parenting guidelines. It is indeed the role of parents in our society to prepare our kids to be self-reliant and accountable for their choices in life. The challenges arise when our children present their own developmentally appropriate obstacles to our parenting…
Some Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible) commentators suggest that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden illustrates human development from childhood into adulthood. At first we are happy that the garden (our home of origin) provides what we seem to need when we need it. When we’re hungry, there’s something in the pantry. When we’re tired, there’s a bed or a cushion to ease our rest. Despite having what we need, moments arise in which we want more or we want something different. And so, Eve tastes from the forbidden fruit of the tree in the centre of the Garden of Eden. Challenging authority is part of our process of development into fully functioning capable adults. Breaking free from the spoon that feeds is essential, albeit often disruptive and even painful.
The Talmud tells a story about one particular sage’s challenging teen son (Kiddushin 32a):
Rav Hunah considered tearing up his son’s favourite silk shirt in that son’s presence saying: “He does not honour his father and mother, therefore I will go and see if he flies into a temper or not.” The other sages counsel him: “But perhaps you will cause him to fly into a temper. If he does, you will have violated the precept – You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”
While we are responsible for our children’s welfare and self-sufficiency in adulthood, we are also warned by Jewish literary tradition not to exploit developmental blindspots. Using force because we can justify it in our role as the ones in charge is simply not acceptable. Provoking our children in a way that teaches abuse of power is akin to placing a stumbling block before the blind.
Part of growing up is learning how to manage anger and rage. Anger and rage help us differentiate from our caregivers and make strides out on our own. At the same time, when we are children we don’t know how to cope with the power of that anger and rage. Parents have the responsibility of “teaching their children how to swim in the river.” Swimming in the river of life requires skill, self-control, and instinctual knowing of when to fight and when to redirect our activities. Everything we do matters because our kids are watching, listening, and learning.
As our children transition into adolescence and adulthood we celebrate a ceremony in which grandparents and parents pass a Torah scroll down through the generations to the child who is ready to accept it. It is important for us to remember each time we engage in that “passing down” that our children learn from our conduct moreso than our words that are not reflected in the manner we behave. The real Torah, or legacy, we hand our children is the example of how we are with them in the daily to and fro of life.
—
Johanna Hershenson is the Rabbi at the Wellington Progressive Jewish Congregation – Temple Sinai.
This article is one in a series on Religious Attitudes to Child Discipline, which includes perspectives from Anjum Rahman (Islamic), Margaret Mayman (Presbyterian), and Richard Randerson (Anglican).
Tags: anger ,anger management ,child discipline ,huna ,jewish ,johanna hershenson ,judaism ,kiddushin ,reli ,religion ,religious attitudes to child discipline ,talmud ,wellington
May 17, 2009
I support the new law regarding child discipline – it is an important step in the way forward for a more peaceful and positive New Zealand.
I am the Principal of Childspace, a group of five private child-care centres and a mother of two children who have never been smacked. I am a member of Amnesty International Children’s Rights network and also a passionate anti-smacker.
I believe the upcoming referendum on the Child Discipline Law is absolutely ridiculous, expensive, and unnecessary.
Shifting societal attitudes no longer condone smacking as a socially acceptable form of punishment for our children. The more we learn and understand about young children the less acceptable smacking becomes. This can very easily be illustrated by the opinions of our own country’s top experts on early childhood, education, and children’s rights. I would challenge anyone to find a leader in any of these fields who condones smacking.
Ian Hassall’s book “Hitting children – unjust, unwise and unnecessary” (1993) is crystal clear. Prior to the law reform in 2007 he stated that “…research evidence is that it [hitting] is a poor way of inducing good behaviour and performance.” He goes on to point out that “…the law does not permit us to inflict pain on anyone other than our children.” Animals are afforded greater protection by law. Trespassers are also afforded better protection by law as section 56 of the Crimes Act allows the use of reasonable force except with a blow or an object. So no wooden spoons or belts for trespassers!
There used to be a commonly held view among New Zealanders that children require the occasional smack to keep them in line. In fact at a party prior to reform I broached the subject with a group of people who didn’t yet have children of their own. Most were emphatic that they would be using smacking as a punishment for their as yet unborn children. Upon further questioning it seemed their rationale for this was that they were smacked and they turned out alright. It is exactly this cultural norm that the law change has challenged. It can only be positive for the children in this country that we are now sending a message to present and future parents that smacking is an inappropriate and illegal reaction for an adult to have towards their child.
Not so long ago society argued that women, slaves and prisoners must be kept in line by the use of physical force. These are now considered part of a barbaric and ignorant past. There are not many things we could be sure of one hundred years from now but one of them is that it will no longer be legal or socially acceptable to bring harm to your own children. This also will be considered part of our barbaric and ignorant past.
I was smacked when I was a child and I can still remember my mother reaching for the hairbrush she used to smack me. I can also remember her placing her hands around my throat and telling me that sometimes she could just strangle me. Is this justified and reasonable force? Or is it out of control parental anger sanctioned by the law? Either way I cannot blame my mother because she was young, poor, and living in a society where her elders, peers, and the law saw physical violence toward children as acceptable. Now we know better and we must help educate parents about how to teach children in non-violent ways.
In the early childhood programmes for which I am responsible we spend a great deal of time and effort modelling and teaching the children appropriate ways of dealing with angry or frustrated feelings. The children pick up our non-violent approach very easily. We do, however have families where we know smacking is the method for dealing with these feelings and the impact on those children is huge. They are quicker to anger, less emotionally stable, have shorter attention spans, more inclined towards bullying and less likely to behave appropriately. These children also tend to come from less educated family backgrounds than their peers. In her 1993 report on physical punishment in the home in New Zealand, Gabrielle Maxwell concludes that “The most highly educated group were more likely to report explaining and discussing matters. They were less likely to report telling off, yelling, or smacking. ”
The 2007 Child Discipline Law was such a positive thing for the future of our country. It would be criminal to amend it in any way now. Children are not parental possessions, they are people with rights of their own. Questioning of the practice of hitting children tends to make people feel uncomfortable. Perhaps they have not questioned the practice themselves? Perhaps they have an idea that it isn’t quite right? Perhaps they now feel some guilt that it was their practice as a parent in the past?
Bringing in the 2007 law has been a consciousness-raising exercise. It would be naïve to suggest that it has eliminated the practice completely, and it is simply scaremongering to suggest that parents will be charged for a light and occasional smack. But it is making parents question their reasons for wanting to smack their children. Just as not all wives are safe from spousal abuse, not all children are safe from smacking, but any law change that reduces the violence in any form has always been a change for the good of society.
New Zealand was one of 193 countries to ratify the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child. Article 19 of the Convention clearly states that legislative measures should be made to ensure children are safe from physical violence while in the care of their parents. Since the 2007 law change, we are complying with our obligations under the convention. Let’s not turn back the clock on this.
Should we be teaching children to rule with force? Could our country become a more peaceful place to live if children were safe from violence inflicted by the people they love most in the place they should feel most safe? Spare the rod and free the child.
Vote “YES” in referendum 2009.
May 14, 2009
I’m an adult who has spent years learning about child development and … well, OK, obsessing a little about research. About new findings in neuro-imaging technologies, how our increasing understanding of early brain development interacts with what we know of attachment theory and how all of this reinforces the idea that early relationships have implications across the lifespan.
Early relationships really, really matter. The relationships surrounding children hold implications for the sort of brain architecture we’ll be living amongst thereafter.
The adults in relationship with young children are doing a tremendous amount to not only build their brain connections, but to form their understanding of partnership, of power & pleasantries.
So, let’s review. Hitting, smacking, spanking children helps them to understand partnership … how?
Hitting children demonstrates that the Person With Power may physically hurt the Person Without. It teaches children that their adults sometimes lose it. It involves lower-order thinking (training, like a dog) instead of engaging higher-order thinking (doing the right thing because of an understanding of implications).
As the parent of a vocal, determined and intelligent child, I understand what it is to feel so frustrated by the sassiness that I’ve wanted to hit. Oh, I’ve heard that siren’s call.
I feel that frustrated more often than I care to admit. But I have never hit my child.
I won’t do it because hitting her would be an expression of my anger more than a response to my child’s behaviour.
I won’t do it because I understand that it is my lower brain – my mammalian brain – commanding those desires. My higher brain, my human brain, my beautiful juicy cortex, acts as a filter for desires.
My cortex holds all my cognitive understanding of the ineffectiveness of smacking as a tool for behaviour change and relationship enhancing.
My lovely cortex is the home of my understanding of long-term consequences: that I would feel utterly wretched if I hit my child. Probably for years.
My cortex also houses a variety of strategies for keeping calm, and for dealing more effectively with misbehaviour.
So even if I sometimes want to, I won’t hit because it’s an ugly, base, short-term solution to a temporarily challenging situation with the most precious person in my world.
So to all those mystifying people who are fighting for the right to be able to hit your children: I ask that you please spend the time instead learning some new strategies for dealing with your anger.
—
Miriam McCaleb is the brain behind baby.geek.nz. She has studied brain function in the USA, and is a certified trainer for PITC – the Program for Infant/Toddler Care.
May 12, 2009
The cards are stacked! The shape of the question in the Smacking Referendum makes sure of that. “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” It’s rather difficult to say Yes to that. It suggests we support the idea that “good parents” might be “criminals” if they give their child a “smack” as part of “correction”.
After all, it never hurt us when we were growing up, at least not most of us. And we got far worse – strapped or caned at school, given a hiding at home (“your father will hear about this when he comes home”), and look what fine and responsible citizens we have become as a result!
So the cards are stacked in this referendum. The numbers voting “No, good parents should not be criminals”, could well be a majority.
But suppose a different question were asked. Suppose the question was “Should parents who seriously assault their children, causing physical and emotional injury, have a lawful escape from the consequences of their actions?” It’s hard to imagine a majority would say Yes to that proposition. Yet it’s precisely because that sort of thing was happening that the move to change the law came about. Child abusers could rely on the escape afforded them under the old Section 59 to go scot-free.
I was part of the public debate when the law was changed. I was part of a deputation of church leaders who handed Helen Clark a statement saying that we supported the law change because we thought there should be an end to legally condoned physical abuse of children. The vast bulk of New Zealanders would say there should be an end to any physical abuse of children. The law change is an important step to achieve that.
The new law has had no dire consequences. Police have a discretion not to prosecute when an alleged offence is “inconsequential”. There have been a few prosecutions where children have been assaulted in a more serious way. But no evidence whatsoever that large numbers of “good parents” are being dragged before the courts and made “criminals”.
More positively, the debate has aroused renewed attention to what good parenting really means. Co-operative problem-solving approaches between parents and children can lead to deeper relationships and an atmosphere of love and trust rather than one of fear and punishment. It is also saying that children are people too. It is illegal to physically assault an adult. Why should it be OK with kids?
For me one of the most significant features of the debate when s59 was being changed was that although a majority of New Zealanders opposed the change, there was a solid consensus for change among the organisations who actually knew at firsthand why the change was essential. These were groups like Barnados, Save the Children, Plunket and Unicef – people who day by day were on the front line dealing with some of the tragic consequences of the message the old law sent. Popular opinion can be out of touch with reality, and this case was surely one such example.
Our children are too precious to damage. Each one is special in the eyes of God and the whole community. To vote Yes in the coming referendum does not mean we are saying “Yes, good parents should be criminals”. It is saying something of far greater importance. It is saying “Yes, we believe it was right to close a legal loophole for hurting children”. Let’s keep it that way.
—
Richard Randerson, CNZM, was appointed 2000 Dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, Auckland. He is also Vicar-General, from 1999, and Assistant Bishop from 2002 of the Anglican Diocese of Auckland in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.
May 7, 2009
As a Paediatrician at Hutt Hospital for the last thirty plus years, I have seen a lot of abusive treatment of children by their caregivers and accordingly I strongly supported the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This action has been glibly labelled as “the anti-smacking” bill, but in fact is not that at all. It removed the excuse that physical punishment with resulting injury could be a defence in court as being part of acceptable disciplining of a child. This is in line with our respect for adults and with the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child to which our government has agreed.
Unfortunately, I have been in a situation where a caregiver escaped punishment in spite of hitting a 14 year old girl with a broomstick so hard that she was unable to stand, sit or even lie down for 5 days without pain because of the bruising on her buttocks and thighs. As this happened nearly 20 years ago one might hope that attitudes have changed and no jury would make a similar decision now. That has not been the case and a number of similar decisions over recent years show that our children still need the protection of the legislation as it currently stands.
The wording of the forthcoming referendum is akin to the trick question of “have you stopped beating your wife?” To ask for a “yes” or “no” answer to the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” is impossible as none of the basic terms are defined. What is a “smack”? What is “good parental correction”? What does a “no” vote mean and what is the likely outcome of such a vote?
It is noteworthy that the world has not fallen apart since the repeal of Section 59 two years ago and, even though child abuse continues to occur as expected, our children at least do have one more small piece of protection that they so sorely need. It also declares unequivocally to us all that hitting children for whatever reason is unacceptable.
Archie Kerr,
Paediatrician (Retired)
May 6, 2009
In the second article in our series on religious attitudes to child discipline, Rev Dr Margaret Mayman explains why she strongly supports a YES vote.
—
Two years ago, our congregation, St Andrew’s on The Terrace, supported the law change that removed the defence of reasonable force for the purposes of correction of children. Now we are arguing that the law change be retained and that citizens should vote “Yes” in the referendum.
Prior to the law change, there had been terrible cases of child abuse that had not resulted in an assault conviction because of the use of this defence. New Zealand has appalling rates of lethal and non-lethal child abuse and there is strong evidence that abuse often occurs as an escalation of physical punishment. The law needed to be changed to ensure that the children received equal protection.
The engagement of religious groups in public policy matters is controversial. Our view follows that of twentieth-century German theologian, Deitrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer rejected the idea that faith was something inward and private with no relevance to society or politics. He wrote as a Christian engaged in profound opposition to Nazism and in criticism of Christian withdrawal from politics. He believed that the Church had a prophetic imperative to speak out for those who could not speak. In his case, for the Jewish people who were being brutally persecuted by the German state. Bonhoeffer believed that the witness of the Bible, and particularly the life and teaching of Jesus, required public advocacy. In his Letters and Papers from Prison, he wrote: We have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the reviled – in short, form the perspective of those who suffer.
Our faith community, located in twentieth century Aotearoa, is engaged in supporting the law change, and in voting ‘Yes’ in the referendum, because we believe that suffering children are the ones whose perspective should be the basis our public response. We do not expect that our voices, as religious people, should be given more weight than any other group participating in the public discourse, but we nevertheless have an imperative to speak out and a right to be heard.
Progressive Christian voices are needed to balance those of religious conservatives who advocate for the continuing use of physical force to discipline children.
Biblical Interpretation
We believe that the Bible “contains the inspired word of God.” This word is mediated to us through the words of human beings who were subject to their culture, religion and history. We read it now with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the aspect of God that is present within and among us all) in light of our cultural and scientific knowledge. The Bible was written down over a period of 1500 and covers a historical period even longer than that.
As followers of Jesus, we see a clear mandate toward non-violence in all aspects of our lives. We believe that the recorded interactions of Jesus with children in the New Testament call us to a radical respect for the personhood, and therefore the bodily integrity of children.
Key biblical passages for our understanding of our responsibilities towards children include passages such as Matthew 19: 13-15. When the disciples tried to rebuke people who brought their children to Jesus. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs. And he laid his hands upon them and went on his way.”
Jesus clearly felt love and compassion for children, adding that his disciples should “Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven. …So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost.” (Matthew 18:10, 14)
Reading the stories of Jesus teachings about children, and his interactions with them, in the gospels, we find no justification for physical punishment, let alone any directive for it.
It is true that there are biblical verses that might suggest that physical punishment is endorsed. They consist of a smattering of verses, primarily from the Book of Proverbs. The commonly quoted “spare the rod and spoil the child” is not actually from the Bible, though Proverbs does include “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.”
Thousands of years of physical violence and assaults have been justified by this proverb and a number of others. However, twenty-first century Christians are bound to interpret the Bible contextually and in light of knowledge developed since the scriptures were written. This includes knowledge about child development and of the damage caused by physical punishment.
No one today interprets the Bible literally on this issue, despite the claims of conservative Christians that they do so. For example, in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses told the people of Israel that “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.” (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21).
For those Christians who insist that the Bible requires parents to use physical punishment, they must account for this instruction that parent is required to put to death the persistently disobedient youth.
Within Christianity, the teachings and actions of Jesus, and his consequent understanding of the person and will of God, transformed the systems of violence and punishment. The religious narrative changed from an authoritarian God to a God who relates to Jesus and to all people as a loving parent.
Progressive Christians believe that Jesus teaching about love, forgiveness, and reconciliation compel us toward a path of non-violence in all aspects of our lives, including the way we raise children in families and communities.
The only words attributed to Jesus that could be construed to justify punishment can be found in Revelation, which relates a vision recorded by John long after the death of Jesus. In Revelation 3: 19, he said: “I reprove and discipline those whom I love. Be earnest, therefore, and repent.” It contains nothing specific about children and reproving and disciplining are not necessarily physical.
Another text cited from the New Testament is Hebrews 12: 5-11. The author justifies physical punishment by drawing upon an understanding of ancient history filled with divine punishment. He refers to his own experiences of childhood punishment as “painful at the time.” Nowhere does the author invoke the teaching of Jesus to confirm his beliefs. His words have been used to justify much suffering. His is a theology of an abused child.
Other New Testament sources include Paul’s epistle to the Colossians. Paul commanded children to obey their parents, but added an important injunction to parents, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, or they may lose heart.” In Ephesians 6: 1-3, Paul again urged children to obey and honour their parents, but he again added the instruction: “And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4).
In other passages in his letters, it is clear that Paul accepted the institution of slavery while at the same time seeking to soften it. Nineteenth century Christians realised that to take seriously the teaching of Jesus about the dignity of all people, required that slavery be ended. Our interpretations of the Bible do not stand still.
Breaking Wills
It has been an assumption of Protestant theology, since its inception, that children are born sinful and disobedient and that parents must use physical discipline in order to save them from their depravity. This understanding was developed in detail in Christian parenting manuals from the nineteenth century and continues today in parenting material written by some evangelical Christians.
Progressive Christians are reclaiming a new theological anthropology that stresses the blessing of children, not their sinfulness. We have particular responsibility to guide them into a mature relationship with God and we cannot do that by fear or violence.
Parents, like all Christians, are required to show compassion and gentleness, including in the way they discipline their children.
Christians have contributed negatively to a culture of violence in the home. It has been reinforced by inadequate biblical interpretations and inadequate ethical reflection. As a faith tradition, we bear responsibility for the damage done to so many children in the name of our faith. In advocating for repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, and in supporting a ‘Yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum, we are beginning to redress that injustice.
Creating a Good Society for Parents and Children
I am concerned pastorally for parents and children in Aotearoa. Many of our congregation have children of our own, and we understand the enormous challenges that parenting presents. We sympathise with parents who in times of great stress lash out violently towards their children. We believe that the law change sends a clear message to parents so that in times of stress they will be able to curb the emotional response to hit their children. Rather than increasing the burden of parenting, it will provide a very strong message that there are other, more effective ways of disciplining their children.
We also respond to those who claim that physical punishment did them no harm as children, and that they are able to control the delivery of violence in such a way that children will not be injured. This claim is contestable in that there is increasing evidence that harm is caused even when physical injury does not result. Given the very high incidence of child abuse and death in New Zealand, we all have a moral responsibility to protect children from parents who are clearly unable to limit physical punishment to a non-injurious degree.
In the end, violence is violence wherever it occurs. In a civilised society, we should not refuse to protect those most vulnerable. Our statistics, on international scales, are truly a cause for shame. We must do better to protect and cherish children, who are like all humans, created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 5:2).
Conclusion
Religious groups do not have a right to compel government to adopt their understanding into law. However, we have a responsibility to speak up for those who cannot speak, those who are vulnerable and powerless. In this case, we speak for the rights of children to bodily integrity and spiritual well-being, believing as we do that that the law change benefits adults as well. Inflicting violence on others damages the spirit of the one who perpetrates violence.
The law is working well. The wording of the referendum question is misleading and misguided, ignoring the discretion that the police have in regard to prosecution. I strongly support a “Yes Vote.”
Rev Dr Margaret Mayman
St Andrew’s on The Terrace
Tags: bible ,biblical interpretation ,christian ,christianity ,colossians ,deitrich bonhoeffer ,ephesians ,genesis ,margaret mayman ,matthew ,new testament ,old testament ,physical punishment ,presbyterian ,progressive christian ,proverbs ,religion ,religious attitudes to child discipline ,st andrews on the terrace ,wellington
