Advice

ADVICE

Out of touch?

CCPAS takes a candid look at some of the current issues surrounding the use of physical punishment as a legitimate form of disciplining children

For some time now a fierce debate has been raging about the legitimacy of smacking.

Some say, "smacking never did me any harm" and assert their rights as parents to exercise control over their children in this way. They resent the intrusion of the "nanny state" into what they see as the private arena of family life. They believe parents should be trusted to use physical punishment in an appropriate way.

Others led by a vocal coalition of childcare experts argue that smacking is never right because it amounts to a physical assault on a child, which cannot be justified. The anti-smackers point out that the UK is out of step with virtually everywhere else in Europe, because the law still allows for the defence of "reasonable chastisement" which permits parents to smack children with impunity.

Those opposed to the physical punishment of children are campaigning for a change in the law that will prohibit smacking and will, they believe, help to promote a more child-friendly environment.

The Church would seem to be equally divided on the issue. Some Christians take the view that the physical punishment of children is sanctioned in Scripture. Others question whether there is a biblical basis for smacking at all. Their view is that the pro-smacking camp relies on selective biblical quotations describing Old Testament practices, taken out of context, and far removed from the model of New Testament Christianity portrayed by Jesus, which is of a shepherd who uses his staff to protect his sheep from predators, not beat them with it.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as whether or not a child should ever be smacked. From those who believe it is biblical to smack, there is much deliberation over issues such as whether an implement (eg a wooden spoon) should be used to discipline a child or whether it should be done with the hand. Some believe that because the hand is employed in carrying out many other tasks, including comfort, it should never be used to punish. An implement, they say, offers some detachment from the person inflicting the punishment and avoids wrong messages being sent that will damage the child's self-esteem and security.

There are other issues that arise, such as the age appropriateness of smacking and whether it should be parents only who have the right to exercise this form of discipline. To muddy the waters still further, the word "smack" can be interpreted in different ways, including brutal punishment, which the vast majority in the pro-smack lobby find totally unacceptable.

As a child protection agency, our priority is preventing children suffering significant harm. We recognise the diversity of views that exist around physical punishment and that for the majority of children the odd smack from a parent is unlikely to result in permanent damage. We also accept that most parents who, on occasions, smack their children are loving, caring and competent.

Having said this, we come into regular contact with people who, by definition, have caused significant harm to their children by smacking them, or hitting them with an implement. Potentially abusive situations can be exacerbated through attitudes and teaching within the church. In certain instances we have had to call into question the legitimacy of this teaching, regardless of a church's generally held views, due to serious concerns about the parenting skills of certain church members.

It is our experience that the parents who smack the most frequently are those who lack parenting skills in other areas. Punishment is only a small part of good parenting. We see our role as helping to promote better parenting rather than focus exclusively on whether or not it is right to smack a child. The harassed mum doing her weekly shop with her two-year-old toddler throwing a major tantrum in the supermarket aisle does not need a lecture on the rights and wrongs of smacking. She may, however, need help in employing strategies that will ultimately benefit both her and her child.

Discipline is undoubtedly vital in advancing the healthy emotional development of a child. Clear boundaries are necessary, and children need to be corrected and guided in the right direction. There needs to be a 'holistic' approach to caring for children, and research demonstrates that rather than occasional physical punishment, it is situations of poor supervision and neglect where children suffer the most harm, particularly where the parent is absent, inattentive to the child's needs or wildly inconsistent. Children seem to respond most positively to parenting that is firm but fair within a context of mutual respect. This does not negate the necessity for parents to be in the driving seat, setting the boundaries and exercising appropriate care and control.

There is no doubt, however, that physical chastisement can be extremely harmful. Sadly, it is not unusual to be approached during training seminars by people who grew up in Christian homes and who recount to us their own experiences of being smacked, beaten and bullied as children by authoritarian parents, who sometimes even used the Bible to justify their cruelty. As a child protection agency we would never condone such acts. We also counsel adults struggling with issues from childhood relating to physical punishment meted out by, probably, well-meaning parents. Because of the way they were disciplined they have grown up with distorted images of good parenting, resulting in great spiritual damage, especially with their concept of the Fatherhood of God.

There are many ways of disciplining a child without resorting to physical punishment, and parents can be creative and smart in their parenting skills. With regard to strategies for discipline, we would hesitate to be prescriptive or to imply that there is only one way of correctly disciplining a child. The fact is that children are very different and what works for one child may not be effective for another. It is also true that we live in a multi-cultural society and there will inevitably be cultural differences in approaches to childcare.

However, in any situation, parents should not automatically resort to physical punishment but exercise restraint, treating the child with fairness and respect even when the sternest of discipline is required. There are many valuable lessons to be learnt from foster carers who are not permitted by law to smack children they are caring for. There are many shining examples of imaginative and effective parenting by foster carers, negating the need to use physical punishment as a means of discipline.

Effective parenting is not, and never will be, an exact science. What is put in is not necessarily what will come out. It is as unwise for parents to claim all the credit for a child turning out well adjusted as it is for them to recriminate themselves because a son or daughter insists on going its own precarious way. Each child and young person is unique; their behaviour can be explained (in so far as this is possible) in terms of a complex interaction between their genetic inheritances, the way they are treated, especially by those closest to them, and by the choices they make. A parent's responsibility is to love and care for their child, guide them, appropriately discipline them, and entrust them to God.

Christians believe that the ultimate remedy for the human race, including children, is the love and grace of God, demonstrated through Jesus' life and in his death and resurrection. Is it not a sad irony therefore that if, having experienced God's undeserved love, a parent then communicates to its child in such a way, that it absorbs a message that parental approval and acceptance depend solely on good behaviour?

This is not to say that children don't need to be taught the difference between right and wrong and it follows that moral development is an integral part of growing up. However, discipline should be restorative in purpose and expressed within the context of unconditional love rather than excessive punishment for misbehaviour.

This model of discipline is not out of step with modern psychology which has found that praise and encouragement are much more powerful shapers of behaviour than disapproval and rebuke. It follows, therefore, that it is better to place a greater emphasis on the positives by rewarding good behaviour rather than concentrating on punishing the bad. Bad behaviour should not be ignored because wrong actions need to be challenged, but even with badly behaved children, emphasising the positive has proved to be extremely effective.

The debate about smacking has become highly charged and unfortunately has tended to polarise rather than produce a consensus of opinion. There is a danger because of this that some of the more subtle issues become submerged in a sea of polemic that the subject generates. For example, some would blame the increase in classroom disruption solely on a lack of discipline in the home, not taking into account that a child may be struggling to cope with difficult personal circumstances, such as family breakdown.

For Christians to allow themselves to be manoeuvred into a situation where they end up self-righteously justifying smacking a child on a point of biblical principle, without considering any of the above arguments, simply serves to confirm common prejudices within society that Christians are anti-children. If this continues, then the positive contribution that Christians could be making in the arena of child-care will be ineffectual, and the credibility of the Church compromised.

From a purely pragmatic point of view it is difficult to comprehend that a vociferous minority (mainly Christians) who promote smacking are communicating a positive statement about their attitudes to child-care. This posturing could, for example, seriously inhibit the chances of a Christian couple trying to adopt a child when they have to account for their views on physical punishment to an adoption agency.

Neither does it help the cause of long-suffering foster carers seeking to positively challenge the behaviour of a disturbed young person who has a history of abuse and neglect! For the parent who has a problem managing their temper (and there are plenty of those within the Christian community) smacking can become an excuse for the release of their own anger and can escalate into something far worse!

If Christians are seen to be arbitrarily supporting the 'right to smack' lobby without considering the bigger picture, there will undoubtedly be consequences for the Church. There is a danger it will become isolated and marginalized, rather than seen to be wholeheartedly embracing the foundational truths of forgiveness and grace and of mercy triumphing over judgement. It will miss the opportunity of making a significant difference to the lives of some of the most vulnerable and needy children and young people in society, a role in which, historically, it has had a significant influence.

At the end of the day, the most important issue is not an individual citizen's 'right' to chastise their child in whatever way they consider appropriate, but rather the welfare and safety of those most at risk in society. It is an incontrovertible fact that many children suffer physical abuse at the hands of their parents. For these children and for their struggling parents, there should be, at the very least, a willingness amongst Christians to align themselves with those who are endeavouring to encourage a more gentle and positive approach to the care and discipline of children.

Extract taken from Caring magazine winter 2003/4

CCPAS - www.ccpas.co.uk

© Christian Family Network
is run by CPO, supported by
Care for the Family, Marriage Resource, Positive Parenting,
Care, Women Alive, Christian Herald and many others.


		ADVICE Out of touch? CCPAS takes a candid look at some of the current issues surrounding the use of physical punishment as a legitimate form of disciplining children For some time now a fierce debate has been raging about the legitimacy of smacking. Some say, "smacking never did me any harm" and assert their rights as parents to exercise control over their children in this way. They resent the intrusion of the "nanny state" into what they see as the private arena of family life. They believe parents should be trusted to use physical punishment in an appropriate way. Others led by a vocal coalition of childcare experts argue that smacking is never right because it amounts to a physical assault on a child, which cannot be justified. The anti-smackers point out that the UK is out of step with virtually everywhere else in Europe, because the law still allows for the defence of "reasonable chastisement" which permits parents to smack children with impunity. Those opposed to the physical punishment of children are campaigning for a change in the law that will prohibit smacking and will, they believe, help to promote a more child-friendly environment. The Church would seem to be equally divided on the issue. Some Christians take the view that the physical punishment of children is sanctioned in Scripture. Others question whether there is a biblical basis for smacking at all. Their view is that the pro-smacking camp relies on selective biblical quotations describing Old Testament practices, taken out of context, and far removed from the model of New Testament Christianity portrayed by Jesus, which is of a shepherd who uses his staff to protect his sheep from predators, not beat them with it. Unfortunately it is not as simple as whether or not a child should ever be smacked. From those who believe it is biblical to smack, there is much deliberation over issues such as whether an implement (eg a wooden spoon) should be used to discipline a child or whether it should be done with the hand. Some believe that because the hand is employed in carrying out many other tasks, including comfort, it should never be used to punish. An implement, they say, offers some detachment from the person inflicting the punishment and avoids wrong messages being sent that will damage the child's self-esteem and security. There are other issues that arise, such as the age appropriateness of smacking and whether it should be parents only who have the right to exercise this form of discipline. To muddy the waters still further, the word "smack" can be interpreted in different ways, including brutal punishment, which the vast majority in the pro-smack lobby find totally unacceptable. As a child protection agency, our priority is preventing children suffering significant harm. We recognise the diversity of views that exist around physical punishment and that for the majority of children the odd smack from a parent is unlikely to result in permanent damage. We also accept that most parents who, on occasions, smack their children are loving, caring and competent. Having said this, we come into regular contact with people who, by definition, have caused significant harm to their children by smacking them, or hitting them with an implement. Potentially abusive situations can be exacerbated through attitudes and teaching within the church. In certain instances we have had to call into question the legitimacy of this teaching, regardless of a church's generally held views, due to serious concerns about the parenting skills of certain church members. It is our experience that the parents who smack the most frequently are those who lack parenting skills in other areas. Punishment is only a small part of good parenting. We see our role as helping to promote better parenting rather than focus exclusively on whether or not it is right to smack a child. The harassed mum doing her weekly shop with her two-year-old toddler throwing a major tantrum in the supermarket aisle does not need a lecture on the rights and wrongs of smacking. She may, however, need help in employing strategies that will ultimately benefit both her and her child. Discipline is undoubtedly vital in advancing the healthy emotional development of a child. Clear boundaries are necessary, and children need to be corrected and guided in the right direction. There needs to be a 'holistic' approach to caring for children, and research demonstrates that rather than occasional physical punishment, it is situations of poor supervision and neglect where children suffer the most harm, particularly where the parent is absent, inattentive to the child's needs or wildly inconsistent. Children seem to respond most positively to parenting that is firm but fair within a context of mutual respect. This does not negate the necessity for parents to be in the driving seat, setting the boundaries and exercising appropriate care and control. There is no doubt, however, that physical chastisement can be extremely harmful. Sadly, it is not unusual to be approached during training seminars by people who grew up in Christian homes and who recount to us their own experiences of being smacked, beaten and bullied as children by authoritarian parents, who sometimes even used the Bible to justify their cruelty. As a child protection agency we would never condone such acts. We also counsel adults struggling with issues from childhood relating to physical punishment meted out by, probably, well-meaning parents. Because of the way they were disciplined they have grown up with distorted images of good parenting, resulting in great spiritual damage, especially with their concept of the Fatherhood of God. There are many ways of disciplining a child without resorting to physical punishment, and parents can be creative and smart in their parenting skills. With regard to strategies for discipline, we would hesitate to be prescriptive or to imply that there is only one way of correctly disciplining a child. The fact is that children are very different and what works for one child may not be effective for another. It is also true that we live in a multi-cultural society and there will inevitably be cultural differences in approaches to childcare. However, in any situation, parents should not automatically resort to physical punishment but exercise restraint, treating the child with fairness and respect even when the sternest of discipline is required. There are many valuable lessons to be learnt from foster carers who are not permitted by law to smack children they are caring for. There are many shining examples of imaginative and effective parenting by foster carers, negating the need to use physical punishment as a means of discipline. Effective parenting is not, and never will be, an exact science. What is put in is not necessarily what will come out. It is as unwise for parents to claim all the credit for a child turning out well adjusted as it is for them to recriminate themselves because a son or daughter insists on going its own precarious way. Each child and young person is unique; their behaviour can be explained (in so far as this is possible) in terms of a complex interaction between their genetic inheritances, the way they are treated, especially by those closest to them, and by the choices they make. A parent's responsibility is to love and care for their child, guide them, appropriately discipline them, and entrust them to God. Christians believe that the ultimate remedy for the human race, including children, is the love and grace of God, demonstrated through Jesus' life and in his death and resurrection. Is it not a sad irony therefore that if, having experienced God's undeserved love, a parent then communicates to its child in such a way, that it absorbs a message that parental approval and acceptance depend solely on good behaviour? This is not to say that children don't need to be taught the difference between right and wrong and it follows that moral development is an integral part of growing up. However, discipline should be restorative in purpose and expressed within the context of unconditional love rather than excessive punishment for misbehaviour. This model of discipline is not out of step with modern psychology which has found that praise and encouragement are much more powerful shapers of behaviour than disapproval and rebuke. It follows, therefore, that it is better to place a greater emphasis on the positives by rewarding good behaviour rather than concentrating on punishing the bad. Bad behaviour should not be ignored because wrong actions need to be challenged, but even with badly behaved children, emphasising the positive has proved to be extremely effective. The debate about smacking has become highly charged and unfortunately has tended to polarise rather than produce a consensus of opinion. There is a danger because of this that some of the more subtle issues become submerged in a sea of polemic that the subject generates. For example, some would blame the increase in classroom disruption solely on a lack of discipline in the home, not taking into account that a child may be struggling to cope with difficult personal circumstances, such as family breakdown. For Christians to allow themselves to be manoeuvred into a situation where they end up self-righteously justifying smacking a child on a point of biblical principle, without considering any of the above arguments, simply serves to confirm common prejudices within society that Christians are anti-children. If this continues, then the positive contribution that Christians could be making in the arena of child-care will be ineffectual, and the credibility of the Church compromised. From a purely pragmatic point of view it is difficult to comprehend that a vociferous minority (mainly Christians) who promote smacking are communicating a positive statement about their attitudes to child-care. This posturing could, for example, seriously inhibit the chances of a Christian couple trying to adopt a child when they have to account for their views on physical punishment to an adoption agency. Neither does it help the cause of long-suffering foster carers seeking to positively challenge the behaviour of a disturbed young person who has a history of abuse and neglect! For the parent who has a problem managing their temper (and there are plenty of those within the Christian community) smacking can become an excuse for the release of their own anger and can escalate into something far worse! If Christians are seen to be arbitrarily supporting the 'right to smack' lobby without considering the bigger picture, there will undoubtedly be consequences for the Church. There is a danger it will become isolated and marginalized, rather than seen to be wholeheartedly embracing the foundational truths of forgiveness and grace and of mercy triumphing over judgement. It will miss the opportunity of making a significant difference to the lives of some of the most vulnerable and needy children and young people in society, a role in which, historically, it has had a significant influence. At the end of the day, the most important issue is not an individual citizen's 'right' to chastise their child in whatever way they consider appropriate, but rather the welfare and safety of those most at risk in society. It is an incontrovertible fact that many children suffer physical abuse at the hands of their parents. For these children and for their struggling parents, there should be, at the very least, a willingness amongst Christians to align themselves with those who are endeavouring to encourage a more gentle and positive approach to the care and discipline of children. Extract taken from Caring magazine winter 2003/4 CCPAS - www.ccpas.co.uk © Christian Family Network is run by CPO, supported by Care for the Family, Marriage Resource, Positive Parenting, Care, Women Alive, Christian Herald and many others.