I'm so glad our work has been a help to you! And YES I so appreciate Sheila's work too. I was delighted to join her and Tia Levings for a conversation a few weeks ago: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-245-the-problems-with-the-excellent-wife/id1448888894?i=1000664715416

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo Oh, awesome! I missed that episode 😅

Great question! As a parent to six children, believe me, I so understand the desire to find alternatives. Offering parenting advice/tips is beyond the scope of this project (& Kelsey’s & my qualifications!), but we are working on a metric that includes green-light suggestions to empower Christian parents to evaluate teachings for themselves. A few of the lights I look for as I evaluate Christian resources: -Are the methods in alignment with the life & teaching of Jesus & what He reveals God to be like? -How are children depicted? Parents? The relationship b/w the two? -Is Scripture used in exegetically responsible ways? -Is there any discussion about child & brain development, sensory processing, neurodivergence, and other relevant areas of research? -Are parents told a Right Way & expected to obey w/out question or are they empowered to see & care for the individual children entrusted to their care? B/c the resources themselves are a kind of fruit of the parenting framework. So…personally speaking as a fellow parent? One Christian resource I recommend to my friends is Connected Families. I appreciate how the CF framework invites parents to process their own history/perspective, applies “one-anothering” principles to parent/child relationships, depicts children respectfully, and weaves in current research on child development, brain science, and neurodivergence to empower parents. connectedfamilies.org

100% It's very troubling.

I have not!

I hear that you had a different experience with this book, and, as you'll note in the description of every video: my critique of a book's content is not to say that there is nothing of merit in any of these resources or that some people didn't benefit or to account for ways individual families might have adapted various teachings. Also linked a video that explains our purpose in examining popular resources - so every popular resource will at some point get scrutiny. But, having now gone slowly chapter by chapter this book, I hold to my critiques as stated. Ginger directly says in her first few pages: "This book was written on the authority of God's Word & the expertise of his counsel." Throughout the book she equates her methods and opinions and interpretations with the authority of God's Word, including normalizing regular and routine corporal punishment (the majority of the "rules" for spanking offered are completely subjective and yet presented as the "right" way to discipline). One thing I am attempting to highlight in this reel is that Ginger closes by encouraging parents to trust God and His leading after having penned multiple chapters where she indicates there is a Right Way to parent according to very specific methodology. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKXXkKB8dtqWrNk

Thank you! So glad you found us! Babywise (and Growing Kids God's Way) were written by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo and remain quite controversial. American Association of Pediatrics came out with statements against Babywise some time ago b/c it was linked with failure to thrive in infants. You probably are aware of all the problems with the recommendations for spacing feeds and how it is problematic for attachment in the early weeks. It also relies on problematic theology that perceives things like a newborn's cry for food as related to sin/disobedience etc. We have not discussed it at length here - maybe we will in the coming months! - but it's worth noting that Gary and Anne Marie brought no relevant credentials to their work. They discuss how they began their parenting ministry and it was essentially them giving advice to other parents. So I think their reach/influence really outpaced their competency, frankly.

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo agree. I still see some people recommending it on youtube and know one woman from mu former church gave it to someone for their babyshower, which I found a bit concerning! I appreciate your discussions of problematic parenting advice!

I'm so glad to hear our work has been a help to you! Worth noting that Powlison is also one of the key thought-leaders in nouthetic/biblical counseling, so you will likely find some of the same framework present there. We have not done a close examination of Charlotte Mason's work! I do know generally speaking she advocated for the personhood of children and treating them respectfully, so I can appreciate that. Curious to hear your thoughts as you read more deeply into her writing.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipbFm6WkmLqZb9k

Oh my goodness. How awful.

Hi there! None of these passages are about "spanking" toddlers and preschoolers. Have a whole playlist on this if you'd like to know more of my thoughts on these particular passages.

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo Discipline is still necessary. Limiting how a parent can discipline their child isn’t helpful. I’m not saying spanking every day is necessary, but you’re coming across very disingenuous about this topic.

You are very welcome!

It's Michael not Ron.

@@melissawalters521 you’re right! I was typing fast and multitasking 😅😂

We discuss Gothard and the Pearls in our book, but we haven't yet examined them here. Once we have our book completed, we hope to do some more deep dives on all the resources. I will say that I typically offer a disclaimer of some kind when critiquing resources, like: these critiques are not to say there is nothing of merit in this book, with a few exceptions. The Pearls' material is one of those exceptions. They have written abuse manuals, one of which has been brought in the courtroom regarding the deaths of three children from three separate families who were killed by their parents. And ofc Gothards materials are coming under more widespread and long-overdue critique - very problematic on many levels and have caused exponential harm, not least because they were SO widespread and influential in the 80s. They really did impact a lot of the people who would go on to write their own resources, too.

I'm glad you found us, too!

Protestants don't hold Sirach to be canonical, and, interestingly for good reason. In many ways it is antithetical to Christian teaching. Also curious why it's acceptable for you to be only metaphorically "spanked" while also receiving natural consequences but for children it's not enough to receive natural consequences - they must be hit as well?

Protestants are rebellious and don’t submit to God’s authority and therefore basically make up their religion as they go along. This is why they added and subtracted from the Bible, and then even now pick and choose what they want to agree with in the Bible. The holy Bible (which includes Sirach) was canonized in 382 AD, counsel of Rome. Then some guy (Martin Luther) with zero authority and a mental disorder 1200 years later in 1517 decided to take out books inconvenient to their personal theology and started their own religion, I.e. Protestant faith. Besides all this, I’m pretty sure the hodge podge Bible you prots read also endorses spanking (proverbs and Ecclesiastes). 😂

Sometimes natural consequences are far more painful or even life threatening. You cannot reason with a toddler, if a toddler is running away from you into the road, the natural consequence is a life threatening accident. How are we to gentle parent through that? The natural consequence of touching a hot stove is a burn, do we as parents allow natural consequences when they can cause more damage and pain than a reprimand? Discipline does not always mean a spanking, in fact discipline is a whole host of other consequences for misbehavior, but to say there is never a time for a spanking is not something realistic. Also using the argument that Sirach shouldn't be considered Biblically canon and thus should not be considered when leaning on the Scriptures for guidance when we parent does not hold any weight. Protestants reject certain books of the Bible based off of one guy- Martin Luther, that rejected books of the Bible that did not fit his belief system, he wanted to take out the book of James too because of the mention of works and faith which did not jive with Luther's idea of "through faith alone". Protestants rejecting books of the Bible that were made canon by the early Church fathers and held to be true for the first 1500 years is heretical to the core.

You are welcome to watch the playlist I have on corporal punishment. "The rod" Proverbs are not about "spanking" small children.

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo the Hebrew word here for child is strong’s 5288: min·na·‘ar. This word means “a boy, a lad, youth.” The word for strike is ṯak·ken·nū. Its only Hebrew definition is “to strike.” The text could not be more clear. You are twisting scripture to avoid biblical teachings that you do not like. The only way to properly read these verses is to strike your child. Not a single Hebrew word in verses 13 and 14 suggests otherwise.

​@@graysonrowe9780Cool but the Bible doesn't say: spank, strike on the buttocks or hand, on the bare bottom, how many times, tell them you love them after, hug them, etc. That's not Biblical. That's made up. Secondly, you gonna follow ALL the advice of the Old Testament? All the things that aren't commanded by God, but were decided by men in an incomplete religion? The Old Covenant wasn't destroyed by Jesus, it was fulfilled, but the Covenant wasn't about striking your youth. It was about salvation. So nobody actually HAS TO hit kids. You can if you want. But then shouldn't you do it exactly how the ancient Hebrews during the time that Bible verse was written, did it? Shouldn't everyone? And if so, why? It's not commanded. It's not even something Jesus taught. God wants us to follow Jesus, who by the way wasn't reported to go around hitting people's disobedient kids. Jesus had boundaries, and followed the laws, and had respect, but he was gentle and taught with truth and love not violence. The one time it seems he was maybe violent, with the whips in the temple, it doesn't even say if he hit people, and he didn't seem to be teaching a lesson but instead was protecting the Temple from being a place where God isn't worshipped. I'm no expert. But I mean did Jesus sound like he promoted violence to be used frequently to teach kids to love God and their neighbor? I see no evidence.

@@kristinathomas5890 Your first paragraph is interesting. It’s not so much a refutation of physical discipline. It reads more like any way of striking a child is ok which I assume you don’t agree with. Either way it evolved to spanking because you have the most protection on your butt. Spanking is a way to make physical discipline less harmful. So yes you’re right, it does not say spank, but strike. Not sure why you made that argument tho? Yes, I try to follow the “advice” (your word not mine) of the Old Testament. Advice is different from commands. And since the Old Testament is the word of God, when it gives advice I will certainly take it. (Assuming we are talking about prescription and not description.) By incomplete religion I assume you mean Old Testament Judaism which was looking toward the coming messiah. The Jews having an “incomplete” religion does not change the fact that “God is THE SAME yesterday and today,” or that his word is not still perfect. Paul tells us that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16. When Paul wrote this there was no New Testament, so what scripture could he be referring too but the Old Testament? I never said you have to spank your kids, just that it is Biblically ok if you choose to do so. How different are you implying striking your kids was in ancient Israel? Either way, if it is advice given from God, yes I would do it how ever way he says. Of course Jesus would not hit “other people’s kids” just like I wouldn’t, I agree with boundaries. I’m not sure where in my comments I even implied you could hit other people’s kids? Did you know that assault can apply to people’s possessions as well, not just their physical bodies? By breaking people’s possessions in the temple and pour out their moneybags, Jesus very well could have been arrested for a violent crime by our laws. Now yes, Jesus was not an American so our laws would not apply to him, but to suggest he was not violent in the temple is quite strange. ““Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10‬:‭34‬ ‭ESV‬‬ This verse seems a little violent… “Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of Lords. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭19‬:‭11‬-‭21‬ ‭ESV‬‬ The rider on the white horse is Jesus. It has become very popular belief that Jesus was some “violence is never the option” hippie. This is simply not true, and a view point one cannot come to from honestly reading the Bible. Also there is a verse where Jesus tells the disciples to sell their belongings to buy a sword. I hope this helps, but to be honest, a lot of your arguments were over things I never even said or suggested

@@kristinathomas5890also my wife pointed out to me. You said Jesus followed the laws… Jesus was always getting in trouble for not following the laws😂 (the Pharisees and Roman laws not the Old Testament laws)

This is a fair point. I sometimes hear from other Christians around the globe who express dismay that this is the norm in America as it's not their experience elsewhere. Then again, I also hear from others that CP is part of their culture as well. I do think some of this has been exported via American Christianity - many of these parenting "experts" had - or have! - global ministries. Definitely agree that there is zero awareness of child development. Whew!

This is awful. I'm so very sorry. Was this in the US?

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo It's been many years since that time yet it's a memorable experience to say the least . And it was in Indiana ,USA as I attended both Catholic and public schools .

@@jamess.2717 ooof, I'm sorry.

Honestly I reflected on my own childhood and realised it was not the punishment that made me change, but a realisation that I was wrong and from there feeling sorry for jt (repentance). For example if I was punished and I didn't think it was deserved or I'd done anything wrong, I wouldn't change my behavior (I might change where that behavior occurred e.g hide it) but at my core the change wouldn't have happened so perhaps at the surface it looked effective but it wasn't. Thankfully my parents were often very good at explaining the why of what they required from me and I was not asked to blindly obey (and they rarely used physical punishment and not after age of maybe 6/7). Anyways it's this insight that has made me (no children yet) already decide I don't want to use physical punishments on my child, simply because I don't think at the core they address the issue (again don't have kids yet so I hope this remains my position, I don't pretend to know everything though). Will there be consequences for actions- of course, that's how life works but IMO leading a child to understand/repent first is key no matter the discipline style.

I hear that you had a different experience with this book, and, as you'll note in the description of every video: my critique of a book's content is not to say that there is nothing of merit in any of these resources or that some people didn't benefit or to account for ways individual families might have adapted various teachings. Also linked a video that explains our purpose in examining popular resources - so every popular resource will at some point get scrutiny. But, having now gone slowly chapter by chapter this book, I hold to my critiques as stated. Ginger directly says in her first few pages: "This book was written on the authority of God's Word & the expertise of his counsel." Throughout the book she equates her methods and opinions and interpretations with the authority of God's Word, including normalizing regular and routine corporal punishment (the majority of the "rules" for spanking offered are completely subjective and yet presented as the "right" way to discipline). One thing I am attempting to highlight in this reel is that Ginger closes by encouraging parents to trust God and His leading after having penned multiple chapters where she indicates there is a Right Way to parent according to very specific methodology. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKXXkKB8dtqWrNk

Yes! You have made some excellent points here, and I love your description of setting out to examine the Scriptures for yourself and adjust accordingly. 100% agree that similar dynamics are at play in Christian marriage resources.

100% It also teaches them under certain circumstances it's okay for an adult to hurt their bodies & they are required to show affection afterward and reconcile. Super problematic.

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo my grandma did this when I was little. And I can’t describe how gross it always made me feel

@@bobitboo2792 I am so very sorry.

Great question! As a parent to six children, believe me, I so understand the desire to find alternatives. Offering parenting advice/tips is beyond the scope of this project (& Kelsey’s & my qualifications!), but we are working on a metric that includes green-light suggestions to empower Christian parents to evaluate teachings for themselves. A few of the 🟢 lights I look for as I evaluate Christian resources: -Are the methods in alignment with the life & teaching of Jesus & what He reveals God to be like? -How are children depicted? Parents? The relationship b/w the two? -Is Scripture used in exegetically responsible ways? -Is there any discussion about child & brain development, sensory processing, neurodivergence, and other relevant areas of research? -Are parents told a Right Way & expected to obey w/out question or are they empowered to see & care for the individual children entrusted to their care? B/c the resources themselves are a kind of fruit of the parenting framework. So…personally speaking as a fellow parent? One Christian resource I recommend to my friends is Connected Families. I appreciate how the CF framework invites parents to process their own history/perspective, applies “one-anothering” principles to parent/child relationships, depicts children respectfully, and weaves in current research on child development, brain science, and neurodivergence to empower parents. connectedfamilies.org

Kimmel Grace based parenting

Really wise.

A question I find myself asking *a lot* when I read these resources. Also, if the Bible is "clear" on God's Way to parent, why do we need a whole book to help us understand it? 🫠

I'm so sorry this was a piece of your experience. And YES! I love hearing about this from shepherds. And I love this imagery of laying a hand on a child's shoulder. YES. Guidance and direction - not weapon. So many shepherds speak about how care-ful and attentive they must be to sheep. The using the rod and crook to nudge a sheep back on the path, to rescue from danger, or even - as Jesus speaks about - to call the sheep by name. The only thing being beaten with a shepherds' tools would be the enemies coming after the vulnerable sheep!

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo Thanks, it is part of this fallen world. My dad learned to be that way because he had even worse experiences. Yes! Beating the wolves off too!

That is exactly what I was taught - "to spare the rod" is to deny your child guidance, not to reject violence. After all, the bible also says "fathers, do not provoke your children to anger" and also "whoever causes grief to these little ones would be better off to be thrown into the sea with a millstone fastened to his feet". (Cited from memory)

I'm so sorry...I've had the same experience with my dad and have struggled with it so much. I love your thoughts about the rod being used to guide and direct... I think you have a great perspective 👌

This comment names so much. YES! The expectations we have for children are often to operate beyond adult capacities! Obey instantly, cheerfully, without question, never show a bad attitude, etc. etc. I haven't heard of Parenting Toward the Kingdom but will check it out. The drumbeat of discipline (spanking) and compliance in SO many resources has really betrayed so many families. As a parent, I've really appreciated the Connected Families framework.

Thanks so much for engaging so thoughtfully. A couple of thoughts. 1. I agree with you in that I don't think the Bible either requires or forbids the corporal punishment of small children. So my first and primary goal is always to help parents see they are not required to spank (SO many resources tell them they must or that it's somehow more godly to do so). This frees people up to be fully informed about the choice - and I do think CP is a choice - to spank. They can thus consider research - as flawed as it is given compounding/mitigating factors, self-reported data, varying memory recollections, etc. Even in the example you use, it is very different to speak conclusively on the experience of a 2-4 year old. There are ethical concerns with involving children in studies so we must rely on self-reporting (parents are unreliable reporters for multiple reasons whatever their intentions) and memory (which can vary widely even in the same family.) That being said, it's still a data point, and the meta-analyses of research over the past 50+ years (Dr. Gershoff's work on this is excellent) is that spanking is at best neutral - it's not particularly effective, esp in teaching proper behavior, and it does cause adverse experiences in children - increased misbehavior or trauma responses. Christian parents who choose to do this must take the gamble that they cannot say for sure whether their child may grow up to be an adult who says: "I was spanked & I turned out fine" or "I experienced grooming for further abuse, unwanted sexual arousal and later dysfunction, patterns of self-harm, etc." that other adults name. B/c that is another data point we have: the experiences of adults naming how they were impacted. So these are all things for parents to consider, and I suggest that it's quite the gamble given that it's not particularly effective. Spanking may appear to "work" on young children who are relatively compliant, but would they have learned to comply via another means? Probably. And for "strong-willed" children, spankings aren't very effective either - they just end up getting spanked all the more. 2. Which leads me to the fact that spanking very young children often comes along with incomplete or inaccurate information about child development. So parents who "spank" for a tantrum or something may discover that a tantrum is a developmentally appropriate response that a child - to a large degree - outgrows as they learn other skills and self-control. Does spanking further that development? Does it equip parents with more of a toolbox? I'm not so sure. I think sometimes it short-circuis the difficult work of staying connected in parenting. It also prevents *parents* from growing in the fruit of the Spirit: patience, compassion, forbearance, etc. I mentioned the age-development here b/c you referenced spanking being beneficial for younger children. I will look into Larzelere's work, but I am skeptical re: those kind of conclusive claims, because individual experience varies so widely. 3. As a Christian, I find the argument that "society has always done it" to be the least compelling of all your points. Yes, we have records of adults beating children all the way back to ancient Egypt, but are we not called to a different way? The way of Jesus is not eye for an eye, it is not repayment of what is due...it is not being unmerciful servants I think the argument from silence "why wouldn't God tell them not to?" is also not very helpful as there are very difficult things to consider re: the violence of the ANE in the OT texts. In many ways Jesus upended the way society has always done this. In that sense, I think Paul's household codes are rather remarkable - that he even included the well being of a child is anachronistic. I do think a thin case can be made that the NT church operated via nonviolence based on the difference between Paul being beaten by the synagogues and the NT church instead opting for excommunication. I would maybe include it as a very light pencil mark to suggest that the fledgling church perhaps was trying different methods. 4. Finally, I think that our idea that discipline or consequences equals spanking is a very small view of the biblical concept of discipline. I am vary wary of lines of thinking that place parents in the role of God. Nowhere are we told to do this as parents, but it such an easy leap for people to do. That is the way of Empire and power and Greatest in the Kingdom and not the way of Jesus, whose leadership was to serve. In that sense, I do not think we need to engineer painful circumstances for our children in this fallen and sin-riven world. They will experience those things. We have an opportunity to model the safe love of the Father for them in that kind of sorrow and pain. Which I think is such a remarkable privilege, and I think some of these teachings rob families of the attachment and connection they could have in that. Anyway, so I reject the idea that b/c a Holy God acted in X, Y, or Z manner with Egypt or Israel or anyone that means that we as fallen human beings should take up the authority to attempt to do the same. If nothing else, I would think our ideas about original sin would sober us to question our own judgment. Anyway, I"m rambling now - not sure I fully responded to your points, but I appreciate the dialogue here. Thanks!

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo I enjoy this dialogue and appreciate your being level-headed, kind, and honest. 1. I'm not so sure the research over the past 50+ years concludes that spanking is at best neutral. And thus that parents are gambling. I was under the impression that it was inconclusive, meaning not even the conclusion that it is neutral is sustained. In any case, there are some serious limitations to the research. As just one example - the research is merely recording the current practices of spanking, irrespective of whether it is being practiced well or with malice, with pure motives or evil. If the majority of those practicing spanking were comitting malpractice, it would skew the data towards the conclusion that spanking in general is bad, when however the true conclusion would be that spanking in malpractice is bad. And I think, unfortunately, a majority of the homes where spanking is used today, it is likely used in malpractice. I would want some more reliable and compelling data before making a definite conclusion that we should not spank. More heliocentric certainty, less red wine is good for you this year but bad next. 2. Your point is well-received. I put this under the category of spanking malpractice. My wife and I have learned that tantrums are developmentally normal and do not physically punish for them. They are not little vipers in diapers like many Reformed theologians like to joke about. Yet, when our son hits his mother with malice, he needs to learn that this is not acceptable behavior at the highest level. In line with my first point, whether you spank or not, one will inevitably cause some sort of pain to come upon their child when administering correction. We are really at this point then arguing for inflicting different types of pain. 3. It appears I came across making the old argument that "humans have always done it so we should too". An argument like that is clearly logically fallacious, agreed. But that was not my argument. Here's a deductive version of my actual argument: P1. Ancient Jews spanked their children P2. If spanking was a sin, God would have commanded them at some point not to spank. Likewise, if spanking was permissible by God, he would not command them to stop. P3. God never commands the ancient Jews to stop spanking their children C: Therefore, spanking is not only not a sin, but seems permissible by God Add to this the fact that God gives them Scripture which could easily be misunderstood to command spanking. 4. I think in general, trying to act more in line with God's moral nature is a good thing. That is why scripture many times over calls Christians to become more like him. Whether that be to judge more fairly like him, love more passionately like him, protect the weak better like him, or disciplining your children like him. To be more like God is a scriptural mandate. I am an adherent to what is called divine command theory. That is, that the basis for our moral obligations comes from God's commands. And God's commands come from his own moral nature (who he is). It becomes very difficult to say "God can morally do X but we should not morally do X". Because if our moral obligations are based in God's own nature, then the two will never be in disagreement. What God does reflects his nature - the very nature we should strive to be more like. Take for example even something like killing. Is it ok for God to kill but not us? No - God actually commanded the Israelites to kill several times. Or judging sinners - is it ok for God to judge and sentence sinners but not us? No -God appoints a human institution (government) to act on his behalf and bring about punishment. Or being angry - is it ok for God to be angry, but not us? No - having righteous anger is implied in scripture. Unrighteous anger, God does not have and neither should we. I'm all ears though if you can think of things that are morally wrong for us to do but are morally right for God to do. I'm not advocating engineering pain, but inflicting pain for a good purpose just as God does. I'm going to assume you've said "no" to your children before and they cried as a result. If so, you have inflicted emotional pain on them for a good purpose, just like your heavenly Father does with you. You are reflecting your God by saying "no" when you know it will cause pain for your child. If you truly did not want to inflict ANY pain on your children, you would always give into their demands and say "yes". But we know that would be unloving to your child. Again, proper discipline (physical or emotional) comes from a heart of love. We can both model good behavior and correct bad behavior. The two are not mutually exclusive. God as our example, does just this.

@@343jonny Thanks! Me too! I appreciate the tenor of your comments here. 1. Absolutely agree that research is limited and inconclusive. It is impossible to attain peer-reviewed research because of limitations you've named and obvious ethical concerns. But that cuts both ways. There is not conclusive data to show that spanking always causes harm; neither is there data to show it causes benefit. And malpractice is inevitably subjectively defined. According to what metric? We can probably both identify egregious abuses, but what about the impact on an individual child? That can vary widely by child? Is it measured by parental intent? Bruising? Internalization? How can we possibly quantify these things? I just think even setting aside whether it's appropriate for a Christian parent, it's just not a particularly effective tool. There are other ethical ways to discipline and correct that don't take this gamble. 2. I think correction is very much in alignment with wise parenting and accords with the principles of the Proverbs as well as bringing children up in the instruction of the Lord. I do think there are many ways to employ consequences as deterrents as well as reasoning with a child or engaging with a child's natural desire to please a parent. Many children may, for instance, tantrum and hit a parent and then experience shame and fear. That is a kind of consequence in itself. I think it's worth asking why when we pull from biblical instances of God's action that we pull from the punitive ones and not the merciful ones, like the Prodigal Father permitting his son without consequence to take his inheritance and leave - a natural consequence and not at the hand of his father - or merely a verbal correction for the older son. I am not sure that we always must reach for pain or punitive measures, especially as we ourselves are recipients of our Father's great mercy. In this, I worry that we end up operating as Unmerciful Servants, demanding recompense from those entrusted to our care while rejoicing in the mercy we've received. 3. I still can't get there with you on this, because I don't think Ancient Jews were infallible. I also don't know enough about the practices or authority sources or ethical mores of ancient Jews to know that our 66 books are representative of everything they would've operated by. For instance, there is a passage in Sirach 30 that essentially presents a son as an extension of the father or property of the father. This is not included in the Christian canon, and I don't think we are obligated to say that because it has Jewish precedent it is unchallengeable. I also have difficulty with this point, because there are other things in the Old Testament that I would suggest are, as one of my favorite OT scholars says, "theologically orthodox but out of alignment with the dispensation of the Spirit of Christ." We do not operate with eye for an eye. We turn the other cheek. We do not dash babies on rocks or destroy entire cities and plunder our enemies. We love them. 4. I am with you as far as I do think God defines truth, goodness, morality. I diverge in that all of this requires interpretive work that, at best, may be incomplete (whatever our intentions) and at worst may be in error or a misinterpretation. This makes me think of the prophet Jonah who knew what God is like and is so angry that instead of being judgmental he is merciful. Or of James and John who imagine Jesus would want them to call down fire. Or of Saul who was so zealous for God that he persecuted others. I am not saying this is the same as opting to punish in God's stead, but they all carry a similar flavor for me. We can have our ethics and morality formed by all of Scripture, but when God wanted to show us what He was like, He gave us Jesus. When we see Him, we see the Father. And I don't see Jesus interested in punishing or meting out consequences, and certainly not with children. That doesn't mean we opt for negligent or permissive parenting, I just don't think a case can be made that because we perceive God to have offered some kind of painful punishment, therefore that should be our go-to. I don't see a through-line there. In the end, my goal is simple. The work Kelsey and I are doing is not to set out to offer parenting advice or anything of that nature. We are tracing the history and development of popular Christian parenting ideas, and one thing we see over and over and over again, is the primacy given to "spanking" small children on very flimsy grounds. We also hear countless stories of harm and abuse as a result of this. This is why we consistently will encourage Christian parents to stop spanking their children.

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo 2. I don't think we can say that the Prodigal father knew his son would squander the inheritance. Had he known, being a good parent, I doubt he would have permitted it. It goes too far then to say the father was permitting his son to waste his inheritance to realize the natural consequence. No doubt, I agree that as parents we should mirror God's justice AND his mercy. Many times not giving our children the correction they deserve. It is still however undeniable that God's justice is most often punitive and that he still frequently uses physical consequences, even on his own. 3. The argument I gave was a deductive logical argument. The conclusion follows logically and inescapably from the premises. Therefore, the only way to deny the conclusion is to disprove one of the premises. Respectfully, I did not hear your response attempt to deny a premise: a. None of the argument's premises involves the fallibility or infallibility of the Jews. So that contention is a red herring. b. The Sirach passage is not aimed at any of the premises either. c. The reply that eye-for-eye is not still true today also does not attempt to refute one of the premises. Unless I'm missing something, I haven't heard any reasons to think any of the premises are false, so the argument still stands. As a side, since I think this is a common misconception, it is not accurate that Christ's teaching of turning the other cheek negated the old testament law of eye-for-eye. The purpose of Jesus' sermon on the mount wasn't to nullify the Mosaic Law but rather to temper it. Thus, eye-for-eye AND turning the cheek are still true today. You can find this same truism for each of the moral teachings of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. OLD LAW NEW LAW - Do not murder - Do not be angry (both are true today) - Do not commit adultery - Do not lust (both are true today) - Divorce paperwork - Do not Divorce (both are true today) - Do not swear falsely - Do not swear on God (both are true today) - Get an eye for an eye - Turn the other cheek (both are true today) - Love neighbor, hate enemy - Love enemy (both are true today) 4. No doubt we can allow our pride to blind us and use God's will as a weapon. I'm not contesting that. However fallible we are, the fact we are susceptible to pride should not stop us from trying to act in God's will. What needs to happen is we need to kill the pride. The pride is the issue, not trying to act in the will of God. James and John were not wrong for wanting to do justice by calling down fire. On the contrary, the OT law (still in effect at that time) demanded stoning of anyone who blasphemed God. It was their hearts that were in the wrong place. They were not acting like God "desiring that none should perish, but that all will live" - they were blood thirsty. The same thing you will find true in the Jonah and Saul stories. Jesus not punishing or meting out consequences? What of the Great White Throne Judgement? Where Christ hands out consequences to all based on what they have done (Rev 20)? Notably, all of those who reject Christ are thrown, by Christ, into the lake of fire. The clear teaching seems to be that Jesus metes out consequences at the highest degree.

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo After looking a bit more into Ephesians 6:4, I will add that the Greek word, παιδείᾳ, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, means a wholistic training and education of children. To include the use of commands, admonitions, reproof, and punishment. He notes that in Greek writings from Aeschylus on, it included the care and training (discipline) of the body. Thus it would be reasonable to assume Paul intends here to be advocating for the discipline of the body. Further, in Hebrews 12:9, Paul seems permissive of the physical discipline of children as it is implied in his statement. "Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?" The word "discipline" in this text meaning "to chastise with blows; scourge". With this in mind, I feel the need to retract my earlier agreement that the Bible does not teach spanking. However, I would still agree with you on the Proverbs references. Do you have any thought on this lexicon of the Greek?

Your experiences and your opinion on their impact are neither godly nor right. "very positive impact on some kids" I take as a dog whistle to say a child was beaten into submission. Your (metaphorical) scars are too old now to see the edges of where they end and you begin, so you have to believe hitting kids is ok lest you imagine yourself without the marks that remain.

Thanks! I have a playlist explaining why I don't think corporal punishment is a particularly biblical or beneficial choice for Christian families. However, here, I'd like to address your point that makes a utilitarian case for spanking - that it had a positive impact on some children. I'm not sure ends-justifies-the-means is the best ethical choice for parents, but even setting that aside, there is no way to determine which children will grow up to say "I was spanked and turned out fine" and which will grow up to name all manner of harms. When Christian parenting resources erroneously tell parents it's God's Way and promise benefits, they mislead them. Parents are taking a huge gamble on a not very effective method. Separate from that, I am aware that it's common practice in some circles for parents to permit others to spank their children (babysitters, other adults, elder siblings). I say "no!" to that in the video because I think that's an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible choice. Not only does it leave children vulnerable to abuse it teaches them that other adults may hurt their bodies in private for spiritual reasons.

I mean, the Proverbs as a whole were written to young men with the intent of them cultivating wisdom. I don't think they were ever intended to be prescriptive, certainly not in th sense that the young men once they had children would consult them and think: "the rod" or something the way we think of self-help. They are attempting to say something about filial responsibility and reciprocal family relationships. The word for "son" has a wide range of meaning, but least likeliest would be small child. In fact, given the laws re: stoning rebellious young adult sons, I think this is much more likely if someone was to take a literal interpretation. The reality, though, is I don't think a literal interpretation makes sense regarding Proverbs in general. They are not direct mandates, they are not meant to be commands any more than Ecclesiastes is. They are meant to cultivate wisdom in the reader. What does it mean to "discipline," biblically speaking? What does it mean to be a wise parent? A negligent one? Which do you want to be? etc. etc. It's not a how-to manual. This is why I like to compare with the Proverbs about putting a knife to one's throat if given to gluttony or handing out strong drink to the perishing. We simply don't read those as commands but as cautions re: gluttony and commentary on sorrow. So why read "the rod" verses to be about "spanking" young children? I think the most sensical interpretation is that these Proverbs speak to ways wise parents are careful to discipline (which biblically speaking includes correction, training, rebuke, instruction) and negligent parents don't do this. The heart of this is about being engaged and intentional and not abandoning your children. One curious thing to me about literal interpretations, though, is that a truly consistent literal interp would mean daughters do not get "the rod" but only sons. I have never heard such a case made by those who insist these are about spanking.

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo I see your point of cautioning literal interpretation of a book of wisdom that clearly uses metaphor (like wisdom being referred to as a woman) to convey general guidance on how to live uprightly. I guess the alternative "danger" would be too loosely interpreting examples of wisdom... For example, if Prov. 23:13-14 is not referring to an actual painful discipline, what is it referring to? It's more clearly referring to a child (gender not specified) than our previous example, but are we to not take that literally also? Prov. 29:15 also specifies which tool is helpful in reproving a child (the rod), but are we to only take away the general advice of reproving and discount the rod? I admit that I haven't listened to the remaining three parts of your review, so I apologize if you've already covered some of these. I admire your diligence in critically analyzing these books and sharing your thoughts!

@@inthewaytheyshouldgo no given the laws on stoning… it is much more likely that this refers to small children. Let me rephrase the proverb: would you rather: spank your small child or watch the same child (much older now) be stoned to death by others? If those are your only options which is more loving? If you discipline your child you spare them the discipline of others. There is a difference between discipline out of love and discipline out of revenge. What you just read is the person explaining that difference. If you are doing it to prevent something worse in the future ok 👌 but if you are doing it because you are angry not ok 👎. But you should know… A child becomes what they are taught or lack thereof. You teach them discipline they will learn self-discipline in the future. Also, Teenagers / Young Adults very hard to teach new tricks - they are at the age where, they think, they know it all, or can figure it out alone. Not at all an age group that is open to new learning.

​@@stephaniemoxley9595 This is a good question! I think one clue that vs. 13 is not meant to be taken literally is that it promises that an action a parent takes can "save his soul from Sheol." What does this mean? Can a spanking prevent a son from Sheol? From death ? I don't think so. I think the heart of this Proverb is that wise discipline will help a child choose a wise, godly path. In the same way that we are meant to glean a sense of rescue from the Sheol bit, I think we are meant to glean a sense of wise guidance from "the rod" bit. I also think the point of this Proverb is not *method* The primary imperative is "don't withhold discipline" - that is the key to it I think (not whether you use a rod to ensure a magical result - not saying you are suggesting this, just that if we parse out a suggestion that this means spanking that's essentially what we are doing) I certainly think the concept of biblical correction and discipline are evident in these Proverbs; indeed I think that is what the rod indicates. Again, we intuitively interpret many of the other Proverbs (we don't put knives to our throats if we eat too much, we don't beat fools with rods, etc.) Why is it that when we read these Proverbs we believe we must apply them in a very literal way as a direct instruction? The Proverbs are not the direct instructions given to Parents - Col 3:21 and Eph 6:4 are - the only two in fact. Separate from all of that, though, I think we must constantly keep in mind the genre of *wisdom literature*. Proverbs are intended to help us cultivate wisdom, not intended to give us a checklist. As Christians, we must constantly compare any wisdom we seek to glean with Jesus, who shows us what God is like, teaches us to love our neighbor, even our littlest ones. I'm not saying that rules out spanking, but I do think we should be cautious in placing undue weight on the Proverbs. Instead we must read them along with the whole Bible and through the lens of Jesus as our hermeneutic. Thanks for the conversation!

​@@Lynda640 Spanking or stoning are not the only options any more than "spanking" is the only form of discipline, correction or instruction available to parents. Not spanking children doesn't mean not disciplining them. This is a false binary and reveals how impoverished we've left Christian parents. Is spanking the only tool in our toolbox? And if so, why? I don't agree with your premise, but even if I did, we do not live in a society where people are stoned. As Christians, we also believe that the Holy Spirit convicts the heart of sin and transforms and sanctifies people. That doesn't mean parents don't have a job to do, but it does mean that this idea that it's up to a parent to form a child in a certain way is not a particularly Christian idea.

You are most welcome!