Christianity, fundamentalism, Spanking, and what constitutes child abuse In his article, conservative Protestantism and corporal punishment of children, in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (JSSR), Ellison (2001) addresses the question of conservative Protestants and spanking. One point he repeats almost ad nauseam, is that these conservative religious adherents are much more likely than the general public to support corporal punishment of children. A second theme revisited several times, is that this is not necessarily reasonable to call this type of abusive behavior.
I must say straight away that this is not a subject without passion with me. I am a professor of education and a graduate seminar, a chaplain trained, and a minister. Also, my track background the way if the Jesus movement, which attracted many "refugees" from the hippie era "of the late 60s and early 70s. As a Jesus Freak, I was firmly fixed in the middle fundamentalist movement which Jesus grew up. When I married my beloved Jesus freak in the mid 70s, we began working on a family. When the children came, we followed the teachings of the Christian fundamentalist "gurus" and have been very strict with our children. I saw much the same in the associations of Notre-all young adults with children, all tow the line with regard to child discipline. I have no doubt that what I saw and was quickly accepted bordered on abuse of what was one of the reasons I repudiate fundamentalism when my son was quite small.
My concern, in simple terms, with children whose parents might consider placing them in daycare to a fundamentalist church or school, or people who read books by Christian psychologists conservative pro-family "providing guidance" on education of children. I hope to show that fundamentalism naturally places children in danger and naturally tends to unfairness.
In time, I will address the question of whether "spanking" encouraged by the fundamentalist Christian leaders amounts or led to abuses and therefore if it is wise for a parent to turn to the teachers for teaching children's education, or to entrust the care of their children at daycare and fundamentalist schools. First, however, it may be instructive to examine precisely why parents under the spell of fundamentalist guardians may adopt a program of corporal punishment. There are four main reasons given in the literature.
Firstly, there is the issue of biblical inerrancy. Fundamentalists believe and teach that the Bible is entirely without error on a subject about which he speaks. It is the "court appeal." Second, fundamentalist writers, teachers, and preachers are well armed with many biblical texts provide evidence that "spare the rod" is not the best approach. Third, the extreme fundamentalist authoritarian state, dominated by men, and hierarchical view of family life. Finally, the fundamentalist view of mankind is such that humans are considered a sin and hell-bound by nature. This rebellion must be addressed. The best way to save her child from hell is to "beat the hell out of him."
In "Spare the rod Greven: the religious roots of punishment and the psychological impact of physical violence (1991) the idea of using physical violence to" break the child will "is explored. It is the parental responsibility to break the will so that the child will comply with the wishes of parents, learning what obedience to God. How much force should be applied? Commentators most fundamentalist state that the parent must remain relatively impassive and turn an ear to the protests of the clever child. The child should be beaten repeatedly until he / she starts crying profusely, because it indicates a broken will the goal of removing the child first.
Greven demonstrated by anecdotal evidence as well.
Posted on January 17, 2010.
