Morality
Can We Have an Intelligent Debate About Corporal Punishment?
Fox News got it wrong–and that’s not a good sign.
Last Friday night, Sean Hannity anchored a newscast of experts to debate the Adrian Peterson child abuse situation. Peterson–a star running back for the Minnesota Vikings–was indicted for beating his four year old child with a switch that left welts, cuts, and bleeding that were still visible four days after the incident.
His case is one of a string of domestic violence problems that are currently rocking the NFL.
As to Peterson’s child abuse, most of the Sean Hannity Show participants ascribed to the notion that all corporal punishment is wrong. Others, like Sean, said that because some people in the South were raised that way, do we really want to put people in jail for punishing their kids?
I was frustrated as I watched.
Can we have an intelligent national debate about corporal punishment?
We better–or we will miss the wisdom of God and hurt our children and society.
Usually Fox News is pretty good about elevating the biblical worldview when it comes to public policy. Fox is not run by evangelicals, but it has strong Catholic roots with a clear conservative bent. Conservative views, in the main, are the Bible applied to social, economic, and national security issues. On the other hand, liberal politics generally follow more humanistic or secular values and mores.
Fox News is the most watched cable news station in America because it resonates with the majority of Americans who are either traditional, conservative, Bible-believing, common-sense people–or a mixture of the above.
But Fox whiffed Friday on corporal punishment.
The gallery of experts that Sean Hannity called together to talk about this issue seemed to be clearly divided to the extremes.
The majority of them were against any form of corporal punishment. They believed in “talking” to young children, giving them “time-outs,” or as Sean said, “taking away their machines as punishment.” (Actually, only teenagers should have their own I-Pads and cell phones, so this really doesn’t apply to smaller children.)
On the other hand, the minority felt that it was okay to punish kids as some people do in the Southern states or who have been raised in a Christian environment.
But no one clearly articulated the wisdom of biblical corporal punishment and how it should be done.
Even the Fox News Poll that drove the debate asked the wrong question. Here’s the wording: Do you believe it is wrong for parents to strike their children?”
68% said yes. 28% said no.
(The undecided were high on marijuana in Colorado or Washington State–just kidding.)
Notice the word strike–which almost sounds like a right-cross to the forehead. Other panelists used the word “hit” or “punish” as in “inflict a lot of damage.”
If we’re talking about striking, hitting, or shellacking a small, defenseless kid, then put me on the side of the no corporal punishment crowd. I never did any of those things to my six children when they were little. That would have been wrong.
The Bible, which is the basis on our common laws in America, puts this activity in the category of a crime which we call domestic battery or assault. People can’t get away with striking, hitting, or beating anybody that leaves severe damage or pain.
Especially vulnerable children.
Of course, normal life has always tolerated the school ground fight, the heated argument, or even the jealous wrestling match between two adversaries.
But when mundane human depravity turns to violence–striking and hitting that causes severe physical damage and pain–then the law brings in consequences to protect the vulnerable and innocent.
If Adrian Peterson beat his four-year-old child the way the pictures portray, then he needs to go to jail.
Period.
But he said he was just punishing his son with a switch like he learned from his own father. If Adrian Peterson’s father used a piece of wood to bloody and bruise little Adrian, they he should have gone to jail.
Period.
But there is another way–a better way–that the Bible clearly teaches is the best way to raise children.
In the modern vernacular, we call it loving discipline or spanking. Spanking is not striking, hitting, beating, or mutilating to cause severe damage. It is the loving and controlled use of a neutral object to cause fear of disobedience and respect for God-given authority.
There are numerous books on this subject that are based on the biblical wisdom. My favorite title is Larry Tomzcak’s God, the Rod, and Your Child’s Bod. Like many others, it lays out the principles of how we should correct or discipline our young children for their good.
Let me share the principles, then give you an example from my own experience.
Principles of Spanking (Loving Discipline)
1. It is only to be done on younger children who think concretely and don’t have the ability to understand abstract concepts. It is never to be used on older children or teenagers because they can be reasoned with and understand the importance of consequences.
2. It is never to be done in anger. Never. If you’re angry with your child for what they’re doing, then you need to settle down first before you represent God to them by bringing loving discipline.
3. Never use one of your own body parts (a hand or foot) as the tool of punishment. Use a neutral object so that the chastened child will associate the punishment with something separate from you. The Bible calls this a “rod.”
4. Never spank or discipline in a public place. If the child is defiant or acting up, take them from the room or public area and do the correction in private. Spankings should never humiliate the child in front of others.
5. Talk to the child so that they know what they are being punished for. Do it soberly and clearly showing your grief over their continued disobedience which has led to this moment.
6. Don’t spank often–only when there is defiance or continued disobedience. I only spanked my six kids a few times in their lives. After the first couple of disciplines, they learned quickly to respect my authority and avoid punishment.
7. Spank them primarily on their “bottoms” where God has provided ample fat cells and padding. Make it sting or hurt, but never enough to break the skin, bring welts, or cause bleeding. That would be assault and battery. Two or three swats is sufficient to place the fear of God and you in them.
8. After you finish spanking them, hold them in your arms to show your love and protection over their precious lives. Talk to them about how wrong it is to disobey and how you loved them enough to do something you hate to teach them to obey God-given authority.
9. Help dry their tears and send them on their way with a great lesson learned.
That is biblical corporal punishment. It’s what the all-wise God knows that we human beings need. It will help us grow to respect authority, have a healthy fear of sinful behavior, and desire the rewards of obedience. Those lessons will help us live a wise and successful life. (Biblical Basis: Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:14, 29:15, Ephesians 6:4, and Hebrews 12:6-7.)
Now here’s my story.
Our four year-old David was refusing to share his toys with his twin sister. I asked him on a number of occasions to share and play well with her. Instead, he defied me, kept grabbing them from her, and generally was being a small bully.
I finally said, “David, stop doing that and be nice to Bethany.” He turned to me in a look of defiance and said, “No!”
In three seconds, he knew he was in trouble.
I got up out of my chair and started moving toward the kitchen. In a special drawer there was a wooden spoon with a hole in it that everyone knew was the Boehme “rod.” (In later years we duct taped it and it became a famous family heirloom and source of many “wisdom-learning” memories.)
As I approached David with the spoon in my hand, his eyes got as big as saucers and he began to try and extract himself from his doom. “I’m sorry–I’m sorry,” he yelled to all in the room that would hear.
Unmoved, I picked him up with one arm while holding the spoon in the other. We then disappeared upstairs where the lesson would occur.
Sitting him down on his bed, with the door closed, I shared with David both what I was about to do and why I was doing it. The words went something like this:
“David, I love you very much. And because of that love I am going to spank you for being mean to your sister and not obeying me. I want you to learn to treat others properly and to learn to obey your parents. What I’m about to do will hurt me more than you.”
I then pulled David’s pants down to his knees and laid him face down across my lap. Using the wooden spoon, I gave him three quick swats on his behind with enough force to make it sting. David began to cry, and the spanking was over quickly.
Pulling his pants back up, and cradling him in my arms, I held David close and told him that I loved him enough to do something I hate doing to teach him the importance of obedience. I then prayed for him as he cuddled on my shoulder. After talking some more, and drying his tears, I took him back downstairs and he returned to playing.
He rarely disobeyed me again. Neither did any of the others. I was teaching my children through the loving use of discipline to fear punishment, learn to do what’s right, and respect authority.
Those are big lessons in a fallen world, and when we don’t teach them well, our kids grow up to be careless, rebellious, unloving, disrespectful, and unwise.
Can these lessons be learned through other means?
Sometimes.
But not with every kid. Some need tough love at an early age to learn that life is not about them–it’s about obeying God and others who are important in our lives.
I wish Fox News had laid out the case for wise, biblical discipline. It isn’t no to all corporal punishment or yes to child beating.
It’s the loving use of discipline for the good of our precious children.
Why Our Government Doesn’t Work Anymore
Have you noticed that the United States government doesn’t work anymore?
Our deficits are out of control, nearing 18 trillion and counting. Nobody seems able or willing to take on the debt or do anything about changing the tax code. At the same time, the economy is stuck in the doldrums with a jobless recovery.
The immigration system is broken–with “children,” mind you–crossing the border and overwhelming the border patrol.
Our foreign policy is in shambles with Iraq falling to jihadist butchers while America’s strength and credibility are being questioned everywhere.
All the while, our national leaders seem weak, paralyzed, grid-locked, with no Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan in sight.
Why doesn’t the US government, once the envy of the world, seem to work anymore?
We must begin by admitting that, with all the faults of the present time, our government it is still far better than most forms that have existed in history. For most of the past five thousand years, nations were been ruled by tyrants who were chieftains, war-lords, dictators or egotistical kings.
In the ancient past, and even as recent as the Middle Ages, freedom, human rights or hope for the common person didn’t exist for living a “middle class life.” In fact, most societies (city-states and tribes) were vulnerable daily to another warring group entering their territory and annihilating them.
What’s going on in Iraq this week is really the norm of human history for thousands of years.
Then the development of human society in Europe gave us the Magma Carta, civil and human rights of the individual, self-government, Lex Rex (the Law is King), and eventually democratic republics that were based on the biblical worldview of man and the freedoms of the Gospel.
The birth of the United States of America–what one author calls the “5,000 year Leap”–brought many of these biblical ideas of government and individual rights into one nation that became the envy of the world for its work ethic, system of government, generosity, family stability and national security.
The United States of America and its government is a unique model in the long and barbaric history of human civil polity. That model was exemplified by a “Statue of Liberty” which begged the huddled and depressed masses of the world to come to the New World to experience the blessings of liberty as promoted and protected by a benign civil government.
What was the secret to this society and its government that produced more freedom, prosperity and security than the world had every known?
It can be found in two wise sentences from our second president, John Adams:
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
(Letter to Zabdiel Adams dated June 21, 1776).
One of the greatest lessons of history is that morality is essential to liberty and religious faith is the surest source of morals.
It was Christianity, with the power of Christ unleashed in every born again life, that produced highly moral people who controlled their own behavior enough to live under free and limited governments.
Here’s the genius of John Adam’s insight: When people control themselves according to Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, their faith-filled morality decreases the need for civil government (jails and punishments) and increases the freedom of the individual.
But Adams knew correctly that when the people lose their faith and morality, this freedom-producing form of government will not work.
Read the quote again: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
In other words, our constitution of government cannot work for an irreligious and immoral people.
Today, America has many evidences of this sad truth. Here are some examples.
The Democrats
They control two-thirds of the US government and the increasingly powerful office of the presidency. Barack Obama professes to be a Christian, but shows little faith in his policy positions which are mostly secular (irreligious) in nature. The Democrats are a primary reason for a failed economy and staggering national debt through their tax and spend policies. They spend tax payer money in the name of compassion, while destroying our financial solvency (intentions don’t count in economics).
At the same time, the D’s are killing the nation’s children through abortion, destroying the family through same sex marriage, and generally undermining nearly every aspect of biblical morality that once made America great. Their refusal to guard our shores to gain cheap labor and Democratic votes has created the nightmare on the Mexican border. President Obama’s incompetence and inability to promote peace through strength in the world has Russia and China on the rise while the Middle East burns.
Many Democrats, including our president, consciously or sub-consciously fight faith and morals at every turn.
This is a major reason our government doesn’t work anymore.
The Republicans
The party of Lincoln has a stronger recent heritage of biblical faith and morality. That is why in the social areas, Republicans generally are pro-life, support traditional marriage, and morality and want to preserve America’s biblical heritage like the Ten Commandments in public places, student-initiated prayer in the schools, and chaplains in the military.
Economically, Republicans say they favor less regulations, more free enterprise, and a lower tax burden on all groups of people. As to national security, they, more-often-than-not, believe in a vigious military force to protect American interests and help police the world against global evil.
But some Republicans have been going the direction of the Dems the past few years. As America secularizes, the Republicans, wanting to win elections and gain power, have become “Democratic-lite” on the social issues and tepid on economic policy. This shows itself in the media-trumpeted battle between the “Tea Party” and the “Establishment.”
Here’s the translation: Tea Party = principled conservatives who still believe in faith, morality and freedom. Establishment = we need to become more like the Democrats to win elections in an increasingly post-Christian world.
This is a huge dilemma for the Rs because both sides are right. Vote like Ds and they might win because the electorate has changed. But don’t vote like historic Republicans, and lose the nation (economic depression and national insecurity).
Republican timidity and double-mindedness are another reason why our government doesn’t work anymore.
The Media
It’s been well-documented that the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, most big-city newspapers, and the Associated Press) are liberal-progressive and make no bones about cheering for and promoting anti-faith, anti-morality positions in the political arena. They’re in bed with the Democratic Party.
This means that in most elections, the conservative, biblically-based candidate is facing two opponents: the anti-faith, anti-biblical morality Democratic politician and his media allies.
It’s 2 against 1.
Ever since the Clinton election of 1992, this has been a major problem and led to the unfair demonization of politicians like Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney.
Today’s mainstream media is a major contributor to the loss of faith and morals in the US and thus the dysfunction of the American government.
The People
The greatest blame lies here as, in free societies, governments and their leaders are simply reflections of the people.
Over the past few generations, the American people have lost faith in God (“not religious” has doubled during this time and atheists have become far more militant), and have given in to many forms of immorality and loose living. We, the people have voted for leaders that kill babies and change the meaning of marriage because, we, too, are confused and have moved away from our biblical anchors.
As we’ve abandoned faith and biblical character, we have more and more embraced the welfare state and vote for politicians who will give us “stuff.” Even principled leaders face our fickleness. They may want to do the right thing (e.g. lower taxes), but the people want all the hand-outs which fuel deficit spending (free health care). So the modern politician dishes out the candy against his own conscience–or be voted out of office.
The peoples’ greeds stop their leaders from voting for their true needs.
Then there are ungodly and unprincipled leaders like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Why is there such a leadership vacuum in Washington, D.C. today? Because a faithless and moral-less public votes them into office year after year to bring them the goodies.
I am stunned each time I watch “interviews on the street” with average Americans who know nothing about their history, can’t name their leaders, can name all the raunchiest TV and movie celebrities, and have little understanding about the faith and morality that is required for freedom.
Our government doesn’t work because of the immorality, gross ignorance and apathy of a large portion of the American electorate.
We get what we are.
Recently, I’ve been wondering if it would be better to have a Parliamentary system of government where we could have a vote of no confidence and more quickly dispose of bad leaders.
But the problem is not really the leaders–it is the people. And in our increasingly faithless and immoral state, it is almost impossible to impeach a president (as it should be) and we must wait two-and-a-half years until another presidential election cycle.
So our system doesn’t work because of us. Time only makes things worse.
The Church
But the greatest blame for our government dysfunction lies at the feet of God’s people who are also not as strong in faith and morality as in past generations. We’ve been caught up in the secular pipe dream of personal gratification, self-help, live for today, and have failed to be the salt of society we once were (Matthew 5:13-16).
The American Church is no longer a light on a hill, disbursing the encroaching darkness through our prayers and tireless activities on behalf of righteousness. We are content to lurk in the shadows, wring our hands, or not even be in the game.
Why was Barack Obama, re-elected in 2012? Because half of the Church in America didn’t even bother to vote. When the Church does not light up the voting booths–let alone the neighborhoods with God’s grace and truth–the nation defaults to evil in all its forms and consequences.
Our government doesn’t work in 2014 because it was made for a religious and moral people.
We are neither as we used to be.
There are two choices before us: 1) Watch our government turn to tyranny in a variety of forms as has been the case of most nations in history, or 2) Pray for a spiritual awakening that impacts the nation to cast off its present chains of unbelief and sin.
I believe that both choices will be offered through trials and tribulations in the coming years.
If the Church wakes up and the people see the “light,” then our special form of government can be renewed and revived.
But if we do not, our government will never work for us again.
The Meaning of the the Arizona Veto
With Vladimir Putin taking control of Crimea–he was mad at the Ukrainian people for forcing out their pro-Russian tyrannical leader– came the temptation to write on the beginning of a new Cold War.
But that can come later. We have yet to see whether President Obama will act weakly like Jimmy Carter in the 1970s or strongly as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s.
But we do know what happened in America last week when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062. Religious liberty died and propaganda won.
Here’s the real meaning of the Arizona veto.
I will let some other voices set the stage. Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network tells us the facts about SB 1062:
“It was simply an amendment to the 1999 state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a state law similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.
“Senate Bill 1062, was designed to merely clarify the protection already offered in the state RFRA. It would have clarified that protections extend to any “state action” and would apply to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization. It protected all citizens and the associations they can form from undue burdens by the government on their religious liberty or from private lawsuits that would have the same results.”
It seems like an eternity ago when a Democratic president, House and Senate passed a bill that was good for America. But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, sponsored by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer-NY, passed on a unanimous voice vote in the House and a whopping 97-3 margin in the Senate.
Bill Clinton signed it. Good law–good leadership.
As Randall points out above, the Arizona bill was a mirror of the RFRA that clarified two minor points. You can read read its 680 words here. (It’s not 2000 pages long like Obamacare.)
What did it strengthen?
Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation explains:
“When the government starts forcing people to do things that violate their deeply held beliefs, we have a problem. Unless the government proves that there is a compelling government interest in doing so (and that there was not another, less restrictive means possible), citizens should be left free. We need legislation protecting religious liberty for all, because in a growing number of cases, government coercion and penalties have violated religious freedom.”
Arizona’s SB 1062 took a good law passed by Democrats eleven years ago and added two tweaks: 1) Government can’t force anyone to do anything unless it has a compelling interest to do so, and 2) That there is not another less restricted way to accomplish the same result.
If you took the time to the read SB 1062, you might be surprised that it was a generic bill that applied to all people, races, issues, situations, and circumstances.
It never mentioned gay rights or gay marriage.
So why did the vast majority of media outlets (including Fox News) trumpet headlines that the Arizona bill was “anti-gay” or “anti-gay marriage?”
Ryan Anderson explains in the following Q&A:
Q: How did people’s beliefs about same-sex marriage become an issue?
A: “In New Mexico, a photographer declined to use her artistic talents to promote a same-sex ceremony because of her religious beliefs. The couple complained and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered her to pay a fine of nearly $7,000. Christian adoption and foster-care agencies in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., have been forced to stop providing those services because they believe that the best place for kids is with a married mom and dad. Other cases include a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more.”
Q: Why is this a religious liberty issue?
A: “Many religions teach that marriage is the union of a man and woman, and the religious liberty concern in these recent cases is that people are being coerced into violating that belief. While Americans are legally free to live and love as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into participating in activities that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Q: But isn’t government supposed to guarantee equal treatment for all?
A: “These are cases of private individuals offering (or not offering) their services, not government officially recognizing same-sex relationships—which is another case altogether. There is no need for government to try to force every photographer and every florist to service every marriage-related event.”
Q: Would laws like these open the door to lots of businesses discriminating against gays and lesbians?
A: “Claims that proposals like Arizona’s encourage refusing service to gays and lesbians are simply nonsensical. Arizona’s proposed legislation never even mentioned same-sex couples or sexuality; it simply clarified and improved existing state protections for religious liberty.”
“Some people have claimed, for example, that it meant a pharmacy could refuse to serve gays and lesbians. But I know of no sincere religious belief that says you can’t sell penicillin to someone because they are gay or lesbian. Ensuring that all citizens have access to crucial medical care is a compelling government interest. And requiring every pharmacy to sell penicillin might very well be the least restrictive means possible of ensuring access.”
Q: What about people whose religions say different things, or Americans who choose not to practice a religion?
“These types of freedom protections are important for all Americans. As Cato’s Ilya Shapiro put it, ‘For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations…and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities.’ When it comes to this particular issue, all Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.”
Is that too hard to understand? Arizona’s reasonable law protected all people from being forced, in a myriad of situations, to violate their religious beliefs.
Forcing violations of conscience–in any area–is bad. Freedom is good. If government is going to force us to go against our strongly held religious beliefs (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheistic), then they better have:
- A very compelling reason to do it,
- In the least restrictive way possible.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council put it this way:
“All SB 1062 did was ensure the government couldn’t force business owners to violate their religious beliefs. If that’s controversial, then so is the First Amendment…As Americans, we have a proud tradition of respecting each other’s differences — a tradition that was never threatened by this bill. On the contrary, it would have extended to Christians, who have suffered the loss of jobs, security, and money at the hands of the liberal agenda, the same courtesy of tolerance.”
Here are two other sane explanations of the Arizona bill.
Rich Lowry, writing in Politico, “The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view — their own.”
On last weekend’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) hit back at the massive misinformation regarding SB 1062:
“The notion that someone because they are gay would be denied service at a restaurant is something that Americans don’t support. The other side of the equation is imagine if you’re a Southern Baptist or a Catholic or even evangelical photographer, who does not believe, because of your faith, in gay marriage. And because of that, you don’t want to provide photographic services to a gay marriage. Should you be punished by the state for refusing to do so?”
The answer to that question should be a resounding NO.
So why did Governor Jan Brewer veto SB 1062? What is the meaning of the Arizona veto?
1. The current US Administration–and those who cowtow to it–are determined to enshrine secular values by force. These values include forcing us to pay for abortions through the Affordable Care Care, removing the Judeo-Christian heritage from American life, and demanding that we support the re-definition of marriage.
Because government is all about force–the only sphere of society thus designed–it is crucial that this power is used minimally–and never to trample human rights to life, liberty and conscience.
2. We are becoming a banana republic where propaganda is more powerful than thoughtful argument and debate. The Brewer veto of a good law–one that would have helped all Arizonans–came about because the media, some businesses (like the NFL), and government elites distorted a good law. The propaganda pressure over a politically correct issue (gay marriage) was too much for Governor Jan Brewer to resist.
She wilted–and freedom died.
Waves of propaganda are common in totalitarian countries–such as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China and Russia. But they are now finding their way into the West because of our ignorance, sin, and rejection of godly values. This is a troubling trend that sets the stage for Hitler-like deception and evil under the right circumstances.
3. Christians must be prepared to suffer for their faith if present trends continue. The success of propaganda is the first step toward alienation and suffering by the “offensive” social group. Ask the Jews about that one–and followers of Christ in other eras. If authoritarian governments, in sync with media boosters and duped masses, can silence those who disagree with their objectives, then those “traitors” to the new order can be rounded up and a “final solution” served.
I believe the Western World is closer to Christian persecution than at any time in the past five hundred years.
4. Only a tidal wave of godly renewal–and fearless leaders who will call for it! (think 21st century Martin Luther Kings)–can defeat the propaganda and its secular goals.
We are standing at a watershed moment in history. Russia, Iran, and China form formidable foes from without–and apathy, ignorance, and sin are destroying us from within.
May the Church rise up and pray, and may a new generation of leaders call God’s people to a rebirth of faith, morality and religious liberty.
May that be the result of the Arizona veto.