(^) Another distortion is the notion that the rod must be associated
with vindictive anger. A friend of mine had to spank his son during a
visit with his folks. He took his child into a private room, spoke with
him and administered a spanking. Afterward, he reassured his son of
his love for him. Smiling together, they emerged from the room. The
spanking was over. The son was restored to his father. They were both
happy and at peace. The grandmother, however, was upset. The
spanking did not bother her. It was the fact my friend was not angry
and distanced from him that troubled her. She said a spanking would
do no good unless they were mad at each other afterward. She saw
spankings as something that produced distance rather than closeness.
(^) I know that there is such a thing as righteous indignation, although
I think it is not well understood. People tend to think, “I am right and
I am indignant, therefore this is righteous indignation.” The
difference between righteous and unrighteous indignation is
illustrated by asking, “Whose honor is being preserved?” If I am
angry because God has been dishonored and that vexes me, I am
probably experiencing righteous anger. If my anger is the garden
variety, “I can’t believe you’re doing this to me, who do you think
you are, you little brat,” it is probably unrighteous anger. That kind
of anger will muddy the waters of discipline.
Common Objections to the Rod
I Love My Children Too Much to Spank Them
(^) This objection is easy to understand. I know of nothing harder
than spanking my children. It is difficult to hold your own child over
your knee and be the cause of his discomfort. You feel that you love
him too much to do so. But ask yourself this question: Who benefits if
you do not spank your child? Surely not the child. The above passages
make it clear that such failure places the child at risk. Who benefits?
You do. You are delivered from the discomfort of spanking your
child. You are delivered from the agony of causing discomfort for this
barré
(Barré)
#1