Andrew Carter discusses smacking, abuse, power and liberty in modern society
In October of last year, it became a criminal offence in Scotland for a parent to smack their naughty child. The Welsh Assembly has recently voted for a similar ban and legislation will come into effect in Wales in 2022. In England, the law still allows a parent to smack their child providing they don’t use an implement or leave a mark.
Smacking is a controversial issue, including amongst evangelical Christians. Some see physical chastisement as clearly mandated by Scripture (see for example, Prov. 13:24; 23:13-14; 22:15; Heb. 12:7-11). Others maintain that it’s the principle of discipline that matters, not the method. Plenty of Christian parents maintain that proper discipline can be achieved using non-physical means; loss of privileges, time-outs, extra chores, etc.
The decisions of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies to ban smacking are driven by a laudable desire to curb child abuse in the home. And as Christians we would readily admit that it is the duty of the state to protect the weak and vulnerable in society. However, the question remains: is this a matter of government overreach? Is this an example of state encroachment into parental rights; parents who make a clear distinction between a controlled, beneficial smack and child abuse?
Whatever side of the fence we’re on, let me throw out some points to help us think more clearly about this issue and indeed the whole matter of parenting.
Offending the liberal mindset
I think it’s important to understand that often what a society finds offensive is related to certain ‘live issues’ that powerful and coordinated people push onto the agenda. Or to put this the other way around, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the firestorm that surrounds an issue warrants the attention it receives; it’s more that clever people have been able to get their agenda onto the table and along the way claim that they and only they hold the high moral ground.
Perhaps the best way to realise this is with reference to the smacking /abortion irony. In the West, smacking is increasingly declared to be a form of child abuse, whereas the killing of the unborn child is not. There’s little logic to this, nor much consideration of the moral issues involved; it reflects the preferences and biases of those who have the power to shape the minds of a generation. This point is a reminder to us all that what outrages the Western mind isn’t always to be taken too seriously.
The changing beliefs of the West
In the United Kingdom 40 years ago, almost all children were smacked by their parents and teachers with hardly anyone batting an eyelid. I remember those days well. Today, parents who believe that smacking has a place in responsible parenting worry about the consequences of being reported to Social Services. So what has changed? The answer seems to be that there has been a shift in the fundamental beliefs of our society i.e. its worldview has changed. Let me suggest what two of these changes are:
1. A change from a moral to a therapeutic worldview
Previous generations in the West believed that there was such a thing as right and wrong, i.e. the world was a moral place. Doubtless this was connected to a belief in the existence of human sinfulness and to a fear of God that had been implanted deep into the collective consciousness by the Christian gospel over many centuries. In such a climate it was thought necessary that children be corrected strongly for making wrong decisions, which if left unchecked ran the risk of leading to moral degeneracy. Life was not all butterflies and rainbows; parents had a basic duty to keep their children on the straight and narrow.
In more recent times, moral categories have been replaced by the measurement of life according to whether something feels good or not. This is the therapeutic or sentimental worldview and it has come on the back of an unusually long period of peace and prosperity for Western societies (the therapeutic worldview withers in about five minutes during times of war or severe economic hardship).
In a therapeutic-oriented society nothing is considered to be a good thing unless it makes someone feel happy; inevitably smacking falls foul of this category. Related to this, in a world where right and wrong have been reduced to personal preference, there are now few acts bad enough that a smack is considered a reasonable response. Moreover, today the concept of love is sentimentally driven; tough love that tackles waywardness resolutely is virtually unknown. Bad behaviour is not the result of sin over which we have choice, but of some disadvantage suffered.
2. A change in our view of authority
Older generations believed that parents possessed a legitimate authority to bring up their children and the right to require obedience. By contrast, we live at a time when there is a rejection of the idea that authority can be a good thing and even less that it can be rooted in love. For the Millennial Generation, each is their own authority and it is wrong to coerce others into doing what they do not personally want to do. This increasingly applies to children, hence the expression sometimes directed at parents: ‘children are your equals’. Personal freedom is an absolute value today and the idea of a parent imposing their will upon a child through physical chastisement is considered abhorrent. Instead, compromise and negotiation dominate the literature on child rearing. Life is about finding your freedom and exercising personal self-expression, not about conforming to the rules of others. Obedience is often a dirty word; pain is always bad and can never have a good purpose. The point is that if you believe parents and children are equal, smacking and hitting become equalised; the judicial motive for physical correction collapses into little more than violence.
Whether or not one believes in smacking, being alert to changes in the belief system of the West is helpful, assisting us to discern the direction of our society and evaluate what we can embrace and what we must stand against. It also reminds us that the forces driving opposition to punishment in any form are usually connected to a gathering and widespread rejection of a Judeo-Christian interpretation of the world. This is not the place for extensive comment, but readers would do well to reflect on the place of punishment in a Christian worldview, considering that Christ was punished for our transgressions at the cross.
The forgotten cause of liberty
And finally, comment needs to be made about the increasingly forgotten cause of liberty. We live at a time when the state feels free to micromanage vast areas of our lives, and we the electorate don’t seem to notice or care much. Far too little thought is given to what the proper limits of state power should be, and what should be left to individuals to decide for themselves in a free society. The decision to ban smacking in the home means that Christians living in Scotland and soon Wales – and who believe that the Bible mandates physical correction for their children – will now have to decide whether they obey the law of the land or not.
There is no right or wrong answer to this dilemma; each must act wisely and in accordance with their own conscience. However, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the decision to ban smacking is an example of a serious encroachment of the state into the domain of parental authority. As our nation turns its back on its Judeo-Christian roots, this issue is likely to be only one of many to come where believers will be forced to make difficult decisions.
