Character, heart of some much harder to teach

Before jumping to conclusions on smacking, discipline and Section 59, says Stu Crosson, parents should consider again their assessment of the human heart: is it optimistic, pessimistic, or realistic?

The vexed debate about the anti-smacking law has come alive again in my household, with the referendum on section 59 of the Crimes Amendment Act.

I have three boys under 12 years of age and they are all very much in favour of making Dad a criminal if he chooses to smack his children for means of correction.

I have no doubt the motives behind the amendment in 2007 were noble.

We are all agreed that child abuse must stop.

My problem is what the amendment says about my ability as a Dad to discern what is best for my three very different boys.

Child discipline is a complex issue and is very dependent on an individual child's personality.

For some children a raised voice is all the correction they will need, for some, their character and heart is much harder to teach.

What section two of the current law declares is that I cannot correct my child's behaviour with force.

No problem, some may say, and I am the first to endorse positive parenting, but there are some days when a child will choose to ignore the best parenting advice or practice around.

This is especially true for those children that run on testosterone.

As a church leader, I am interested to reflect on the theological implications of the section 59 as it stands.

Jesus said: "Let the little children come to me" - an unconditional expression of love.

He also said: "those whom I love I rebuke and discipline".

Elsewhere in the Bible we read: "our parents disciplined us for a little while as they thought best ... no discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful.

Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it".

So, clearly, love and discipline go together, but the question is "Who determines what form the discipline takes?"What side of the wooden spoon you come down on with this issue will be in part, determined by some fairly basic understandings you have about human beings.

If you are optimistic about the human heart and our ability to do the right thing, two minutes in "time out" will sit well.

If you are pessimistic about the human heart then physical punishment by way of a smack will suit you.

The trouble is that the Bible has two threads running through it: our profound capacity for both goodness and badness.

If I decided to smack my child for wilful bad behaviour, I am telling my child two things:

1. There is a boundary that you have crossed that is not acceptable.

2. I love you so much that I will teach you consequences now to save you from more harmful mistakes later.

Over the last 25 years we have raised a generation of children who fail to accept boundaries and our school classrooms and teachers are bearing the disorderly brunt of this.

Physical discipline in the home by a mum or dad who is motivated by love is effective not because it hurts physically but because it hurts emotionally.

In a child's eyes the one who loves me most has turned away momentarily and it is the threat of this which changes a child's heart.

It is also the reason that violence is not acceptable or necessary.

As a father I know the difference between violence to my children and loving discipline.

Section 59 must do better at defining this and it can.

Currently it states that I may use reasonable force to "prevent my child from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour" (subsection 1c) but if I use force to correct the same behaviour I am a criminal (subsection 2).

In other words, I can smack my child to stop bad behaviour today so long as I am not seeking to correct the same behaviour for tomorrow.

No parent can accept this as good practice.

A father's loving heart will never withhold his love.

But my love is so deep I will allow my child to experience tears for a moment in time if I believe his heart will be changed for good and learn a lesson for the future.

Of course, child discipline can be abused.

But that is as true for "time out" and verbal correction as it is for smacking.

I would strongly argue that verbal and emotional abuse is a more widespread problem in our children's lives in New Zealand than physical abuse.

Does this mean we make criminals out of parents who shout at their kids?

The recent report by the office of the Children's Commissioner makes it clear that the risk factors around child abuse in New Zealand are: non-biological fathers, maternal age, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, ethnicity and poverty - not whether mum or dad smack their children.

My plea to our politicians is to get beyond the black or white, smack or no smack position and reword a statute which takes account of the human potential for both good and bad behaviour; to find some wording that protects our children from violence but allows our parents to physically discipline in love for a child's future development.

For me the question is always, "How can I best love this child?"The answer will vary for different children in different circumstances.

This parental vocation is one of the highest God has given me and so I want more tools, not fewer, to do it well.

Finally I want to acknowledge the Christians I respect who hold a different opinion to myself on this complex issue.

This in no way compromises our mutual commitment to the righteousness of God and his love for children.

The way we raise our children varies from family to family.

My prayer today is that the law makers will both protect our children and trust me enough to love my three boys the best that I know how.

Central to the God I follow is a father's heart of love.

His love for me is so profound he will not let me pursue my own selfish desires without rebuke.

The earlier we learn the hard lesson of yielding our lives to the love of the Father, the better our lives become.

So before you jump to your conclusions on smacking, discipline and Section 59, consider again your assessment of the human heart: is it optimistic, pessimistic, or realistic?

- Stu Crosson is the vicar of St Matthew's, Dunedin.

Add a Comment