When I look back on my “spanking stories”, it is not with affection. And I certainly didn’t find them comforting at the time. And no, I wasn’t abused.

With my son, my wife and I have tried to use “timeouts” instead of spanking. Given this is my first child, it’s hard to say whether it’s “working” since I don’t have anything to compare it to. He certainly dislikes the timeouts, though, and threatening to give him one usually motivates him to do whatever it is we’re asking him to do.

Also disagree with this statement from Strachan:

“Indeed, the line that talented women only do justice to their gifts through full-time work is a myth, nothing more.”

Some women’s gifts simply will not be exercised as a stay-at-home mom. Now, from Strachan’s point of view, that’s an okay thing, and something women must come to terms with. But he should at least be honest about it. If a woman is a concert-level pianist, she will not be called upon to exercise that level of skill in the context of the home. If she is the next Albert Einstein, her exceptional understanding of physics will not be exercised in the home. If she has the capacity to win Wimbledon, she won’t reach her full potential in the home.

“If she has the capacity to win Wimbledon, she won’t reach her full potential in the home.”

The capacity to win Wimbledon is not what is ordinarily meant by a talent. A talent is an underlying ability that enables certain kind of performances. Winning Wimbledon or doing advanced physics are particular performances. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that the gifts that enable those kinds of performances could be fully exercised in other ways in the home.

My father spanked me judiciously and lovingly, and I thank God for it. I would consider myself abused if he hadn’t.

JPH, interesting comments and POV. You may have good things to say but your delivery leaves much to be desired.

Continued success with “timeout” but as you said; “Given this is my first child, it’s hard to say whether it’s “working” since I don’t have anything to compare it to.”

You may have stumbled onto something that works for you and your child and/or you may have lots to learn as the years go by.

As for your remarks about all the woman and their gifts being squelched, your comments seem a bit dramatic and seem to be coming from certain “worldview”.

Sorry, I know I may be reading too much into, or just misreading, your comments but they moved to some kind of response. Must be the humidity.

Cheers

Scott-

Sorry if I came off a little combative. Statements like Strachan’s do irritate me. Not because I necessarily disagree with his overall point i.e. that most women are happiest in traditional roles, but because he makes that point by disingenuously misstating the “cost” of those traditional roles with regard to “fully developing one’s gifts”.

If he were honest, I’d expect something like: “Look, if you’re an especially talented woman, then your talents will probably not be developed to their full capacity in a traditional role. However, God may still be calling you to such a role, and if so then you will be happier and more fulfilled in that role than you would if you were to actually develop your prodigious talent.”

This doesn’t just apply to women either. It’s a little trite, but consider the case of Eric Liddell. Had he not gone to China as a missionary, then odds are he could have developed his talent for running to a greater degree than he did. But God called him elsewhere. For that matter, everyone makes the decision to ignore certain of their talents. I’m a computer programmer. By training to become one, I gave up the opportunity to fully develop my talent as a lawyer. Or a doctor. Or…whatever.

Daryl:

I’m familiar with the verses most quoted in support of mandatory corporal punishment. Suffice it to say I disagree with that interpretation. Partly because the word for “rod” used in those verses (shebet) is also used elsewhere in the Old Testament as a figurative substitute for discipline in general. For instance:

“Let him take his rod away from me, and let not his fear terrify me”Job 9:34

“Their houses [are] safe from fear, neither [is] the rod of God upon them.”Job 21:19

But also because, since corporal punishment was ubiquitous as a form of child discipline at the time, it would make sense for the writer of Proverbs, when referring to discipline, to simply refer to corporal punishment as a proxy.

Specifically with regard to Provebs 23:13, the author enjoins the reader not to withhold “discipline”, then adds that if you apply corporal punishment he will not die. This does not imply that corporal punishment is the only valid form of discipline. Just that you do need to administer some sort of discipline, and that corporal punishment is a valid choice given it will not, in fact, kill your kids. Here shebet seems to be used literally.

With Proverbs 13:24 it seems to be figurative. Especially given the second half of that sentence. The opposite of “withholding the rod” is not “using the rod”, but rather “disciplining”. If it was important to the writer to express that loving parents specifically use corporal punishment, I would expect the second half to read, “but he who loves him applies the rod diligently.”

JPH, my point is that studying theoretical particle physics is not the only way to “fully develop” the talent that allows one to grasp theoretical particle physics. Some other technical intellectual pursuit that is more compatible with raising kids is also a “full use” of that talent. It’s not like anyone actually has a “particle physics” talent that doesn’t translate to any other complex kind of thinking.

Playing tennis is not the only way that Serena Williams could have developed and used her physical abilities. Just because one does not use one’s talents in one particular way that they could be used, does not mean they are not being used to their potential. Just because Eric Liddell was not winning medals by running, does not (necessarily) mean that his unusual physical gifts were not being put to full use in missionary work in China (though I confess to not knowing whether that actually was the case or not.)

I definitely hear what you’re saying about how it might be sufficient to say that talents should be set aside — I’m just not sure that I share your premise that not becoming this or that particular thing that your talent allows, equates to not using your talents. Just because a person is not using her talent in the most public, large-scale, or complex way it could be used, doesn’t mean she’s not using it fully. To use a rather absurd, perhaps slightly inaccurate example, someone with a world-class tennis ability also has the ability to build her kids treehouses, give them exceptional physical fitness training, and throw a mean pizza crust. If she does all those things, and does them to the best of her ability, is that really not using the full potential of her talent? What makes winning tennis competitions the “ultimate” use of a talent for speed, flexibility, fitness, great arm control, and strength?

Daryl-

If you’re going to appeal to tradition, then I’m pretty sure I can give you another list of things Christians have historically believed, based on the bible, that are both wrong and fairly offensive. For instance, in the grand scheme of things, it’s only recently that Christians have decided it’s not a good idea to enslave people or put heretics to the sword. Do you support those on the basis of the church’s traditionally held beliefs?

If you want to take the route that “it means what it says”, then how do you explain the verses in Job? What about the fact that the word “discipline” is used at all in the Proverbs verses instead of “the rod” in all cases? Or the fact that figurative speech is frequently employed elsewhere in Proverbs?

Furthermore, I’m not sure I buy the idea that the historical Christian position is that parents who refrain from using corporal punishment are in direct contradiction to biblical edict. William Gouge, a Puritan writing in 1522, has these words:

“The other means of helping nurture is correction. Which is of two sorts; Verbal by Words, Real by Blows. The former is reprehension: and it must always go before the latter, which is most usually and properly called Correction. Reprehension is a kind of middle thing betwixt admonition and correction: it is a sharp admonition, but a mild correction. It is the rather to be used because it may be a means to prevent strokes and blows, especially in ingenuous, and good natured children [for a reproof entereth more into him that is wise, than a hundred stripes into a fool (Prov 17:10)] and because it may be used , when it is not so meet to use strokes and blows: as when children are grown to man-age.”

Clearly Gouge approves of corporal punishment. Though, he also seems to prefer reprehension in its place. I can’t say for sure, but I suspect he would not look askance at a parent who employed only reprehension (or other non-physical forms of discipline) as long as those methods “got the job done”.

I remain unsold on the idea of corporal as I consider it teaching a child by example that violence, even moderately, is a means of instilling self-discipline when it isn’t.

I think your argument is with Scripture, then. Scripture seems to make it quite clear that a parent has the author and perhaps even the responsibility to spank…

Of course the gift of being able to write prose is different from the gift of being able to do math, but is the gift of being able to study physics really different from the ability to develop the next Google? And whose to say a traditional stay at home mom (assuming you don’t get your “traditions” from TV shows that never really reflected anything most people practiced) can’t be working on something like the next Google on the side?

So I never propounded any idea for you to disagree with that being smart in one area was exactly like being smart in any other, so anything you do will develop it — my point is the opposite. There is no gift that can be fully developed in ONLY ONE way.

And I think the point where we disagree is whether it’s necessary to be world-class at something, in order to “fully develop” the gifts you have, if they are gifts that could potentially put you in the world class. Anything done really well, using all your energies to do it really well, even in obscurity, is a “full use” of your gifts. I’m not saying that any piddling little use of a gift is the same as maximizing it — I’m saying that “maximizing” it isn’t absolutely defined by doing the most unique or dramatic thing you can do with it.