Corporal punishment is a contemporary educational issue in which the biblical principles conflict with legal expectations on one hand and the societal expectations on the other. Corporal punishment has been condemned by the societal and legal jurisdictions, while most of the offenders resort to the biblical interpretation of punishing a child. The recent videotaped incident where Peterson was indicted of a grand jury after abusing his four year old child by applying the whip is one lesson that proves that the legal jurisdictions do not conform to the biblical teachings of sparing the rod and spoiling the child (Ellison et al., 2011). There are correlation factors that accompany the resolution to corporal punishment, where the race, religion and political affiliation plays an integral part in determining the likelihood of a parent resorting to the so called “rod” as a way of correcting the misdeeds of his or her child. It is evident that religion is a factor that contributes to the approval of corporal punishment than the rest of the populace. This paper examines corporal punishment as a current educational issue in which biblical teachings conflict with the societal and legal expectations.
It is evident that most of the believers of the bible have the tendency of citing some verses as the reason why they approve and employ the system of corporal punishment for the wrong doings among family settings. These forms of corporal punishment include the spanking with a hand, or spanking using various implements like belts, paddles, the stroke of the cane and a switch (Stroope, 2011). On the contrary, there are societal and legal expectations that highlight the damaging effects of this form of punishment and the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment as compared to other non-violent forms of rectifying mistakes done. Christians among all other stripes continue to apply the various forms of corporal punishment while putting emphasis on the biblical injunction that defines how sparing the rod may spoil the child.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In light of the societal and legal systemic use of corporal punishment especially in conservative households, it bears on the beholders to review the biblical information and the interpretive presumptions that are accompanied in these interpretations. There are biblical texts have been inappropriately interpreted to conflict with the morals that are upheld in the societal settings and the legal jurisdictions (Zolotor & Puzia, 2010). For instance, most Christians quote Prov. 13:24, which stipulate that, “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who love his child disciplines him promptly.” In a hermeneutical consideration, the use of the term rod in the biblical text clearly means the beating of a child with a stick or any other tool that is meant to inflict pain as a form of resolution of the mistakes made. The rod has been highly attributed to be a corrective measure, which in turn restrains the child from committing a similar crime.
The biblical verses are quite shocking to a casual observer especially for one who upholds the societal and legal expectations of the interrelationships between care givers and the children. For instance, prov. 23:13-14 seems particularly harsh in the recommendations it gives. In this verse, the reader may find it necessary to shy away from applying the literal interpretation of using the rod, where he or she may refrain from making application of the full letter of the text to use a rod, thus preferring to spank the child with a hand or a paddle (Ellison et al., 2011). In cases like these, the biblical literalism has not been applied consistently since the full literal application of the texts are regarded as being unnecessarily cruel and thus they work in jeopardy to the societal and legal understanding of conflict resolution with minors.
Examining the hermeneutic of literal interpretation of the biblical texts shows that if a bible text is to be applied literary, there are questions that arise with regards to the degree of literal application that are supposed to be made (Zolotor & Puzia, 2010). It is thus evident that biblical literalism is not normally applied with the required consistency and as such, some figurative meaning is implied to the meaning as a way of conforming to the societal norms that count these deeds as cruelty and child abuse. It is the right of the society to educate both believers and non-believers of the bible to guide care givers of the children on the literal interpretation of the bible verses lest these quotations from the holy book conflict with the ethical nurturing skills that form the legal and societal expectations of child upbringing. This implies that the biblical interpretation of the quote, “sparing the rod” conflicts with the societal and legal expectations of nurturing a child especially in education institutions.
The common rule of thumb in accordance with the biblical interpretation of corporal punishment is that the act should be carried out strictly on the fleshy part of the body like the buttocks where there is no eminent bodily injury. The texts like the ones quoted in proverbs do not give the specifications of how these beatings using the rod should be carried out. Some of these biblical texts use the rod as the same word that specifies the back part as the body part that should be struck with the so called rod (Renteln, 2010). On the contrary, some societies advocate for imparting of wisdom as the best corrective measure for mistakes done especially if the transgressor is a minor. If the bible in Prov. 26:3 identifies the rod as being a tool for the back of the fools, then the term back does not specifically mean the buttocks. From this context, it is clear that the rod may be used upon the back of the foolish child and thus, it may leave marks or stripes on the flesh, which is not a way of imparting wisdom in relation to the cultural norms, but a form of instigating pain.
The biblical literalism of the rod has been applied in most cases without the encroachment of the legal definitions of acts of child abuse. There are extreme cases of quoting the biblical texts where the process of beating a child occurs with the so called rods like the case of Adrian Peterson, where it is unlikely that a parent with a sane mind can use the rod to the level of leaving bruises and stripes on the back of their children. Perhaps this is abhorrent to the social and legal considerations and thus, the bible should be put aside when it comes to such forms of brutality (Renteln, 2010). The legal and societal expectations of child upbringing do not give considerations to back bruises and stripes as a way of imparting wisdom in children even if the child is foolish. There are corrective measures that the legal jurisdictions and the societal norms recommend as being ethical ways of imparting wisdom in children especially in learning institutions. For instance, the society recommends guidance and counseling as the most proactive way of ensuring that the children can learn how to behave. It is also imperative to note that setting up rules and training children to follow these rules can help as opposed to bruising the child in the name of following up the bible teachings of not sparing the child. In relation to the societal understanding, corporal punishment creates enmity between parents and their children and this may tarnish the ground for any meaningful ethical teaching.
Children are known to be weak and helpless and thus, corporal punishment is a way of oppression of their rights as minors. It is evident that parents may find the need to punish their children with firmness, wisdom or love as the societal and legal confrontations would admonish. However, the care givers need to make a forum for understanding the varied levels of ethical customs that are proper to the cultural setting (Ellison et al., 2011). For instance, the Old Testament biblical forms of conflict resolution like warfare are archaic to the contemporary society, where care givers need to develop an understanding of the physiological effects underlying corporal punishment as an ineffective form of discipline. This implies that corporal punishment as it is advocated by the biblical teachings is both illegal, while it may also be a form of violence and thus contradictory to the contemporary cultural expectations.
It is thus imperative to note that corporal punishment is a current educational issue in which biblical teachings conflict with the societal and legal expectations. This is from the fact that the legal jurisdictions and cultural norms regard corporal punishment as a form of instigating pain, which is not only unethical but also a form of violence. There have been several incidences where care givers have been legally convicted over incidences of corporal punishment in the name of applying the bible quote of sparing the rod (Kemme, et al., 2014). Even though the bible considers corporal punishment as a way of correcting the mannerisms among minors, the hermeneutic of literal understanding of the biblical texts shows that incase the texts from the bible are applied literary, there are questions that arise with regards to the degree of literal application that are supposed to be made. Thus, corporal punishment is socially and legally unethical act even though texts from the bible approve this form of discipline.
References
Ellison, C. G., Musick, M. A., & Holden, G. W. (2011). Does conservative Protestantism moderate the association between corporal punishment and child outcomes?. Journal of Marriage and Family , 73 (5), 946-961.
Kemme, S., Hanslmaier, M., & Pfeiffer, C. (2014). Experience of parental corporal punishment in childhood and adolescence and its effect on punitiveness. Journal of family violence , 29 (2), 129-142.
Renteln, A. D. (2010). Corporal punishment and the cultural defense. Law and contemporary problems , 73 (2), 253-279.
Zolotor, A. J., & Puzia, M. E. (2010). Bans against corporal punishment: A systematic review of the laws, changes in attitudes and behaviours. Child Abuse Review , 19 (4), 229-247.
Stroope, S. (2011). Education and religion: Individual, congregational, and cross-level interaction effects on biblical literalism. Social Science Research , 40 (6), 1478-1493.
