Reconsidering Gentle Parenting
A Christian Perspective on Disciplining with Grace and a Response to The Gospel Coalition
Last week, an article was published on The Gospel Coalition’s site by writer and pastor Bernard N. Howard calling gentle parenting into question. In a nutshell, the article draws the conclusion that gentle parenting is unbiblical and that Christian parents should be wary of this parenting style lest they raise children who are never corrected for their faults.
These kinds of accusations certainly aren’t new for those of us who are Christians and have chosen to adopt gentle parenting or similar strategies. However, it is frustrating to see such an influential Christian website manipulating parents to believe that they should forsake peaceful parenting practices or that children deserve to be harshly punished in the name of “discipline.”
It is never my intention to speak with anything but grace, compassion, and understanding, especially on topics as sensitive as this one. Though I strongly disagree with much of what Howard states in his article, it should be noted that this issue is not one that is salvific in nature. I recognize Howard and all who agree with his stance as brothers and sisters in Christ. The intent of this is not to chastise but to respectfully provide a counter argument that will inspire us to a positive change in the way we view our call to discipline and lead our children. My hope and prayer is that the change inspired is one that leads more people to discipline with grace in mind.
LIMITED PERSPECTIVES LEAD TO MISREPRESENTATION
In the opening paragraph, Howard paints a familiar picture of a child having a tantrum in a grocery store. He calls the response of some parents to calmly speak to their child in these moments “deeply puzzling.” With a sarcastic undertone that only those of us familiar with gentle parenting criticism will likely catch, Howard then states that this behavior will likely be repeated, implying that the parent’s calm demeanor is ineffective or that they are letting their child “get away” with the behavior.
It’s not surprising that a calm response to a child’s undesired or challenging behaviors is deeply puzzling to much of society. Our society is reactive, and it has become culturally acceptable - even praised - to yell, spank, or otherwise harshly punish children who “act up” in public. We have been led to believe that unless we harshly punish them, the behavior won’t stop, and that parents who avoid this kind of “discipline” aren’t disciplining their kids at all. I find this ironic, because I’d argue that a calm response to a child’s behavior is less representative of our sinful flesh than reactive punishment, but we’ll talk about this more later.
Howard is correct that gentle parenting is difficult to define in one sentence. It is also true that parents may refer to it with many different names (i.e. responsive parenting, peaceful parenting, respectful parenting, etc.). However, this is largely due to the gross misrepresentation of gentle parenting and ridicule parents have received for practicing it. Like many who have gone before him, Howard makes a common mistake from the get-go in his representation of gentle parenting. He fails to distinguish between permissive parenting and authoritative parenting - the style of parenting with which gentle parenting most closely aligns.
Authoritative parenting, one of the four primary models of parenting, is a method which involves both high levels of connection with a child and high expectations. This means that a child experiences support, nurturing, and responsiveness from their caregiver, while also being taught clear expectations, boundaries, and associated consequences. Consequences are reasonable, related, and respectful, meaning they are appropriately tied to the behavior deserving correction and respectful of a child’s stage of development, emotional needs, and personhood.
Though Howard lists out some “creative suggestions” that gentle parenting offers, he mentions methods that many of us who support peaceful parenting find to be unrealistic or unnecessary. Those he mentions fail to get to the root issue of a behavior and aren’t an honest representation of what gentle parenting actual looks like. Misrepresenting gentle parenting as a form of permissive parenting (one in which there is high connection but no clear expectations or boundaries), leads people like Howard to label the roots of gentle or peaceful parenting approaches as unbiblical.
GOODNESS AND SINFULNESS
Howard presents two primary reasons why he believes this style of parenting is unbiblical. According to Howard, gentle parenting is unbiblical because:
It assumes a child’s goodness.
It avoids punishment as a form of discipline.
On the surface, I understand why a claim that children are inherently “good inside,” as clinical psychologist and author Dr. Becky Kennedy says, seems conflicting with the teachings of the Gospel. We are, indeed, all sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). However, the belief that our children are good doesn’t necessarily imply that none of us are sinful. Though I’m sure there are some who choose to abide by that philosophy, this isn’t a concept that all advocates of authoritative parenting (or gentle parenting or respectful parenting or pick your favorite term) teach.
For example, Dr. David and Amanda Erickson, founders of Flourishing Homes and Families, do not deny a child’s inheritance of a sinful nature from their parents. The Ericksons’ popular blog site, parenting courses, and social media pages teach concepts of peaceful parenting through a Christian lens to over 150,000 like-minded parents. Yes, sin affects all of us in all aspects of our being. We need Jesus. We cannot save ourselves from the eternal separation from God that results from that sinful nature. We need the grace and redemption offered to us by our Savior, and our children need to be taught this truth.
I can’t speak for Dr. Becky Kennedy, but I say this as a Christian mother who has chosen a path to more peaceful parenting: the belief in the “goodness” of our children relates to the ways in which they bear the image of the God who created them, not an idea that they lack a sinful nature. It is the belief that they can and should be disciplined with grace, mercy, and respect for their personhood. It is a belief that an understanding of their development is critical to understanding how to lead them well. Rather than “seeing the sin” and punishing in response (as the Erickson’s so eloquently put it) a mindset shift can encourage us to remove unrealistic expectations for our child’s behaviors and see them the way that Jesus sees them - as human beings worthy of love and respect.
Seeing “the good inside” our children means choosing to see the ways in which their behavior expresses a need, rather than assuming that they are maliciously seeking to be defiant. That need could simply be a need for help with emotional regulation because they are still developing and maturing. It could be a need for connection, a need for rest, or a need for food. It could be a need to see Jesus in us.
Yes, we are all prone to sinful behavior. Yes, many challenging behaviors deserve correction, and we have a responsibility as parents to lead our children in the way they should go (Prov. 22:6). This can be done without seeing our children as defiant, horribly sinful little monsters that we must control by methods of fear and retribution. Correction can be done with connection that models the love and grace of Jesus.
DISCIPLINING WITH GRACE RATHER THAN VENGEANCE
With this understanding of goodness, we now need to understand what the research has to say on forms of discipline. Howard all but dismisses the belief that negative response to challenging behaviors escalates the behaviors, referring to it as a “theory.” However, this isn’t merely some fringe idea that lacks any solid evidence to support it. Research has shown that negative responses to challenging behaviors like yelling and spanking lead to:
Increased aggressive behavior in children, including hitting, kicking, and throwing (Thompson et al., 2017),
Increased risk of mental health disorders, including, but not limited to, anxiety and depression (Wang & Kenny, 2013; Gershoff, 2013),
Decreased emotional regulation (Gershoff, 2013),
And even changes in a child’s brain development (Cuartas et al., 2021, Suffren et al., 2022).
Additionally, while negative punishment (a form of operant conditioning involving the removable of something the child desires as a response to an unwanted behavior) can be effective if delivered consistently, it fails to acknowledge possible underlying causes for the behavior or effectively teach a child the appropriate or desired behavior (Li, 2023). These aren’t just new, untested theories floating around parenting communities. The effects of punishment, specifically corporal punishment, yelling, positive punishment, and negative punishment have been researched for decades. The evidence is there.
Contrary to what Howard has to say, more than just “a few” people in the gentle parenting space acknowledge the need for consequences. Again, historically, gentle parenting has fallen under the authoritative parenting style, which is defined by the need for both connection and correction. Where Howard and others who staunchly support traditional parenting styles fail in their arguments on this subject is in their tendency to defend methods of correction rooted in a fleshly need for vengeance rather than those that truly model Christ-like behavior.
Aren’t consequences and punishment the same thing? Not necessarily. A consequence that is reasonable, related, and respectful is a far cry from retributory punishment that seeks to control or put a child “in their place.” For example:
A child hits another child on the playground.
Retributory punishment: spanking and/or yelling at the child; delivering a lecture about the importance of not hitting other people
Correlated and respectful consequence: removal of the child from the playground combined with co-regulation strategies, and age-appropriate discussions around 1. the events that led to the hitting, 2. the importance of respecting other people’s bodies and space, and 3. methods to avoid the behavior in the future
A child throws a toy in anger.
Retributory punishment: spanking and/or yelling at the child; throwing the toy in the trash along with other toys
Correlated and respectful consequence: removal of the toy to a safe location with communication that unsafe use of toys will result in their removal; co-regulation strategies, and age-appropriate discussions when the child is calm regarding safety and respect for belongings
These examples of correlated consequences provide necessary correction of challenging behaviors in a way that is respectful of the child’s development and their feelings. These examples teach a child appropriate behaviors rather than merely seeking to destroy their spirits or scare them into submission.
Howard does claim to support the acknowledgement of a child’s feelings, calling it “shepherding a child’s heart.” However, this is an interesting choice of words, as this phrase is well-known in the Christian community to be the title of a book by Dr. Tedd Tripp. Tripp has long-been an outspoken advocate for spanking children as a form of punishment - something that cannot logically be argued as a method of correction that considers the feelings of children. In a Desiring God Podcast interview from 2014, Tripp had this to say about spanking:
“But what is the purpose of it? I think spanking is most effective with younger children. Spanking gets their attention. It gives weight to your words. It humbles them. They want to avoid it. And it becomes very effective, particularly with little children where you can’t really reason with them, and they are not capable of complex reasoning.” - Dr. Tedd Tripp
So, in Tripp’s opinion, “shepherding a child’s heart” in a way that models the love of our Heavenly Father requires us to smack young children to “get their attention.” In his opinion, young children (who he avoids clearly defining by a specific age) need to be hit in order to be effectively managed.
Howard’s not-so-subtle reference to Tripp’s pro-spanking practices calls into question what he believes (and what TGC believes) to be appropriate Christ-centered punishment for children. Howard himself says that physically punishing children is “one way to fulfill that requirement” of painfully punishing a child - referencing commonly misinterpreted and abused verses about the rod in Proverbs to defend painful punishment.
How is it that in one breath, we can claim as Christians that children have inherent value from the point of conception and then in another breath claim that they are deserving of harsh punishment (physical or otherwise) simply because they are sinners? From this vantage point, it appears that those who believe gentle parenting to be unbiblical believe this to be true because they desire correction to focus more on retribution rather than redemption. They desire to define a child based on their identity as “sinners” rather than their identity as beloved children of God. However, as so many parents who are embracing more peaceful approaches to discipline have said:
If they’re “too young to understand,” why are you hitting them? If they’re “old enough to understand,” why are you hitting them?
Howard argues that the Bible views it to be “impossible to shape a child’s character without demonstrating the seriousness of wrongdoing through retributory punishment.” Does it, though? Retribution-centered discipline is discipline that is focused on vengeance or pay-back, but Scripture states that vengeance is the Lord’s (Romans 12:19-21). We are instructed not to repay evil with evil. So, even if we are to believe that our children are horrible sinful tiny tyrants, wouldn’t this tell us that our discipline is not to be rooted in vengeance, but instead in the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-26)?
Sure, we face consequences in this world, and it is imperative that we prepare our children for the consequences of poor decision making. However, there is no offense our children could ever commit that would justify us physically punishing them. If physical punishment is not appropriate for adults (as Howard agrees, thankfully), it should be viewed as unacceptable for children as well. The smallest and most vulnerable among us should not be subject to discipline and punishment that is harsher than what we claim to be socially acceptable for us as adults. To believe this way is to view children as lesser than, something that Jesus strongly opposed.
Jesus welcomed children (Matthew 19:13-15). He corrected those who belittled them or shoved them aside. Carrying on His teachings, Paul advocated for discipline that is kind and considerate of the needs of children on multiple occasions (Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:21). The model for our discipline should not be Pilate, as Howard grossly implies in his TGC post. Pilate had Jesus flogged. Pilate had Jesus beaten nearly to death and then subjected to the cross. That is not our model for discipline.
Ironically, Howard reference Paul’s call to discipline, but conveniently leaves out a key piece of instruction: “do not exasperate your children.” In an effort to defend discipline rooted primarily in retributory punishment, Howard conveniently avoids recognizing that we are called not to irritate, frustrate, or provoke our children to anger. In Colossians 3, the command to not “embitter” our children comes directly after Paul’s description for what it means to be alive in Christ! He says to be alive in Christ is something demonstrated by our ability to rid ourselves of anger and rage and to, instead, clothe ourselves with humility, gentleness, and patience! The model for our discipline should be grace and the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Not the man who condemned Jesus to the cross.
IMPLICATIONS OF GRACE
Howard ends his article by appealing to parents through a well-known fear tactic - if you don’t discipline your kids, they’ll grow up to be reckless people who harm others. What he misses, though, is the mountain of evidence both within Scripture and beyond that points toward the positive implications of grace-driven discipline rather than punishment-driven discipline.
Parenthood doesn’t exist in a vacuum. That’s true. Neither does Scripture. The totality of Scripture must be taken into account when considering the way we are called to live as followers of Christ. The overarching message of Scripture is one in which God redeems His people, a people who could never earn the grace He provided and yet He provided it anyway. Accountability is necessary. Repentance is necessary. And these are inspired by Holy Spirit led conviction.
This conviction is rarely, if ever, comfortable, not because God harshly and unnecessarily physically punishes us, but because spiritual change doesn’t occur in a place of spiritual comfort. Retributory punishment, contrary to what Howard states is not a requirement for effective Christ-driven discipline in parenting. What is required is guidance of the Holy Spirit and discipline which inspires our children to model the fruits of the Spirit, not vengeance and a lack of self-control.
That is what peaceful parenting, gentle parenting, respectful parenting, etc. are all about. It’s about acknowledging the fact that our children are blessings bestowed upon us, entrusted to us for the glorious honor of training them up in the way they should go. They are not objects for us to control or rule over. They are human beings worthy of the same respect and love at every age and stage of development. Disciplining with that mindset requires patience. It requires grace. It requires self-control. That is Christ-centered discipline and parenting.
REFERENCES
The psychology behind different types of parenting styles. Jessup University. (2019, May 17). https://jessup.edu/blog/academic-success/the-psychology-behind-different-types-of-parenting-styles/#:~:text=In%20the%201960s%2C%20psychologist%20Diana,Eleanor%20Maccoby%20and%20John%20Martin.
Thompson, R., Kaczor, K., Lorenz, D. J., Bennett, B. L., Meyers, G., & Pierce, M. C. (2017). Is the use of physical discipline associated with aggressive behaviors in young children? Academic Pediatrics, 17(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.02.014
Wang, M., & Kenny, S. (2013). Longitudinal links between fathers’ and mothers’ harsh verbal discipline and adolescents’ conduct problems and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 85(3), 908–923. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12143
Gershoff E. T. (2013). Spanking and Child Development: We Know Enough Now To Stop Hitting Our Children. Child development perspectives, 7(3), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12038
Cuartas, J., Weissman, D. G., Sheridan, M. A., Lengua, L., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2021). Corporal punishment and elevated neural response to threat in children. Child Development, 92(3), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13565
Suffren, S., La Buissonnière-Ariza, V., Tucholka, A., Nassim, M., Séguin, J. R., Boivin, M., … Maheu, F. S. (2022). Prefrontal cortex and amygdala anatomy in youth with persistent levels of harsh parenting practices and subclinical anxiety symptoms over time during childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 34(3), 957–968. doi:10.1017/S0954579420001716
Li, P. (2023, November 2). What is negative punishment (examples and effectiveness). Parenting For Brain. https://www.parentingforbrain.com/negative-punishment/