The acceptability of smacking children is surprisingly controversial in today's world. Some say of course it's ok, and we should even bring back the cane, whereas others say smacking children at all is child abuse.
Just about the most cliched arguments you will hear in this debate are either "I was smacked, and I turned out fine" from the pros, and "I was smacked, and it messed me up" from the antis. The problem with these arguments are obvious. They're anecdotal, and can be very easily played off against each other. What makes one person's experience more valid than another's? Answer: Everything, and nothing.
On the side of "nothing" is the fact that truth doesn't care about you or your feelings, and rules don't care about their own exceptions. Even if there are children for whom smacking is wholly inappropriate (and yes, I believe there are), you cannot use exceptions to the rule to create a general rule. To illustrate this, I always like to use the example of killing. Most people recognise that killing people is a very bad thing, and yet, we also recognise that killing in self defence scenarios is significantly less evil. Now, should we say "you can kill some people, therefore you can kill anyone"? No! And so you also cannot say "smacking doesn't work on everyone, and so smacking doesn't work on anyone".
On the side of "everything" is the fact that, while smacking does generally work, it depends both on the parent doing the discipline, and the child receiving it. I find that, generally speaking, those who believe smacking is abusive tend to be, first of all, those who were disciplined for anything and everything, and second of all, women.
Now, I am speaking anecdotally here. I haven't done a survey or an experiment, I am talking entirely from experience. Nevertheless, it does seem to be women who are against smacking, having been smacked themselves. I do believe this is significant. It is obvious that, even from a young age, women have both different tendencies, and different responses, to violence. Because of this, I believe, there is at the very least less need to smack little girls. I notice how even scripture seems to agree. I may be misunderstanding it, it is entirely possible that this is a case where gendered language is used to describe the species, but when scripture speaks of physical discipline, it seems to address sons, not daughters. And so, due to both the differences in body and in mind of male children, I believe disciplinary needs may well be affected by gender.
But one thing I can say with more concrete evidence is that those who believe smacking is abusive do seem to have been genuinely abused. For example, one woman I heard said that children have feelings that need to be expressed, not suppressed with violence. Now, I didn't ask for specifics, as that would be rude. However, let's pose this question: At what point does, for example, smacking your friend in the face with a big orange dinosaur become a valid expression of one's feelings? Obviously, the answer is never. So, my guess is this particular woman was disciplined for anything and everything, and that, I would agree, is not ok.
Every now and then, however, kids do need to be disciplined. Obviously, it does depend on the child. I, for example, was particularly naughty. And no, "reason" did not work. You couldn't get me to sit still and shut up long enough to reason with me, so obviously a calm talking to was out of the question. The um... "abuses" that is a good smack on the bottom, however, worked. This is because I, as the child, needed it, and my parents were not abusive, but rather, they knew how to adequately deliver it.
Thus, as with all issues, and I dare say this is especially the case with all issues relating to parenting, it is a matter of wisdom. There is quite literally no one size fits all answer. You can't say it's always good to smack naughty children because not every situation needs it. Similarly, you can't say it's never ok to smack naughty children, because then you create a vacuum of discipline that will inevitably be filled in by the world. Scripture does not say "he who spares the rod hates his son" for nothing. See, there is a hard form of discipline for adults: The criminal justice system. A good parent disciplines their children because a good government disciplines its citizens.
And let's talk about that for a moment. What do we say when a criminal gets off with an absurdly weak punishment? We say they got off with... "a slap on the wrist". That's because the slap on the wrist is the equivalent of insufficient discipline for a child. But a good government won't let a criminal off with a "slap on the wrist". As a father bears the cane, so does the government bear the sword. As a child, I was violent, greedy, and thieving. I am very grateful that I fell into the hands of my parents, rather than the criminal justice system.
So, is it acceptable to smack children? Without shadow of doubt, yes. It is far better to discipline children while they are young enough for it to sink in than to allow unruly children become unruly adults. We all live in a society that has abandoned discipline, and the results are self evident. Discipline creates self discipline, and crime statistics reflect that all too well.
In all of this, let us not forget that God, who of course is Himself love, is not afraid to discipline His children. Discipline brings about repentance for sin, and self discipline; the avoidance of future sin. If we stop fearing discipline, we will have less discipline to fear in the future, and therefore, discipline is actually one of the greatest forms of love.
"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."
- Revelation 3:19