Terror-attack hero stands up for spanking

The man who became a hero when he fired back at terrorists who invaded a church in South Africa now is sounding off on a government plan there to ban spanking.

"By common law it is illegal to beat your child to inflict physical injury," Charl van Wyk wrote in a letter published by the South African news website Independent Online.

"But with banning all spanking, are we not throwing the baby out with the bath water?

"Spanking a child to train them in the way they should act and live, should never be equated with violence against a child. If violence is inflicted upon a child, then the law must take its course and justice must be done."

TRENDING: Take heart, patriots! These 3 House members are the future of the GOP

His comments came as the Joshua Generation Church in Cape Town fought a determination by the South African Human Rights Commission that the church's parenting manual's advocacy of corporal punishment violates the nation's constitution.

Nadene Badenhorst, a legal counsel for the church, told WND that under South African law parents have both the right and duty to discipline their children, "including the right to 'reasonable chastisement.'"

The biblical mandate for armed self-defense – especially in church! Get "Shooting Back" today!

"Practically speaking, the means that in SA law, parents are allowed to spank their children, provided the spanking is reasonable and moderate (i.e., non-injurious), and done solely for the purpose of the child's education and benefit," she explained.

However, she said, the nation's Department of Social Development has confirmed its officials "are currently in the process of developing the policy framework that will inform the proposed amendments to the Children's Act."

There is no specific proposal yet, she said, but "all indications are that the proposed amendments … will make it a crime for parents to spank their children."

She said a big part of the problem is that South Africa has signed "international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which does not expressly prohibit spanking but has been interpreted by the treaty body as implying a prohibition against spanking."

A number of nations have expressed disagreement with that conclusion.

The Freedom of Religion South Africa organization, with which Badenhorst works, contended in a statement Jan. 22 as the conflict with the church arose that the government agency's recommendations interfere with parental authority and religious freedom.

"The [agency's] finding that there is no difference between 'disciplinary spanking' (a physically non-injurious act, motivated by love and concern, and intending to educate and correct), and 'abuse' or 'violence' (physical assault, motivated by anger and malice, intending to injuring or abusing, and in fact causing injury), is extraordinary. Any reasonable person would agree that there is a fundamental and obvious difference," the organization said.

Van Wyk agreed.

"Propagandists have created the impression that spanking is some medieval practice, which an enlightened society should abolish," he wrote. "Spanking should not be punishment. It is rather chastisement. It should be referred to as training. It should not be applied in anger. One should not lose control."

Van Wyk said a "defense of chastisement should not be seen as a defense of all those who abuse this means of training."

"Spanking should not be used as a vent for parents' anger."

He noted that supporters of a ban cite individual cases in which adults have acted incorrectly.

"All authority is misused from time to time, but that misuse does not negate the legitimacy of the office itself, rather of the ones who abuse their authority. When the courts are unjust or dishonest, we do not abolish the office of judge or the administration of law," he said. "When African presidents are immoral and sell favors, enriching themselves through crooked deals, we do not abolish the office of president."

Schools already are spank-free zones, he pointed out, with "experts" recommending drugs for children.

"Some parents resort to screaming, shouting and verbal abuse. These means will probably damage out children psychologically, spiritually and emotionally for years to come," he said.

"No wonder our teachers no longer teach, but have resorted to crowd control and lecturing," he said. "Spanking is outlawed in schools – let's not now make our homes as chaotic as our schools."

The church is appealing the commission's ruling.

The biblical mandate for armed self-defense – especially in church! Get "Shooting Back" today!

Church officials say they cannot comply with a demand to "stop believing and teaching certain Scriptures from the Bible."

"JoshGen as a church does not … actively 'promote' spanking (as the SAHRC has incorrectly found)," a church statement said. But members "must be free to interpret the sacred texts for themselves, and to decide for themselves what they believe to be best for their children. It is their constitutional right."

The Cape Town church said it is joined in its position by The Evangelical Alliance of South Africa, the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Muslim Judicial Council.

Senior Pastor Andrew Selley said those who made the complaint, as well as the commission members, apparently never have even visited the church.

"If they were to, they would see that as Christians, we really love and value children as precious gifts from the Lord. We take our responsibility to protect, nurture and care for children very seriously, knowing that we will have to give an account to God for this," he said.

The commission's action was prompted by a complaint from Adriaan Mostert, who is not a member of the church, but nevertheless claimed the church's doctrine "requires" the use of corporal punishment."

There was no actual spanking involved in the circumstances that prompted Mostert's claim.

Van Wyk, whose Christian mission work focuses on Africa, became a sudden celebrity in 1993 after terrorists burst into St. James Church in Cape Town loaded with shrapnel-coated grenades and automatic weapons.

Eleven people were killed almost immediately in the congregation of about 1,000. But Van Wyk, sitting a few rows from the back, pulled out his snub-nose .38 revolver and fired two shots at the attackers.

One of the terrorists, who later admitted their intention was to kill as many as they could, was hit. Van Wyk didn't realize that until later, because he quickly withdrew from the building and circled around back, trying to get behind the terrorists.

But they already were in a vehicle fleeing.

His experience has been chronicled in book and DVD versions of "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense."

On the 20th anniversary of the shooting, he told WND, "The moment of chaos and carnage unfurled is forever etched in my mind."

Van Wyk, who blogs at Mission Liberty, described what happened:

And he has addressed the issue of Christians' responsibility when the state cannot halt violence: