Why showing anger at your child can be sin

 Many parents think they have the right to get angry, and will cite the Bible as a justification for this form of emotional abuse. Anger is an unhealthy feeling and attitude in parenting, and not an acceptable thread of entitlement to impose on a child. 

Most child abuse in this country is not committed by pedophiles, but by angry parents tormenting their children for their crimes of their parents - intergenerational violence. Pedophilic abuse is when you go in the other direction, and hate your parents from the very beginning - it can be seen as grimly humanized in this light.

It says in Matthew 5:21-22 KJV:

Ye heard that it was them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry at his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell-fire. 

First of all, "council" and "judgment" do not refer to Hell directly, but indirectly. It refers to a courtroom, namely a Sanhedrin, made up of 23 judges, with a suspect being brought before a high court for judgment of murder. Christ is saying that unlawful anger towards a child is sin, in and of itself, and is a form of entitlement when defended as a "right". Many gentle parents do struggle against this sin and abuse against children, and many pro-spanking parents defend such entitlement.

I am not an angry person in my personal life, at all. I show no anger, in most cases. Even when I am really angry, it is an internalized form of anger that I can easily just regurgitate onto someone else. Direct anger must serve a judicial purpose, or else not exist. This means presumption of innocence in one's neighbor, beyond a reasonable doubt, and also "turn the other cheek" instead of getting easily offended at hurtful words. I invoke law in the form of traumatic ambush, usually, and the goal is to break down adversarial communication barriers in your opponent, and then get to a collaboration, namely an apology in one or both parties, with apology granting the other party courtroom victory. An exchange is like a courtroom battle, with the most selfless person winning. The first person to walk away from an argument is the winner. Avoiding is even better, but hard for a lot of people to do.

In parenting, there should be no anger. Simply state limits, without the massive show about "You hurt me because...". Children have a right to be hurtful to parents if that's what it takes to get a need met, in their eyes (meaning NOT your biased adult eyes). So your child is a "burden"? See if I care about your "rights" with those allegator tears of yours...Many parents struggle with anger and even domestic violence habits they don't want, but "struggle" does not mean defend anger against children. Children are exempt, meaning not judicial subjects of any kind. God recognizes no worldly authority over children - only the gentle providence of parents, meaning no punishment or control. If you think you have the right to get angry with your child, that is entitlement to control. A child feels controlled when you are angry, like a corkscrew, so do not get angry as a point in habit. Children cannot testify in a moral court of law. Only adults can.

Let the angry, punitive parents BURN! Repent!