The Liability of Loose Threats

January 1, 1970

00:00
/00:00

There is always the puzzling problem of disciplining people. Parents, and others, frequently find themselves searching and praying and pleading for wisdom and guidance in teaching and disciplining young and impressionable people (and others also), – how harsh to be, how severe, how lax, how indulgent? This question of the duty of discipline is torn at times between the tendency to be too severe, and the tendency to be too soft, too indifferent, too indulgent – and we have seen the swaying between the old adage “Spare the rod and spoil the child” (which concept has often been abused), and simply “spoiling the child” (which has also been abused). There is no infallible formula for the problem of disciplining people. To know what to do under all circumstances and situations would require a wisdom exceeding that of Solomon. But there are some essentials to be included, and some elements to be avoided: First of all, there should be no laxness or indifference to duty. There should be fairness and consistency of penalties imposed, first being sure we know the facts and not assume we know what we don’t know – and perhaps punish the wrong person – or at the wrong time, in the wrong way – or for the wrong reason. And, finally) and in punishment this may seem paradoxical), there should be love. Punishment in hate leaves its ugly scars both upon the giver and the receiver. But punishment in love when it is sincerely needed is likely to leave its lasting benefits and blessing. In the highest tradition of teaching and in the real work of making men, we can’t lead the child, we can’t lead anyone, very far without love. We can drive with hate, with threats, with fear, with force. But if we want a girl or boy to be his best, there must be a basis of love underlying all our actions and attitudes.

Search

Share