Chapter Two

THE very first form of government with which the child comes in contact is the government within the home.

If there is no authority, no government in the home -- how can the parents expect their children to respect the authorities and governments in the society?

"It is certain that if our young people are to have total obedience to the laws of the land, a love for the orderly processes of government and a desire for ethical forms of behavior, the strengthening effect of religious training which will instill a sense of moral responsibility becomes apparent. The place to start is in the family circle.

"American families are developing the personalities who will determine what type of society our nation will have tomorrow" (Statement of the late J. Edgar Hoover, former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, quoted from excerpt from Committee Print, 81st Congress, Second Section, "Juvenile Delinquency").

Mr. Hoover was further quoted in his statement before the Special Senate Committee to investigate organized crime in interstate commerce:

"The home is the first great training school in behavior or misbehavior and parents serve as the first teachers for the inspirational education of youth. In the home, the child learns that others besides himself have rights which he must respect. Here the spade work is laid for instilling in the child those values which will cause him to develop into an upright, law-abiding, wholesome citizen. He must learn respect for others, respect for property, courtesy, truthfulness, and reliability. He must learn not only to manage his own affairs but also share in the responsibility for the affairs of the community. He must be taught to understand the necessity of obeying the laws of God."

Think of it! The former leader of our highly trained and efficient Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to impress upon the average family in our nation that it is absolutely necessary that the child understand that he must OBEY THE LAWS OF GOD.

He stated, further:

"These qualities, of course, are transmitted to the child only if they are exemplified and taught within the family circle. By way of contrast, homes broken by death, desertion, divorce, separation, neglect, or immorality stamp their imprint on the developing personality. The products of these homes, unguided and unsupervised children who seldom receive needed love and attention, develop distorted attitudes and may easily engage in antisocial behavior. These products of ADULT NEGLIGENCE have become easy recruits in an already vast army of youthful offenders."

What a remarkably accurate analysis. And what a clear picture of the cause of disobedient and delinquent children.

Bear in mind the delinquent is the youth who has actually run afoul of the law. Bear in mind, also, that the lack of government, the lack of love and respect, the misery in a home becomes evident to the public only when it is officially broken by divorce, then "counted" among broken homes.

Again, let us restate the vitally important fact that these general conditions, the underlying disrespect for authority, the lack of government, constitutes a broad picture of the majority of all homes today.

The chances are very great these conditions exist in YOUR home -- Now!

To a tiny, squirming infant -- his parents are "god." That is, they are the supreme authority in his life. They constitute his life-giver, his provider, protector, his law and his ruler.

If the little child cannot have an orderly existence, and cannot be kept within certain bounds which he is made to understand, he becomes confused, frustrated.

The parent who truly loves his own children will want to discipline them in the right manner, at the right time, when they are doing things which will cause much greater hurt.

To a tiny, newborn infant, his parents reign supreme. He knows of no other authority, no other law, no other governing influence, no other protector, provider -- and he knows of no other love. Recognizing this fact, parents should again realize that the time to begin training their children is early in life.

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, Joseph Stalin and other so-called "international gangsters" -- yes, and all the "bums" on skid row, the drifters who come to your back door for a handout, the arch-criminals, the petty offenders, and the sex fiends who have committed horrible atrocities -- all of them -- were little babies once!

Did the mothers of "pretty-boy" Floyd, John Dillinger and Al Capone, and also the other infamous gangsters of the '20s and '30s, know their children would develop into some of the most vicious criminals of their day?

A particularly heart-wrenching occurrence was reported of an 11-year-old boy in Connecticut who coldly and deliberately shot to death his 14-year-old brother, his own mother, and his father in a carefully planned and purposefully executed murder plot. Did the parents of this 11-year old boy ever for one moment begin to visualize their own son would ever turn on them in hatred with a

Could you have convinced the parents of any of the hundreds of youthful criminals their children would turn out as they did?

Of course not!

Where, and when, do criminals learn that kind of behavior, and what are the causes behind criminal acts by mere youth?

A police commissioner of Philadelphia has said, "Throughout the country there is a general DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY. I think that goes for the adults and is reflected in the thinking of the juvenile." When questioned further about some of the causes behind juvenile delinquency, this commissioner replied: "I think the change has been going on over a number of years in the attitude of OLDER PEOPLE toward constituted authority."

Notice it!

Because adults sneer at authority -- impugn the law, make fun of the "cops," and are openly disrespectful of national and international dignities -- they are actively teaching their children the same habits.

Remember, criminal behavior is LEARNED behavior -- human beings are creatures of habit. The child who is confronted with parental strife, indecision, lack of authority, upset conditions within the home, neglect and indifference from his own parents, will develop accordingly.

Any child reared in an upside-down home is going to develop into an upside-down child.

Some prevailing false concepts are at the very root and core of much of today's confusion over child rearing. Let us analyze a few of the more outstanding.

"Any kind of punishment either by means of words or force, or even mild reprimands on the subject, is extremely unwise," advises one foremost source, assuring gullible young parents they should NEVER punish their children. "The chief danger of punishment is that it makes the child feel guilty -- that he is bad, naughty. The child is likely to have a stronger feeling of guilt about his activity than about the other things he does. His ideas are vague and confused and his imagination vivid. He may build up pictures of the terrible things that will happen to him because of his naughtiness, thus sowing the seed of more fears and more anxieties, and increasing his emotional difficulties" (Parents Institute, op. cit., p. 391).

Notice that great stress is laid upon the supposition that punishment will make the child feel guilty -- that he is "bad" -- naughty.

This "feeling," some child psychologists assure us, is extremely harmful, and will surely lead to many and terrible consequences.

"The ineffectiveness of corporal punishment has been repeatedly demonstrated. The punishing parent or teacher 'frequently forgets that he loves his child; he forgets it because something in the child's behavior has made him forget that the child loves him.' Of the problem cases described by one hundred teachers, not one was improved by whipping. School social workers frequently report that a child's emotional difficulties are aggravated by beatings at home ... Many parents have said, 'The more I whip him the worse he gets'" (Ruth Strang, "An Introduction to Child Study", New York, Macmillan, p. 345).

Here, incomplete and partial information from "school social workers" is used to apparently "demonstrate" that corporal punishment is ineffective. Nothing is said of the METHOD of punishment, the frequency with which it was done, whether it was CONSISTENT, or whether correct and thoughtful use of punishment was being made. Nothing was said of the quality of family life -- whether there was warmth, respect, concern on the part of parents. Rather, that punishment for the sake of punishment is supposedly wrong.

"The word punishment should not appear in our dictionaries except as an obsolete word, and I believe this should be just as true in the field of criminology as in that of child rearing. The parent's object in rapping the child with a pencil is to get it to react in conformity with certain social usages -- to behave itself. Why then should the parents ever be angry? Why should they ever punish in the old Biblical sense? Such things as beating and expiation of offenses, so common now in our schools and homes, in the church, in our criminal law, in our judicial procedure [published in 1928 -- times have changed!], are relics of the Dark Ages."

Think of it!

This quotation, now seriously outdated -- has actually come true in part.

Criminals are being exonerated from guilt by the courts after being caught red handed in committing a crime. We are becoming more concerned for the "rights" of criminals than for the rights of the victims.

It is a proven fact today that criminals, even after confessing freely to their guilt, have had such confessions "dismissed" as proper evidence by a conniving counsel for the defense -- interested not in whether or not the man is really innocent or guilty, but merely in making a reputation for himself because such confession was made "improperly."

The system of no punishment has taken hold.

The result is the appalling, heart-wrenching, sickening stench of a mountain of crime, a cesspool of sadism, a sewer of pornography and dope addiction, a gigantic, mounting rush toward complete anarchy.

Some child psychologists have a "substitute" for discipline. Notice how impractical their ideas really are.

"The parent's attitude should be positive, should be that of the instructor ... by surrounding the child constantly with objects that it has a right to work with. In this way 'forbidden' objects come gradually to lose their stimulating value; the children cease to play with fire [that is, if they are still alive and your home is still intact], with matches [same comment], they stop turning gas jets on and off [that is, if they are still alive and your home has not been blown to bits, together with a dozen others in the block], picking up sharp knives and forks [that is, if they have not been so seriously cut or have fallen on one of the sharp instruments and are now dead], pulling over glass vases and bottles. But where the positive method of training does not make them let these objects alone, then gentle pencil rapping is a safe and sane procedure" (John B. Watson, "Psychological Care of Infant and Child", New York, Arno Press, 1928, pp. 63-65).

But wait!

Will this work?

Can you actually wait for your own child to be "surrounded with objects it has a right to work with" so it will become interested in them, instead of running into a busy street, pulling over heavy glass vases, turning on gas jets, playing with sharp knives? This would be so laughable, so ridiculous that it would be painful -- if it weren't so seriously in error.

Of course the child should be able to have constructive toys, and be surrounded with right objects. But this positive teaching cannot take the place of proper, loving, diligent punishment to teach a child NOT to handle objects, or follow practices that will take its life.

Certain child psychologists seem to have adopted the idea that parent-child relationships are as difficult and involved as international diplomacy. So many and varied are the suggestions on the tactful employment of modern psychology in the parents' dealing with their children that one is thoroughly confused by the self-contradictions, the incomplete statements, and the unanswered questions in the dozens of volumes dealing with the subject.

Another example of such contradictory partial information is:

"Punishment affects parent-child relations and teacher-child relations. A spanking which the child considers unrelated to the situation is likely to make him hostile to the person who administers it. It is better, whenever possible, to let the punishment fit the crime -- to let the situation itself punish the child. Then the parent plays the friendly role. He gives warnings. If the child persists in doing the thing, he will get hurt. The parent can be sympathetic, but reminds the child that he said it would hurt. The problem is much more difficult when the forbidden is rewarding, like running out into the street -- an exciting excursion that many times may cause no harm (yet sometimes be fatal). But over a period of time the parent can build a relation based on rewarding experiences in which his advice was heeded" (Strang, op. cit., p. 221).

Taken at face value, this advice "seems" to be relatively sound. However, when looking more closely, so many are the errors and false concepts, that this particular quotation must now be enlarged upon.

Re-read the first part of the last quotation.

It is sound. It makes sense. But notice again that even though it is admitted the problem is much more "difficult" when a child runs into the street -- THIS eventuality is not dealt with at all.

Why?

Because, having already committed himself to no punishment theories, this author wouldn't know how to keep a child from running into the street without tying him in the yard or keeping him in a pen!

Even after admitting this "excursion" (there is no plurality involved in this word) may sometimes be fatal, he offers no suggestion for coping with the problem.

Society cannot seem to reconcile itself to the fact that love and punishment could possibly come from the same source. It is somehow beyond the realm of conceivability to the average person that there could be any love involved in punishment. Punishment is such a "nasty" word, that some child psychologists (as already quoted) have even advocated its deletion from our dictionaries. Today's modern movements to rescind punishments, to abolish the death sentence for demented, brutal, sadistic murderers who themselves have inflicted torturous and horrifying death sentences on perhaps dozens of helpless human beings, the desire of the average wife to have the word "obey" taken out of the marriage ceremony, and the vast, all-comprehensive movement of religionists to strip the pulpit of its power, rip laws and authority from the Bible, and throw discipline to the winds, may serve to illustrate the depths to which the roots of the anti-discipline weed have grown.

Notice again, from a very respected group of psychologists and child-behaviorists, how, because of certain abuses of right punishment -- ALL punishment is assumed to be utterly wrong:

"Sometimes one sees a letter in a magazine or newspaper in which an individual or a group of parents recommends the INDISCRIMINATE use of corporal punishment with a cruelty and sadistic satisfaction that is frightening.

"Most parents, however, turn to this extreme as a last resort, and because they think that nothing else will work" (Parents Institute, op. cit., p. 365).

The next quotation from the same authors serves graphically to illustrate the aforementioned principle of the basic inability to understand that love and punishment CAN come from the same source:

"It [corporal punishment] usually is the end step in a long course of happenings that has carried both parents and children away from positive feelings of love and understanding" (Parents Institute, ibid., pp. 365-366).

Notice that child psychologists view the use of corporal punishment as a complete breakdown in "parent-child relationship," something that is done only in anger, as a result of outside coercion, or of complete frustration on the part of an upset and helpless parent.

The authors go on to say:

"The child's failure to live up to what is expected of him, either by the school, or the family, or his parents, is a painful and bitter experience for the mother or father. They feel a deep sense of their own failure in their most important job. Angry and upset at themselves, as well as their children, they strike out in the only way they know!"

This type of punishment is an ABUSE. It should NEVER be done!

Frequently, sensational stories of thoughtless parental brutality have been emblazoned across the pages of newspapers. "Father Beats Children to Death," "Mother Whips Six-Weeks-Old Baby," "Father Ties His Children in Woodshed -- Leaves Them All Night!" and similar outrages have shocked and horrified the public. But human beings are creatures of EXTREMES. Like the constantly moving pendulum, they seem to swing from one opposite to the other.

There have been certain terrible abuses of corporal punishment -- misapplication and thoughtless use of it by parents who are punishing their children in anger. There have been sensational stories of torments upon tiny tots by a few who are not proper disciplinarians and who are completely unequipped and ill-fitted to be parents. As a result of these extremes, many have been convinced that any use of corporal punishment must, by its very nature, be wrong.

There are many abuses in child discipline even in various schools, as well as in the homes. However, seeing these abuses and malpractices by untrained and unskilled parents should not lead other parents to assume there is not a proper use for discipline. Some child psychologists have, true to form, swung to the opposite extreme -- and begun to advocate NO DISCIPLINE! Very recently, as a result of the surging increase in a worldwide wave of juvenile crime and lawlessness, law enforcement agencies, government officials, and even some few child psychologists have begun to advocate more and more discipline, more respect for authority, and the introduction of corporal punishment into some school systems. Taken in its right perspective, with its correct application, this is certainly a very good thing. However, let us hope it is not merely the swing of the pendulum back to another "extreme."

Parents have been increasingly reluctant to punish their children because of the supposed "effects" which they have been told punishment engenders.

"Spanking seems the quick way of 'getting results' but these usually take the shape of temporary conformance, not of growth in self-direction and self-control. Autocratic control usually produces one of two personalities: An over submissive child who does what he is told but shows no initiative, or the rebellious child who is constantly waging war against authority" (Strang, op. cit., pp. 221-222).

This is an untrue assumption. The right use of spanking does not produce an "over submissive child" who acts as an automaton, but rather it guides and controls initiative, inventiveness and self-reliance.

Notice the next example. Seeing only the misuse of punishment by distraught, incapable parents, the author remarks:

"Some mothers are always nagging and scolding their children, yank them when they cross the street or get into buses, and slap them whenever they do something the mother doesn't like. These mothers may be tired and cross, but they do not understand that they make their children cross and irritable, too, and make things harder for themselves.

"If you let yourself go occasionally and slap or spank when you are excited or upset, it probably isn't too serious, provided your child is left with the feeling that he has been punished only for something he has DONE, and that you love him anyway" (Parents Institute, op. cit., pp. 366-367).

Here again, punishment is viewed as "letting oneself go occasionally" or, in other words, losing one's temper. It is viewed as if the adult human being, in anger, were "getting back" at the child, and inflicting physical torment upon the child merely because the child has "bothered" the parent.

Again, seeing this misapplication of discipline, the child psychologists, IMAGINING a number of terrible "effects" of spanking, have been responsible for deeply etching the fear of the "unknown" in the minds of many young parents -- assuring them their lovely little children may turn into perfectly horrible monsters, become demented, or develop harmful "complexes" as a result of spanking.

"But if you find that you are punishing and slapping repeatedly, you may be sure you are on the wrong track.

"Spanking may stop your child for the moment, but you don't know what else it may do.

"It may make him angry and resentful, or humiliated and ashamed. Or he may become hardened and pay no attention to it; or become just so afraid that he can't trust himself to do anything.

"None of these feelings helps him learn what it was that he did wrong, or how to act the next time."

Of course -- "feelings" don't help him learn the positive part. But notice how incomplete is this assumption! If amply warned first, and then punished in love, accompanied by kind, patient, positive teaching of the right as opposed to the wrong, this objection becomes worthless.

"The best that can be said for spanking is that it sometimes clears the air. BUT IT ISN'T WORTH THE PRICE, AND IT USUALLY DOESN'T WORK" (Parent's Institute, ibid., p. 367).

Notice that parents are threatened with unforeseeable and dire consequences if spanking is utilized! One author said:

"Corporal punishment develops resentment and misunderstanding. It stresses what the child should not do rather than what he should do, produces fear, and makes him lose confidence in his parents. Intelligent parents rarely resort to corporal punishment ... An intelligent disciplinary method is the use of reasoning at the child's level of understanding. The more calm and free the discussion, the more clearly can the desirable conduct be formulated" (Isaac Newton Kugelmass, Growing Superior Children, New York, Appleton-Century, pp. 452-453).

To some authors, the whole meaning of the term "punishment" seems to revolve around blind, unreasoning beatings inflicted by calloused and indifferent parents in a fit of frenzied anger.

"The typical result of the whipping in childhood is either the servile, timorous individual, who usually is at one and the same time cringe and crafty, or the arrogant and objectionably self-assured person. Almost everyone who was beaten in his childhood has a tendency toward brutality."

Notice the employment of the terms "whipping" and "beaten" as being the obvious reason for "brutality." This author continued:

"Yet the method of corporal punishment continues to be employed, although its uselessness, absurdity, and downright harmfulness should be apparent to everyone. This mystery finds its explanation in the fact that it is mostly the whipped children, who, as parents, advocate the theory that whippings are indispensable. They believe they are following their good sense when they deal out blows, whereas actually they are following only a strange inner urge. They want to give their child a vivid and drastic demonstration of their own superiority; they fear that otherwise they will be unable to subdue his resistance; and they do not realize that the use of brute force plainly betrays an essential weakness that has no other resource at its disposal. Nor do they admit to themselves how much cowardice is implicit in such a procedure" (Rudolf Dreikurs, "The Challenge of Parenthood", New York, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, pp. 138-139).

Here is further proof of the swinging of the pendulum. Many child psychologists observing parents lashing out in anger, as a result of their own frustrations and tensions, have witnessed thoughtless misuse of corporal punishment -- often with serious and long-lasting consequences. On the premise that punishment, by its very nature, must come from the source of anger, bitterness, hatred, resentment, frustration, tension, they label corporal punishment as "anything but good" for the child, and a word which should be deleted from our dictionaries.

And, that type of discipline -- under those emotional conditions -- has no place in proper child rearing practices. There is, however, a time for discipline and a right way to administer it.

Punishment, when meted out in the proper manner, and at the proper time, is one of the greatest BLESSINGS a human being -- at any age -- can receive.

First, let the Bible explode the theory of society, once and for all, that punishment and love cannot come from the same source. The Apostle Paul said:

"Ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" (Heb. 12:5-6).

Notice, Almighty God punishes His children, because He LOVES them! True Christians today are recipients of God's just and merciful chastisement, His punishments and His admonitions, His corrections and rebukes -- as well as His encouragement and comfort. God says:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (II Tim. 3:16-17).

The Holy Word of God is GIVEN to correct us, to chastise us, to rebuke and reprove us.

"If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the Father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons ... Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are EXERCISED thereby" (Heb. 12:7-11).

One of the very CHARACTERISTICS of a loving God is His NATURE of meting out just, merciful and loving PUNISHMENT WHEN IT IS NEEDED! Of course, God also comforts and encourages in time of need (II Cor. 1:3-4; 7:6-7).

However, to be without chastisement, to be left without God's punishments, to go our own way, uncontrolled, unrestrained and unchecked, would mean the ultimate destruction of our society!

In like fashion, a CHILD who is allowed to grow up through various "phases" of rebellion, unchecked and unrestrained, without the loving but firm hand applied WHERE it ought to be, WHEN it ought to be, HOW it ought to be, is going to end up as a confused, uncertain, neurotic, emotional mess -- and in some cases, a hardened unregenerate criminal!

The oft-quoted "scripture," "spare the rod and spoil the child" is NOT a scripture! It is a "saying" which people have repeated down through the years as being scripture -- and is not found in the Bible in this exact form. However, in principle, it is certainly based upon the Bible.