In January 2014, AST Publishing released the fifth book in the Pocket collection, the best of “Communicate with your child. How?" This episode will talk about discipline and obedience, the rules that children must follow, the requirements that they must fulfill. That children themselves need rules, they need discipline in order to feel confident. But how to introduce rules so that they do not cause protest in the child? What do parents need to change in themselves in order to find a path to conflict-free discipline? Below we publish an excerpt from the book.
Question about punishments. Consequences of disobedience
A conversation about discipline inevitably leads to the question of punishment. What to do if, despite any tricks, the child does not obey? First of all, I want to assure you that if you follow all five rules about the rules, as well as everything that we went through in previous issues, the number of disobediences your child will reduce many times, if not disappear altogether. Still, no one is immune from misunderstandings, and there may come a time when you need to respond to clearly bad behavior. The issue of physical punishment usually causes a lot of controversy. Personally, I'm definitely against them. They insult and embitter, intimidate and humiliate children. There are fewer positive results from them than negative ones. The only option for physical influence that is beyond doubt is to curb a raging child. Once I happened to witness just such a scene. It was in America. Thirteen-year-old John, waiting for his mother in the car near the house, wanted to start the engine. The car, which was at full speed (he had lost sight of this), jerked, broke through the fence and hit a tree trunk. Everything happened so unexpectedly and lightning fast! The teenager, all red and trembling, jumped out of the car and ran into the house, muttering under his breath: “What have I done!”, “What have I done!” His younger sister, who saw everything from the window, greeted him with some caustic remark - and was thrown to the floor. At her cry, her mother appeared. Seeing John's condition, she grabbed his hands and abruptly sat him down on the sofa. “Let me go,” John struggled. “No,” the mother said firmly, “I will hold you until you come to your senses.” “No, let me go,” John fought, “you have no right!” This is violence! “No, John,” his mother said calmly but impressively, continuing to hold him tightly. “I can’t let you go now, I will do it as soon as you are able to control yourself.” Right now you can't do that yet. “But you don’t know what I did!” (By that time, from the short phrases of those around her, the mother understood what had happened.) - I know, John. You broke the fence and hit the car. But this is not the most important thing. The main thing for me now is that you pull yourself together. I'm not punishing you, but helping you come to your senses. When you calm down, we'll talk about the car. Frankly, for me it was a memorable lesson in the wise and dignified treatment of a mother with a teenager in an acute situation. You will say that there is no punishment here. I think, yes. Although this is exactly the case described here when punishment comes to the parent’s mind first of all. However, in that situation, John was punished by what happened , and his mother saw her role as helping him learn from it. Thus, we are again faced with the question of the negative results of the child’s actions: should they be allowed or should they not be allowed? We have already said that it is worth it so that the child can learn from mistakes. Now we can add: it’s worth it, for the sake of instilling respect for discipline. The natural consequence of disobedience is one of the types of punishment that comes from life itself, and is all the more valuable since in such cases the child has no one to blame but himself. A child scratched by a cat, or a schoolboy who gets a bad grade for an unlearned lesson, may for the first time feel the meaning and vital necessity of parental demands. One such experience is worth a dozen verbal instructions. In addition, we will still never be able to “lay straw” everywhere where our child might “fall.” But then, when he fails, you can help him a lot. Active listening is essential here. Let me remind you that it helps the child draw his own conclusion from what happened. Although sometimes a parent wants to say: “I warned you…”, “If you didn’t listen, blame yourself.” This is not worth doing. Firstly, the child remembers your warning very well, and secondly, he is now upset and deaf to any reasonable comments; thirdly, it is difficult for him to admit his mistake, and he is ready to challenge your rightness. The second type of punishment is more familiar, it comes from the parent. It all starts with a warning: “If you don’t... then...”, and ends with the fulfillment of what was promised. For example: “If you don’t stop being rude, I will put you in a corner”; “If you don’t clean your room, you won’t go for a walk.” Such punishments are called conditional consequences of disobedience because they do not follow naturally from the child’s actions, but are assigned by parents at their discretion. How should we treat them? I think they can’t be avoided anyway. However, first of all, it is important to discuss what parents see as the meaning of punishment and the “mechanism” of its action.
The meaning of punishment
Let's start with a mistaken view. It is a very common belief that punishment is necessary in order to evoke a negative emotion (pain, resentment, fear). Then the incident will be remembered, and the child will not behave this way in the future. And if so, the punishment should be increased. This point of view has taken deep roots in the minds of people and in the practice of education. Unfortunately, it is sometimes supported “scientifically” by reference to the theory of conditioned reflexes, which talks about the need for “reinforcement” (including negative reinforcement) for learning. But human behavior is not a set of reflexes, and education is not their development. Can punishing a person correct his behavior? Of course not! It is enough to look at this issue very broadly and pay attention to the results of people staying in colonies and prisons. Calling these institutions “correctional” is like calling black people white. But let's not go that far. Let's return to the child's corrections. It happens that, under pain of punishment, he actually stops doing what he is forbidden to do. However, more often he adjusts or disguises himself - he pretends that he obeyed, that is, he commits deception. It happens that he behaves “correctly” under one parent and dissolves under the other. A typical example could be seen in one family. An older boy of nine years old constantly bullies and offends his six-year-old sister. This is with the mother. With the arrival of his father, the atmosphere changes dramatically: the son becomes “like silk.” Moreover, as the father reports, not without pride, when he appears, his son begins to “shake.” About once a week the father spanks the boy with a belt. He is sure that this is a very correct measure, which is why his son is afraid of him, “and without fear there can be no discipline.” Children spend most of the day with their mother. In front of her, the son not only continues to offend his sister, but also does many other illegal things - he is rude, makes a mess, does not do his homework. To make matters worse, over the last year serious problems have appeared at school: the boy has become very aggressive. Teachers and parents of other children began to demand that he be “removed” from the class. And then the parents took a drastic measure: they sent the boy to a boarding school for five days. Every Monday he screams and pleads, clinging to the door handle, asking not to be taken to a boarding school. But the parents’ faith in the “development of reflexes” is so strong that this form of “education” continues for more than one year - and without success! Now we turn to another, more correct point of view on punishment. According to it: Punishment is, first of all, a signal of violation of a rule, norm or established order. Its meaning is to make the words of an adult more significant, to emphasize their seriousness. After all, children too easily ignore their parents’ words, especially when they don’t like something. Although punishment may upset a child, the point is not to offend, upset or frighten him, but to give him the opportunity to reflect on the offense, understand what exactly he violated and why it was bad. This view of the role of punishment presupposes an emphasis on nurturing the child’s consciousness and personality , and not on correcting his external behavior. It is worth emphasizing once again: with this approach, the parent finds himself in the position of a guide and defender of a life rule or moral value, and not a figure dictating his will. The parent is a defender of moral value, not a figure dictating his will. This should be expressed in the appropriate words: “This is not accepted in our family...”, “We have such an order...”, “This is how it should be...”. Please note that in these phrases there is no “I” of the parent (“I said...”, “I demand...”). They are, so to speak, impersonal and are perceived not as the dictates of an adult, but simply for granted. To summarize, we list the rules of what not to do, and what, on the contrary, one must remember and do if there is a desire to punish a child.
- You cannot skip or delay punishment for a long time. It should immediately follow a violation of a rule, rude or impolite behavior. In this case, the age of the child does not matter: the earlier in his life he encounters the unconditionality of the rule, the better.
- The punishment should not be excessive. It is a signal of the importance of the rule, and not an “act of retaliation.” Therefore, the classic “standing in the corner” or “sitting in grandpa’s chair” are quite suitable.
- You cannot humiliate a child with punishment. This means that punishment should not be accompanied by a rude tone, unkind criticism or name-calling.
- Physical punishment is completely unacceptable. They not only humiliate, but also embitter the child. They do not vaccinate, but, on the contrary, destroy relationships with the child and inhibit the development of his personality.
- It is important to remember that the point of punishment is to convey the seriousness and indisputability of the established rules. Therefore, it is necessary to react to their violation, if possible without missing them.
- It is necessary to explain to the child (as briefly as possible) the meaning of the adult’s dissatisfaction and say what exactly is expected of him.
- Punishment should be given in a relatively calm, friendly tone.
Section I. Pentateuch of Moses
The center of all legislation was, of course, the Decalogue ( Ex. 20:2–17
). All other commandments are to some extent its revelation and interpretation. The law given in the desert, in “no man’s land,” is not intended for a specific country, but has a universal significance. It is customary to say that the commandments of the Decalogue lie at the basis of universal morality. This is true because the law corresponds to human nature. His commandments provide the correct guidelines for the development of the human soul, which is created for a moral life, and not vice versa. An immoral life is destructive for a person. True, one should be careful here, because when talking about universal human values, the Decalogue is often significantly shortened. If you ask a modern “secular” schoolchild whether he has heard about the commandments, he will answer positively. If he is then asked to list them, he will start with the sixth (the fifth is currently unpopular). But the first four traditionally cause difficulties. This is no coincidence, since the first four commandments are not considered by many to be “universal human values.” But without them there are no values left at all.
The emptiness of “autonomous” ethics is demonstrated by the Gospel story with the rich young man ( Matthew 19:16–24
and parallel). He kept the 5th–10th commandments, but did not want to fulfill the 1st in full, and therefore cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
The first part of the Decalogue gives the remaining moral instructions absolute meaning, because God himself is absolute, God is absolute good. Moral postulates that are not correlated with God have no absolute value. If we know that “thou shalt not kill”,
because God commanded so, then there is no escape, even if we cannot explain it (although we can), because you cannot argue with God.
If “thou shalt not kill
,” because it is simply not good, is not accepted, then the Smerdyakov principle comes into play: “if there is no God, then everything is permitted.” If God is not the source, guardian and guarantor of these commandments, then what, exactly, can keep me from breaking them? Nothing.
This is precisely the fundamental difference between the Law of Moses and ordinary legislation. Conventional legislation serves to mutually limit human egoism. Each act is judged in terms of the damage caused or potential damage. Here things are different. The Mosaic Law condemns many acts simply because they are an abomination to God. And no matter how people justify them, or talk about their benefits or harmlessness, this does not change the matter. The law contains a direct reference to the will of God and requires obedience to it. Let me give you a striking example. “You must have a place outside the camp where you can go out; besides your weapon you must have a spatula; and when you sit outside [the camp], dig [a hole] with it and again cover [it] with your excrement; For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and deliver your enemies [into your hands], and [therefore] your camp must be holy, so that He does not see anything shameful in you and turn away from you.”
(
Deut. 23:12–14
). It would seem that a purely hygienic norm has a high justification - there should be no uncleanness unworthy of the presence of God.
We mentioned above that the Law was supposed to guide a person to a moral life. The basis (and content too) of moral life is union with God, abiding with Him.
Sin, in turn (according to the meaning of the term itself from the Greek αμαρτία - failure, deviation) is an action that takes a person away from God and prevents union with Him. Therefore, denouncing certain actions, the Law points to certain states of the soul behind them that are destructive to it.
As already mentioned, the Sinai legislation contains a wide range of different laws. We can study in detail their various economic, social and other aspects, but we are not interested in this, but in what the New Testament primarily draws our attention to. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you tithe mint, anise and caraway seeds, and have abandoned the most important things in the law: judgment, mercy and faith; this had to be done, and this should not be abandoned.”
(
Matt. 23:23
).
Let's look at this with specific examples.
«Let there be one law both for the natural resident and for the stranger who has settled among you.”
(
Ex. 12:49
). This was rare in those days, equality of rights between a natural resident and an alien. Usually it was (and still is) completely different.
«Fathers should not be punished with death for their children, and children should not be punished with death for their fathers; everyone must be punished by death for his crime."
(
Deut. 24:16
).
Regarding judgment, the Law says: “Do not listen to empty rumors, do not give your hand to the wicked to be a witness to untruth. Don't follow the majority out of spite
, and do not resolve litigation by deviating from the majority of the truth;
and do not condone the needy
’s troubles”
( Ex. 23:1–3
).
The main principle of democracy: “the majority is always right” and the communist slogan that the poor are always right are rejected here. When demanding to protect the widow, to protect the orphan and the wretched, it is nevertheless stipulated: “ Do not condone the poor in his litigation,”
poverty cannot be an excuse for wickedness, the court must be fair.
However, for those who cannot stand up for themselves at all, the Law is lenient. “Do not hand over a slave to his master when he comes running to you from his master;
let him live with you, among you, in a place that he chooses in one of your dwellings, where he likes it; do not oppress him” (
Deut. 23:15–16
), because otherwise he will face punishment. Let us also note that people usually do not run away from a good life. If the reason for the flight was a crime, then, obviously, he was supposed to be tried in the usual way.
The law proclaims the principle of equal retribution: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
(
Lev. 24:20, Exod. 21:24
). For those times, this was a fair and useful ruling: not a head for an eye, not a hundred people for one tooth, but equal retribution. However, in cases of serious bodily injury, it was necessary to pay for treatment and disability, and in cases of theft, compensation was usually expected to be 4-5 times the amount.
If a person bears false witness against someone and is caught in this, then he should be subjected to the same execution that would have been suffered by the one against whom he bore false witness. It should be noted here that for each of the commandments of the Decalogue, except for the 10th, there are certain conditions under which its violation is punishable by death.
As already mentioned, the law limits the possibilities of blood feud. Intentional murder was punishable by execution, but a person who committed murder unintentionally had the opportunity to take refuge in one of the cities of refuge discussed above.
The Law says that if someone's ox gores a person to death, then its owner is not guilty. However, if the owner knew yesterday and the next day that his ox was gore, and did not take any measures, then the owner is subject to death ( Ex. 21:28–29
), – in this case, criminal negligence is implied, that is, not only the action is assessed, but also the attitude towards it, the degree of conscious participation.
The law speaks not only about justice, but also about mercy towards others, especially those in need, elevating it to the rank of a commandment.
“When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the edge of your field, and do not glean what is left of your harvest, and do not strip your vineyard clean, and do not glean the grapes that fall in the vineyard; leave it to the poor and the stranger. I am the Lord your God.
Don't steal, lie or deceive each other. Do not swear falsely by My name, and do not dishonor the name of your God. I am the Lord. Do not offend your neighbor and do not rob. The mercenary's payment should not remain with you until the morning."
(
A lion. 19:9–13
).
The fifteenth chapter of Deuteronomy discusses three degrees of need - poverty, destitution and selling oneself into slavery.
«If you lend money to the poor of My people, do not oppress him or impose an increase on him. If you take your neighbor's clothing as a pledge, return it before the sun sets, for it is his only covering, it is the clothing of his body: what will he sleep in? So when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am merciful.”
(
Ex. 22:25–27
) - this commandment contains a direct call for compassion, concern for mercy more than justice.
“If he [your neighbor] is a poor man, then do not go to bed with his deposit: return the deposit to him at sunset, so that he can go to bed in his clothes and bless you, and this will be counted towards your
righteousness. before the Lord your God"
( Deut. 24:12–13
).
It is said about the beggar: “Give to him [loan], and when you give to him, your heart should not grieve.”
, for therefore the Lord your God will bless you in all your works and in everything that will be done with your hands;
for the poor will always be in the midst of [thy] land; therefore I command you: open your hand to your brother, to your poor and to your needy in your land” ( Deut. 15:10–11
).
In the seventh year, all debts to fellow tribesmen were forgiven and slaves were set free. When releasing him, the owner had to give him what he needed to live from his property. " Don't consider this a burden for yourself.
, that you should set him free from you, because at the age of six he earned you twice the wages of a mercenary;
and the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do” ( Deut. 15:18
).
Please note that we are talking not only about the external side of the matter, but also about the internal disposition of the heart, without which there is no virtue.
“If you find your enemy’s ox or his donkey lost, bring it to him; If you see your enemy’s donkey fallen under his burden, do not leave him; unload with him"
(
Ex. 23:4–5
). In this case, the commandment is established specifically in relation to the enemy. The Monk Isidore Pelusiot, explaining its meaning, writes that God gave it “not so much with concern for the animal, but most of all for the sake of the people themselves. An enemy who comes to raise a fallen animal will, without a doubt, enter into a conversation with the enemy and say: “You raise it there, and I will raise it here.” Conversation is the beginning of reconciliation and the path leading to friendship. Therefore, Divine Silence tried to achieve three wonderful goals: the first - so that the animal does not die, the second - so that the owner does not suffer a loss, and the third - so that the enemies are reconciled and become friends. For to whom good has been done, even if he is more insensitive than stones, he will try to reward the benefactor, and those recognized as a benefactor, of course, will no longer be considered an enemy. Do you see how ineffable Wisdom legitimizes everything, meaning goodness and love for mankind?”142.
A number of commandments directly indicate what should be the attitude towards other people. “ Rise up before the face of the gray-haired man, and honor the face of the old man, and fear [the Lord] your God.”
(
Lev. 19:32
). Sometimes the purely pragmatic meaning of a particular commandment is completely unclear. You can fulfill them only by having faith in the One who established them.
«Cursed is he who leads the blind astray!... Cursed is he who misjudges the stranger, the orphan and the widow!”
(
Deut. 27:18–19
).
“Do not speak evil of the deaf, and do not place anything before the blind to cause him to stumble;
fear the [Lord] your God. I am the Lord [your God]” (
Lev. 19:14
).
A deaf person does not suffer damage from slander, which means that the point is not this, but the disposition of the one who does this, “for everyone who practices unrighteousness is an abomination to the Lord your God”
(
Deut. 25:16).
Obviously, the above quotes are enough to make sure that, pointing to mercy, judgment and faith in the Law, the Lord Jesus Christ was not appealing to something unknown. It is no coincidence that when asked by a lawyer: “What is the greatest commandment in the law?”
“The Savior answered:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and greatest commandment; the second is similar to it: love your neighbor as yourself; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (
Matthew 22:37–40
).
“Don’t owe anyone anything,
- writes the Apostle Paul -
except for mutual love;
For he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments: do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not covet someone else’s, and all the others are contained in this word: love your neighbor as yourself. Love does not harm one's neighbor; Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (
Rom. 13:8–10
).
