| 
First
Comes Charity, Then Comes Teaching
By H. Wallace Goddard
In
my last Myth of the Month, Charitable
Parenting, I described the central importance of love in raising
healthy children. Love is simply the first law of parenting — just
as it is the great commandment in the law. Nothing matters as much
as love in helping children develop into healthy adults. What’s
more, the quality of love has an impact on the effectiveness of
all other parenting efforts.
In
dealing with parenting dilemmas, it is hard to tease
apart loving and disciplining (or guiding, as we say
in the field of child development). Many issues we think
of as control issues are really, at root, relationship
issues.
There
is far more that can and should be said about effectively
loving children. But I promised to write in this column
about the other key dimension in parenting. It goes
by several names: control, guidance, or structure. I
like to think of it as teaching.
The
Control Dilemma
I
begin this discussion with another bit of counsel from
the same parent columnist described in my last column.
In a recent column he responded to another inquiry about
feeding children. There are two parts of his counsel
that I want to focus on. First, he said that children
should not be allowed to complain about the food they
are served for meals at home. It is rude, he said. Second,
he took to task a parent who would create an alternative
meal for a child who was not happy with the offered
one.
Before
discussing his counsel, let’s set the stage for thinking
about control. What is its purpose? To prevent problems?
To keep children out of trouble? To make life run smoothly?
Control
Out of Control
One
commentator has suggested that the solution to most
of our childrearing problems is to keep our children
from having sex or using drugs until they are 25, since
most people are unlikely to initiate sexual behavior
or drug use after 25. This is akin to saying that we
should keep our children from any physical activity
until they are 25 so they won’t break any bones. After
all, children are at a higher risk of breaking bones.
I
hope you see the fallacy. We can protect children from
breaking bones but the cure is worse than the disease.
The child who was immobilized until 25 would be a cripple.
Likewise the child who was protected from any decision-making
related to sex or drugs might be kept pure but would
be entirely disabled in decision-making ability.
That
describes Satan’s plan precisely. He promised to get
us all back home, but he would accomplish it by denying
us any agency. Heavenly Father could not allow such
a plan. The price is simply too high.
The
Purpose of Control
I
believe that there is one primary purpose for parents
to exercise control in their children’s lives: to teach
them to use their agency wisely. Certainly control should
also be used to keep children safe from threats for
which they are not prepared. But this fits within the
larger purpose of parental control — helping children
learn to use their agency.
There
are many ways to abuse parental control, but the many
ways can be classed into two broad categories for the
sake of this discussion: too much and too little.
Too
Much Control
Those
who exercise too much control may be trying to prevent
their children from making mistakes but, in the process,
they hamper the development of their children.
The
solution is not to provide unlimited agency to their
children. The solution is progressive agency. We honor
the baby’s preference for goo-ing with the parent or
resting — but remaining available when the child is
interested. We allow a pre-schooler to pick the book
to be read at bedtime, but usually not the time for
retiring. We allow a school age child to pick the clothes
to wear to school — providing subtle coaching. Most
adolescents are allowed to make many decisions, under
wise and gentle parental guidance.
Progressive
agency is much like helping a child learn to ride a
bike. As children get closer to being ready to learn,
we provide a bike with training wheels. As they get
more experienced, we might adjust the training wheels
up or even remove them. For a short time we run along
side children as they learn — coaching on steering,
braking and balance. Eventually they learn to ride on
their own. Along the way most children get some bumps
and bruises. But wise parents provide just enough guidance
to prevent damaging or discouraging accidents. We give
children all the freedom for which they are prepared.
We even coach them to help them be ready for more freedom.
Examples
of Control
A
couple of examples might be useful. When first-grade
Sara wanted to stay up on school nights as late as her
older siblings, we understood her preference. But we
also knew from experience that staying up later wasn’t
good for her state of mind or family well-being. So
we would respond, “Yes. It would be fun to stay up later.
You wish you could. Do you want Mom or Dad to tuck you
in?”
“I
want to stay up!”
“Yes.
You wish you were older so you could stay up later.
Do you want Mom or Dad to tuck you in?’
Children
should be given choices within the bounds set by loving
and wise parents. And we do not have to become unpleasant
as we set limits. One of our parenting mottoes has two
vital parts: It is our job to help our children get
what they want in a way we feel good about. We care
deeply about our children’s preferences. But we set
some bounds based on their readiness. We did not let
our young children decide whether they wanted Hershey
bars or green beans for dinner. But we might offer a
choice between green beans and peas.
Another
example: When 17-year-old Andy asked us if he could
go to the lake with his friends on an upcoming Friday
night, we took seriously our responsibility to help
him make a good decision. But we also honored — based
on good experiences with him — his good sense and maturity.
So
I asked, “How do you feel about going?”
“I
think it will be fine. We’ll play ball and have snacks.”
“So
you don’t see any problems with the gathering?”
Andy
paused. “Well, I do have a question. I know some of
the guys will be bringing marijuana but I won’t be using
any so it shouldn’t be a problem, right?”
I
managed my shock. We had a calm discussion about potential
problems. I encouraged him to think about it for another
day or two. He ultimately decided that he didn’t need
to be at a party with drugs. In fact, he offered an
alternative gathering at our house.
The
Gentle Art of Progressive Agency
Progressive
agency is an art. It requires wisdom and faith to provide
children abundant opportunities to make decisions while
not setting them up for disaster.
When
does setting bounds become unrighteous dominion? Perhaps
the answer is “when we undertake to cover our sins,
or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise
control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of
the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness”
(D&C 121: 37).
But
this is not a tidy answer. Satan claimed noble purposes
for his devilish plan. It is only when we have the Spirit
of love in our hearts — both for God and for our children
— that we can set bounds wisely. Charity must guide
the purpose and enlighten the practice of progressive
agency with wisdom as her fair companion.
Back
to the Food Issue
So
I disagree with the parenting columnist about children
expressing their dislike for foods. I do not consider
it rude within a family for a person to express that
he does not have a taste for a certain food. The expression
can be phrased with consideration for the people who
provide and prepare the food. But a child should be
able to express feelings.
And
we can model civility ourselves. We do not need to rant
or shame them. We can set a standard that seems reasonable:
“I ask that you try one bean. Then, if you do not want
more, you may fix yourself a peanut butter sandwich.”
Even
in making such simple requests we avoid stark confrontation.
Psychology teaches us to minimize power as a relationship
issue. It tends to get in the way of helpful guidance.
As Wendy Grolnick, an insightful psychologist, has observed:
“[Humans] simply do not do well (or feel well) when
we are made to feel like pawns to others, whether at
work, at school, or in our personal relationships” Grolnick,
pp. 32-3
And,
as President Howard W. Hunter observed, “God’s chief
way of acting is by persuasion and patience and long‑suffering,
not by coercion and stark confrontation. He acts by
gentle solicitation and by sweet enticement. He always
acts with unfailing respect for the freedom and independence
that we possess. He wants to help us and pleads for
the chance to assist us, but he will not do so in violation
of our agency. (Howard W. Hunter, ”The Golden Thread
of Choice,” Ensign, Nov. 1989, p. 18). We would
do well to follow the example of our perfect Father.
In
the eating arena, we provide lots of nutritious foods
and let children make choices. Yet I agree with the
columnist that a parent probably should not jump to
prepare an alternate meal for the child. And I would
not allow the child to eat just anything. I would probably
have an alternate meal in mind that was acceptable to
the child. That would set appropriate bounds.
So,
having discussed the exercise of excessive control,
let’s turn our attention to insufficient control.
Too
Little Control
Many
parents cannot tolerate children’s displeasure. They
are not willing to set firm boundaries. They may lecture
and threaten but they do not deliver on their threats.
What do children learn from such parenting? They learn
that the key to getting what you want is to keep your
parents constantly on the horns of your displeasure.
They learn to be family terrorists.
Most
of us have seen parental caving in action. In fact,
most of us have done such caving ourselves. For example,
we have all seen a parent insist to a child in the supermarket
that he cannot have a candy bar under any circumstances.
But, after some whining, nagging, and maybe even a tantrum,
the child gets the candy bar. What did the child learn?
A little persistence pays handsome dividends. So children
learn to become efficient tormentors of their parents.
Children
learn just what combination of whining and demanding
will get them what they want. And many parents learn
to be endless lecturers. So both sides lose. Both parent
and child lose dignity in the battle over a candy bar.
We teach children to surrender character and become
mercenaries. And we become chronic grouches.
More
Examples
Like
most parents, we faced the candy-bar dilemma with our
children. Nancy and I set a standard. We wanted to be
sensitive to our children’s hunger — especially in the
supermarket with so many tantalizing options. But we
wanted to be clear. So we told our children that we
would never during their mortal lives buy them a candy
bar to be eaten while in the store. But we would be
willing to buy them a small box of animal cookies that
they could eat while we shopped. When the children knew
we were serious, there was no whining or begging. They
ate their cookies while we shopped. Peace reigned.
There
are other ways of exerting too little control. One of
them is to use threats as a control technique. Frustrated
parents may threaten to withhold Christmas presents
or to keep a child home from a party. Both parent and
child know that the threat is unlikely to be enacted.
It is merely a stick swung threateningly in the air.
Feeling insulted by the unjust attack on their dignity,
the child resists. The parental anger and threats escalate.
Childish indignity grows.
This
can’t possibly be the best way to teach children how
to use their agency.
The
drama would be comical if it were not so tragic. Just
as Satan would have it.
Guidelines
for Guidance
So
sensible rules for guidance include at least the following:
1.
Be careful about the rules you make. Avoid idle threats.
Do not make big issues out of little behaviors that
should be ignored.
2.
Consistently enforce the rules you make. The action
behind the promise is the only way children learn that
we — and nature — are serious about the rules we make.
3.
Use consequences. Let nature — rather than angry diatribes
— teach the law of the harvest. When we do not sow,
we do not reap. If we do not finish our chores, we do
not go out and play.
4.
Keep the relationship positive. We should probably deliver
at least five positive experiences for each negative
one. And even the negative encounters should be done
with “persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness,
and love unfeigned.”
5.
Give children lots of real choices. It takes regular
practice for them to learn to use their agency well.
(See Goddard, “Something Better than Punishment,” in
Principles of Parenting for more details on these
five principles.)
A
Concluding Example
Nancy
and I once attended a birthday party for a graduate
student. The hostess was greeting all of her guests
even as she tried to finish preparations for the party
and manage her two children. We tried to help, but we
noticed trouble brewing. Four-year-old Emma was standing
at the kitchen table, nose-to-nose with the cake. She
clearly had designs on the frosting.
This
is a crossroads in parenting. The mother may choose
to do nothing. She may harpoon her with threats. Or
she may set Emma up for success.
Mom
followed her poorer instincts. She threatened. “If you
touch that cake you’re in trouble!” and shot the threatening
glare. Emma returned the glare with the hidden message:
“I can make you suffer for a lifetime for treating me
this way.”
Having
offered her severest intimidation, Mom returned to preparations
for the party. Emma returned to frosting-lust. Obviously
the maternal injunction had not created a mighty change
of heart for Emma.
Emma
lingered near the cake and Mom continued to leer at
Emma. When Mom got busy taking snack items to the party
area, Emma snatched a frosting-rich corner of the cake.
When Mom returned and spotted the telltale signs of
the crime, she screamed, “I told you not to touch that
cake!” Emma felt mistreated and Mom judged her to be
a bad child. This approach does not lead anyone to Zion.
Some
would say that Emma should be obedient. Some would say
that she should be punished. I would say that parents
can set children up for success. When the Mom spotted
the high-risk situation, she might have done any of
several things.
1.
She might have gotten Emma a snack. This would be especially
appropriate if Mom knew that Emma was hungry.
2.
Mom might have gotten Emma busy helping, inviting her
to take supplies and snacks to the table.
3.
Mom might have cut a slice of cake for Emma to eat right
away.
4.
Mom might have moved the cake to the top of the fridge.
Which
is the best response? It depends. It depends on Emma’s
disposition and current state of hunger. It depends
on Mom’s need to deliver an uncut cake to the party.
It depends on how long it will be before the cake is
cut and served. That is the unique challenge of parenting.
There are no simple, pat answers. There are just sensible,
considerate processes.
Ideally
Mom wants to help Emma get the experiences she wants.
In addition, Mom wants to help Emma learn to use her
agency well. We don’t want to set her up for failure.
We don’t want to punish her into resentful submission
for being a normal child. We want to help Emma learn
to use her agency well.
No
Simple Answers
Hundreds
of thousands of words have been written about parenting.
This short article is likely to arouse more questions
and objections than solutions. As the great parenting
educator, King Benjamin said, “I cannot tell you all
the ways in which you can sin.” Parenting does not have
a simple formula. Ultimately good parenting requires
us to have a change of heart, to be filled with charity,
and to enjoy inspiration in our dealings with children.
Yet
there are clear principles. Grolnick’s summary is compelling:
“Providing rationales and clear consequences for behavior
in the context of choice, acknowledgement of feelings,
and minimization of pressure should facilitate the active
process of [helping children do right things for right
reasons]” (Grolnick, 2003, p. 64).
Brigham
Young said it elegantly: “I will here say to parents,
that kind words and loving actions towards children,
will subdue their uneducated natures a great deal better
than the rod, or, in other words, than physical punishment
.. Children who have lived in the sunbeams of parental
kindness and affection, when made aware of a parent's
displeasure, and receive a kind reproof from parental
lips, are more thoroughly chastened, than by any physical
punishment that could be applied to their persons” (Journal
of Discourses, Vol.10, p.360 ‑ p.361, Brigham
Young, November 6, 1864).
May
the Lord bless us all as we train His beloved children
for Eternity.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2007 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
