The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1894-05-11
Will Training VS.. Will Breaking.

In order that the children of our common
country may attain that position for which
ard TO which creation made them heirs, it is
necessary that parents and teachers should
be made TO fully understand their duties and
responsibilities i'll their respective positions
and trusts.
The measure of will. l.powcr is the measure
Of personal power. with e child as with m
adult. the possession or lack Of will power
is the possess; on or lack of personal power
in every individuals sphere oflife and being
The right or the wrong use of will power is
the right or the wrong exercise of an indi-
viduaIs ) trucst personality. Hence the care
full guarding AMI the wise guiding Of u
child's will should be counted among the
foremost duties Of one who is responsible for
a childs training.
Will training is an important element in
child training; but will breaking has no
part orplace in tho training of n child. 4
broken will is worth no more in is sphere
than broken bow. Just that, and 10 more
child with broken will is not so we'll
furnished for the struggle of life as n child
with only one arm, or one leg, or one eye.
Such 4 child has no power of a strong per
sonality, or Of high achievements in the
world. Every child ought to be trained to
conform his will ID the demands Of duty ;
that is, bending his will, not breaking it.
Breaking a childs will is never in order.
To break child : will is to crush out for
the time being and, so far, to destroy the
chld's privilege of free choice. 1t is to
force him to an action against his choice.
instead of inducing him 10 choose in the
| right direction.
a chilTs will i his truest personality The
| expression of his will in a free choice is
| the highest cxprcssi IN of his personality
And child's personality is to be held
! sacred by Gods representative who is over
the child, even rs God himself holds sacred
| the personality of every human being
created in the image of Himself.
\ childs will ought TO he strong for
| righ'- doing. If it he not so at the start, il
is the parents or teachers duty to guide
or train l. accordingly. But to break or
crush a chilis will. is inconsistent with
the educating and training of that WILL
| y conflict between the parent or teacher
and the child, when the only question is.
Whose will shall yield to the other is.
after AL, nothing more or less than n con-
| tlict Of brute force Whether, in any
| instance, the will of the parent be set in
having the child commit some rcpulsive
| crime. against which its moral nature re-
| coils, or TO have the child recite Il lesson or
| repeat prayer, the mere conflict of wills.
is a conflict of brute force; and in such n
conflict neither ought TO succeed for success
| in such Il case mcauS failure.
II the teacher or parent really wills that
the chill shall do right, their cndeavors
Should hc &c have the child wilt III the same
direction. Merely to force one will into
suhiccti2n to the other is, however, an
injury to both the one who forces and the
one who submits. This is literally Il conflict
| between an irresistible force and an immov-
able body
All the way through his training life. o
child ought to know what are to be the
legitimate consequences of his chosen action,
in every case, and then be privileged to
choose accordingly. There is place for
punishment in child training, but punish
mcnt IS penalty attached to a choice, it is
not brute force, applied 10 compel action
against choice. No child ought ever TO be
puni>hcd. unles. he understood, when he
chose to do the wrong in question, that he
was thereby incurring tho penalty Of that
punishment. We always gain something by
| giving The child the alternative consequence
| OF Obedience or diSobediencc. That is Gods
way of holding rewards and punishment.
1t Is always hest for the parent or teacher
to avoit direct issue with n child, rather
than seek OF recognize and meet it, More
on the subject later. J.L.S.