What Message Are We Conveying?

Continuation of previous post:

If R' Aisenstark is talking about demonstrable love, I tend to agree with him.  Why would someone who departed from a frum background change their way of life, their lack of tznius, their non-observance of Shabbos, if the people around them treat them just as they would if they were strictly observant? If they are showered with love regardless as to what they do, that sends the message: Whatever you do is fine.

Would we smile, praise and hug a preschooler if he emptied out the fridge and all the cabinets, creating chaos in the kitchen just as we would if he helped clean up all the toys? If we did, would that be good chinuch because we would be conveying that no matter what he does, we love him? Or would that be abysmal chinuch because it does not convey right and wrong to the child?

Do those communities that put up with public lack of tznius get more or less tznius from its members than communities with high standards of tznius which no one would think of breaching? According to R' Bender, acceptance and love will ultimately lead to the desired results.  I don't see that happening on a public level.  It might be effective with certain individuals. 

Back to rebellious children, I think that the love for the child is always there, regardless as to what they do, though it can be covered over with immense pain and resentment.  So I wouldn't use the word "rekindled" as R' Aisenstark does.  I'd like to see a combination of the two, in which the child knows that his parents love him always, but they must stand up for Torah in their home.

Unconditional Love - Yes or No

In the article by R' Aisenstark that I referred to previously here, there was a paragraph that I read and agreed with and didn't think to comment on.  It was where he wrote about unconditional love and said, "I think that our Torah teaches us to take responsibility for our actions and that does not include loving unconditionally no matter what a child does.  Yes, the door to teshuva is always open, and love will most certainly be rekindled to its former state when a child returns.  But a child cannot live in two worlds ... a rebellious child does not belong in our home until he at least tries to conform and change his actions."

Two issues (of Mishpacha) later, R' Yaakov Bender responded to his dear friend's remarks with the latter's permission.  It is most interesting to see the difference of opinion between these two veteran mechanchim.  R' Bender acknowledges that R' Aisenstark's point is correct but suggests that when it comes to chinuch, adjustments need to be made for each generation and what works for one generation might be disastrous for another time.

In R' Bender's opinion, there is no logic as to why children go off the derech when others in the family are doing fine and the parents tried to meet the wayward child's needs.  He thinks that a rebellious child should be showered with love and be minimally criticized.  In most cases, he does not think that having a rebellious child at home will negatively impact other children in the home because the other children know he is going through a difficult phase.

He thinks that implying that any child is a rasha is unfair and to imply that the parents are to blame is even more unfair.  He concludes by pleading that parents love their children "to pieces" and keep them at home.  "Ultimately, you will see great nachas from them," he says.