Tim Hayes – Page 6

A Spirit of Meekness

Meekness has been defined as strength under control. Picture a warrior capable of imposing immense harm who chooses to deescalate a situation rather than do battle. These shall inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5)

The weak-minded tend to use strength to exalt themselves and control others, whereas the meek serve, protect and defend those in need. Think of meekness as love trained to overcome hardness and difficulty, humble competence, the opposite of selfish ambition.

Humility moves us to check our motives before engaging in conflict, fighting only as necessary, whereas pride and presumption search out strife and contention and thrive in it. (Ja 3:14-16)

Conflict will certainly come; being strong equips us to resist and overcome it; being meek equips us to do so in wisdom and love, looking to heal and edify rather than causing unnecessary harm. Meekness uses minimal necessary force: do what’s needful, but don’t return evil for evil: overcome evil with good. (Ro 12:21)

We’re to offer instruction to others in meekness (2Ti 2:25), truth to those who are seeking in a manner that both honors (1Pe 2:17) and edifies them (Ep 4:29), considering their true needs as well as we can. (Php 2:4)

When we’re debating spiritual topics in a spirit of mutual edification, asserting other points of view to be in error postures us as the authority, which is presumptuous and offensive unless we’ve actually earned the right by repeatedly demonstrating a competence which is being acknowledged in community. In making such claims we’re also exposing ourselves to stricter judgment (Ja 3:1). Even if we are competent and others are indeed amiss, asserting this is generally unnecessary, violating a spirit of meekness, not the fruit of the Spirit. (Ga 5:22-23)

When another is overtaken in a fault, we’re to restore them in a spirit of meekness, using only minimal necessary force, considering ourselves so we won’t fall into the same traps. (Ga 6:1) When possible, we approach such challenges in community, not in isolation: we generally don’t correct others on our own; to keep ourselves in check, we engage others in restoring the wounded, the broken-hearted and fallen.

articles ♦ blog

Mark Them

God tells us to mark them which cause divisions and offenses in a manner contrary to the law of Christ and avoid them. (Ro 16:17) To do this, we must differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable differences within spiritual community.

Since the primary goal in the church is to edify one another (Ro 14:19), fundamental doctrinal differences related to the nature of God, Man, Salvation, etc., the authority of Scripture, even varying hermeneutics, shouldn’t be allowed: they become a constant source of disruption and frustration in spiritual discussions and applications, especially if some insist on imposing their views upon others.

Yet even when we’re doctrinally aligned on a functional level, the spirit in which one engages can be problematic; we’re to honor all people (1Pe 2:17), respect and value everyone in a spirit of mutual submission within the Body of Christ. (Ep 5:20) Respectful behavior is often culturally defined, and may vary within spiritual communities, comprising all types of cultures, races and backgrounds. As such, it’s important for believers to highlight and align on communication protocols which foster mutual respect, such as:

1. We defer any topic until we’re each ready to discuss it.
2. We use non-accusatory language: rather than, “You’re being illogical!” or “You’re taking it out of context!”, prefer, “I don’t see how you are getting there”, in a tone which is more respectful, meek, gentle, humble.
3. We don’t interrupt or talk over each other.
4. We present one key point at a time, giving ample opportunity for response and clarification, to counter and/or challenge before moving to the next point.
5. We re-state what we hear in our own words, when presented with a complex or difficult idea, to the speaker’s satisfaction before responding.

In submitting ourselves to such rules of engagement we’re exercising self-control, monitoring and evaluating our own behavior (Pr 25:28), more ready to hear than to speak (Ja 1:19), listening to one another, allowing all to participate and be heard (1Co 14:31), to promote our mutual edification. Those unwilling to control their tongues inevitably cause unnecessary strife (Ja 3:14) and discord. (Pr 6:16-19)

Finally, whenever an offense develops between believers in the church, resolving this promptly is imperative (Mt 5:23-25), this must not be allowed to fester. (1Co 5:6) To avoid pettiness, minor indiscretions should be overlooked in a spirit of charity. (1Pe 4:8) Major conflicts (as defined by community) should first be dealt with privately (Mt 18:15), and unresolved disputes brought to the brothers’ attention. (16-17a) The uncooperative and unsubmissive, intent on polluting the congregation with divisions and offenses, must be removed and loved outside the Body as friends or acquaintances, not permitted within close spiritual community. (17b)

articles ♦ blog

In Himself Alone

Until quite recently, I’ve held what many might consider to be an extreme view of Total Depravity; I believed everyone (including me) will always make the most evil choice God allows them to make every time they make a choice, and that the only reason we do not act like Satan at every instant is the restraining grace of God. I can no longer hold this position, partly due to this verse: “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.” (Ga 6:4-5) I am unable to make sense of this text, and many others like it, without abandoning my former position, so … I let it go, it’s history.

Evidently, there are degrees of real moral freedom within the boundaries of Total Depravity, such that we have some practical potential to do better or worse within these boundaries according to our own personal choices. Our depravity is evidently total in scope in the sense that all we do is tainted with sin (Is 64:6): we cannot ever do anything perfectly good (Ro 3:12), with 100% pure motives. (Pr 20:9)

However, while we may not be able to make any single choice with perfect motives, it is also evident we have some practical control of how far away we deviate from God’s perfect standard as we choose; we operate within some range of badness, and we can choose to be better or worse within this range. (2Ti 3:13) So, it appears that we are not totally depraved in degree, only in scope.

This is how we experience reality: we have moral freedom to make better or worse choices within some theoretical range of moral goodness, and this is also how God treats us (Mt 12:41); so, it makes sense that this is the reality, not just an illusion. Where these boundaries ultimately come from and how they appear within and impact each individual is mysterious, but a few things appear to be clear about it.

As a foundation, no human except Christ JEsus has ever been perfectly good at any moment (Mk 10:18); all the rest of us are rebels (Is 53:6), some more than others (Ge 13:13), but we’re all guilty (Ro 3:19), and God is perfectly just in punishing us in our rebellion. (Ps 145:17) We’re all sinners (1Jn 1:8) in need of a Savior to save us from this condition: we cannot save ourselves. (Ep 2:8-9)

That said, it is evidently also clear that we are not all equally bad; some of us make worse choices in our total depravity than others, and this difference is something we ourselves can and ought to control. God may even tend to reveal the gospel to those who are trying to make better choices within their unique range of moral ability (Ps 50:23), to those seeking eternal life. (Is 55:6-7)

This is not salvation by works; it is still God choosing to show mercy to the underserved (Ro 9:16), but it may also be God showing mercy to those who — though undeserving — are at least seeking mercy, trying their best (Ro 2:6-7), as bad as it is, within their own, unique degree of moral capability and freedom. (1Ti 1:13)

We perceive we are responsible to make the best choices we can, that it is up to each of us as individuals to do so, of our own free will, and that we don’t always want to make the most evil choice available to us, and that our actions are not all predetermined or compelled by any internal or external forces. Most importantly … we are commanded to live accordingly, and not assume we have no practical control or influence in determining our eternal destiny (Ps 50:23), but that we pursue God and His kingdom with all our might. (Lk 13:24)

If this is how we experience reality, and it is also how God describes reality, and it is also how He actually treats us, there’s sufficient reason to try to interpret all of scripture in accord with this perspective.

articles ♦ blog

Pay for the Loss

On Tuesday, April 25^th, I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle. The driver wasn’t paying attention, looking down, putting on her seatbelt while accelerating through a parking lot. I was on the sidewalk going against the flow of traffic; she hit me head on at an angle, catapulting me and my bike 10-15 feet through the air perpendicular to my direction of travel. Thankfully, I had on a good helmet; otherwise, I’d likely not be writing this today, or anything else.

I managed to come out of it with only a broken left wrist and significant bodily bruising; I have a new titanium plate screwed permanently into my wrist, but no other lasting damage, best I can tell. Looking back on it, this seems a bit miraculous in itself.

Thankfully, the driver was extremely distraught and profusely apologetic, staying with me and calling the ambulance. She took full responsibility and has been praying for my recovery. She has good insurance to help pay for the surgery, care and post-trauma recovery, additional financial loss, as well as pain and suffering. But now comes the ethics of collecting; what to ask for, how much, and how to go about it. This PIP industry is notoriously corrupt, reeking with greed and vice.

Yet Torah does lay out a sensible protocol for handling personal injury; it’s part of the Law of Love: the offending party helps the victim fully recover and also compensates for loss of time. (Ex 21:18-19) This evidently covers at least medical bills, earnings loss and related expenses. But how do we compensate for pain and suffering? Is this even in scope in the biblical protocol?

We ask how the event changed the victim’s quality of life by estimating the payoff the victim would have accepted to voluntarily suffer this loss. What monetary compensation would I have accepted in exchange for the use of my left arm for 4 months? I work out 5-6 times a week, and I type for a living. What’s that worth, in addition to all the other day-to-day activities for which I need both hands?

And even if arrive at such a sum, how do I collect it? Is it worth ruining another family financially? When I myself could easily have been the offender? When the other person actually appears to be more distraught about having caused the accident than I myself ever was going through it?

A brief study shows us two obvious things: [1] people carry insurance to protect themselves and others in just such circumstances, and [2] insurance companies generally pay only what they’re forced to. Unless we have the legal expertise and plenty of free time, we’re going to settle for less than we’re entitled, both legally and scripturally. Enter the Personal Injury Attorney: they’re trained to use legal means to ensure insurance companies pay what they should.

Putting myself in the shoes of the offender, would I mind if the victim hired an ethical PIA to get my insurance to pay a sum considered reasonable for pain and suffering? No. Would I mind if the victim hired a ruthless PIA to come after me for all they could possibly get? For sure. This then is the law of love, best I can sort it out for now.

articles ♦ blog

I Create Evil

The problem of evil in the world is challenging; we recognize pain and suffering exists — bad things happen — and we often describe this as (empirical or natural) evil. And if we’re thoughtful, we also recognize we all do things we ought not — we do wrong: when people deeply and willfully violate the universal moral standard of human conduct, we call such behavior (moral) evil. If God can prevent evil and does not, or if God Himself actually causes evil, we have difficulty understanding how God can also be just, good and loving.

First, there’s a difference between saying God allows evil, and saying God causes evil. There’s also a difference between saying God causes human suffering, and saying God causes people to be morally corrupt and wicked.

The Bible clearly states God creates evil (Is 45:7), but the immediate context doesn’t tell us what kind of evil God creates. Does God cause people to be wicked, to break His Law, or does He merely cause some (or all) human suffering?

Scripture tells us plainly God often causes human suffering: He punishes Israel when she breaks His laws (De 28:21-22) and He chastens those He loves. (He 12:5-6) His motive is always good (Ps 145:17): God punishes evil righteously (Ps 9:7-8), and He chastens His children to cause them to be holy. (He 12:10, Ps 119:75) He does not cause all human suffering (Lk 13:16), but He does ordain all of it for His purposes. (Ge 50:20, Ep 1:11)

But scripture does not clearly state God causes people to be wicked; rather, God says He doesn’t even tempt us to do evil (Ja 1:13), much less cause us to be evil; people are wicked all on their own. (14) This is the fact of Free Will: God allows us to sin against Himself and each other. (Ro 1:24-26) In fact, unless God restrains us from being evil (Ps 19:13), evil is the default human condition (Ep 2:1-3, Mt 7:11) and it’s been this way ever since the Fall of Man. (Ge 6:5)

The alternative is a God Who actually causes us to do evil and then punishes us for doing what He makes us do. (Ro 2:8-9) God might indeed be so, in theory anyway, but I’d need to confess I know nothing at all of His moral character, having lost all hope I ever could.

articles ♦ blog

Let This Mind Be in You

Jesus Christ, being equal with God the Father (Php 2:6), submitted Himself as an obedient servant to the Father (7-8) and esteemed His Father greater than Himself. (Jn 14:26) In highlighting this attitude in Christ and calling us to be like Him (5), Paul is telling us how to walk in humility by esteeming others better than ourselves. (3)

The Greek word translated better is ὑπερέχοντας, huperechōntas, which means superior, surpassing, above, over, better than. The word compares and contrasts one with another. The renowned theologian Albert Barnes, in his exegesis here, understands better in a moral context: the humble consider others to be, apart from God’s grace, morally superior to themselves.

While saints are currently being trained and equipped to judge all human behavior (1Co 6:2-3), it’s tempting to practice on our own before the time (1Co 4:5), without full knowledge of God’s Way, or of the human heart. (1Co 2:11) Not a good move. (1Co 4:3)

While we’re not to evaluate others’ moral goodness yet (Mt 7:1), trying to decide how good or bad someone is or determine what punishment or reward they deserve, we may act as if others are morally superior to ourselves, above us; we may esteem or consider them to less evil than we would be without God’s restraining grace. This violates no law of God, and in following Christ, in emulating His lowliness and meekness (Mt 11:29), God tells us to do exactly this: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Php 2:3)

God will judge us all according to our works (Ro 2:6), measuring and evaluating our thoughts, motives and actions according to His perfect, righteous standard (Jn 5:45); we’ll each score on the moral spectrum uniquely, no two of us being exactly alike. If we think to place ourselves above anyone else on this scale, with no way of knowing precisely where we stand, or exactly where anyone else does, we’re being presumptuous, proud (1Pe 5:5), thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. (Ro 12:3) Rather, in lowliness of mind, we’re to avoid any tendency to exalt ourselves. (Ga 6:3)

In esteeming others better than ourselves, we should not conflate moral superiority with significance (ESV95), or value (NIV) or importance (NASB95); in providing His Son as an atoning sacrifice for each and every individual, God has infinitely valued each human being equally; we ought not to consider any person more or less valuable, significant or important than any other. Doing so is partiality, being a respecter of persons (De 16:19), which violates the law of Love. (Ja 2:8-9) In love and humility we’re to prefer one another in honor (Ro 12:10), not value, pleased as others are lifted up above ourselves.

Further, we should not confuse humility merely with a call to serve others. While it’s clear Christ humbly submitted Himself to His Father as a servant, it doesn’t follow that we’re to submit ourselves as servants to others; this is actually forbidden. (1Co 7:23) We’re to consider ourselves servants to Christ, not other people, and order our lives to as to please God and not men. (Ga 1:10) In submitting to God we will generally serve others in love (Ga 5:13), and defer to the needs and interests of others (Php 2:4), yet this is always in a context of stewardship and wisdom before God, not a blanket, boundaryless neglecting, disvaluing or demeaning of ourselves in interpersonal relationships. (2Co 8:13)

Christ, our example in humility, though He didn’t consider God the Father morally superior to Himself (for both are morally perfect), He did defer to the greatness and majesty of His Father, to the Father’s Headship within the Trinity itself. (1Co 11:3b) We’re called to follow His steps (1Pe 2:21), to emulate Christ’s lowliness of mind in our relations with one another, yet we can’t do exactly as Christ did here, using the same scale He did with His Father, since on that scale of headship all those within each gender are equivalent with one another. (3a)

Since we’ve eliminated importance, significance and intrinsic worth or value as proper ways to rank ourselves, the only relevant scale or ranking we may rightly refer to here in esteeming others better than ourselves is a moral one, the scale God Himself will use to rank us. (Mt 5:18) However, we’re forbidden to make any formal judgements of ourselves or others for the time being. (7:1-2)

Thus, our default position, if we’re going to esteem others better than ourselves, must be one of considering ourselves to likely be at the very bottom of this moral scale, to potentially be, apart from God’s grace, the most evil person who has ever lived, as Paul the Apostle evidently did (Ga 3:8, 1Ti 1:15), and in this God calls us to follow his example. (Php 4:9)

articles ♦ blog

The Covenants of Promise

In God’s dealings with the nation of Israel there are two covenants (binding agreements) in play: the first is a conditional covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai (Ga 4:24); the agreement is that if Israel will obey God’s Law He will bless them, otherwise He will curse them. (De 11:26-28)

The second (or new) covenant is an unconditional covenant God will eventually make with Israel: He will put His Laws into their minds write them in their hearts (He 8:10), be their God and accept them as His people, ensure they all know Him, and put away all of their sins. (11-12) He will give each of them a new nature which delights in His laws (Ro 7:22), redeeming and saving the entire nation. (Ro 11:26-27)

This first covenant with Israel is not a promise of salvation by works; it’s simply a promise given to Israel as a nation to bless them if they honor and follow God’s law to the best of their ability, evidently as a signal to the rest of us that there’s tremendous blessing in obeying God (Ps 1:2-3), and trouble if we don’t. (Ps 119:118) Israel has, of course, failed miserably to keep their end of the covenant and are being punished by God as a consequence.

The second covenant God will eventually make with Israel certainly is a promise of redemption and eternal salvation for Israel as a nation, but it’s incomplete and mysterious at present, how He will accomplish this and what it will look like.

In the interim, in between these two covenants, we’re left to work out an understanding of how we’re all to relate to God, for it’s through these two covenants God reveals His redemptive plan. (Ps 50:5) They hold within them the keys to having a relationship with God; in being estranged from them we have no hope, and are without God in the world. (Ep 2:11-12)

Yet these two covenants with Israel don’t comprise the whole picture: God makes a third covenant related to redemption, but this one is unique in that God makes it with Himself (Ga 3:20); this is a covenant between the Father and the Son (He 10:8-10): the Father gives the Son a group of people (the elect, or chosen) to redeem, and the Son redeems these people for the Father. (Jn 6:37) This covenant is flawlessly secure because both parties to the covenant are unfailingly perfect. (Ro 4:16) This divine agreement is actually the first covenant of the three, made in eternity past (Ep 1:4, 1Pe 1:19-20) and publicly formalized, revealed and confirmed in front of Abraham, well before Sinai. (Ga 3:17)

The eternal covenant between God the Father and God the Son is evidently related to the two covenants God makes with Israel in that God produces obedience to the Law in the hearts of His elect as required in the Sinai (first) covenant (De 5:29) by providing Himself as the new heart (Ez 36:26), the divine nature within the elect (Co 1:27) inclining us to obey (1Pe 1:2), as promised in the future New Covenant with Israel. (He 10:16-17) In this way, God unites us with Himself and His Law so we partake in both of these two covenants of promise He makes with Israel (1Ti 1:6), giving us hope of eternal life and fellowship in Him. (Ep 2:13-14)

articles ♦ blog

Stone Him

Since God’s Law requires stoning stubborn rebellious sons (De 21:20-21a), it seems most Christians would argue the old Mosaic laws, or at least some of them, are obsolete, inconsistent with the Law of Love. (Ro 13:10) This is so obvious to most of us it’s offensive to suggest otherwise. (Ps 119:172) Yet Christ affirms otherwise: the entire Mosaic Law remains valid so long as Heaven and Earth stand. (Mt 5:18-19) We do well to ponder the maxim: Obviousness is always the enemy of correctness. (Is 8:20)

First, note that this command to stone a defiant son may not be obeyed in isolation, parents taking matters into their own hands: following this command requires the collective assessment and agreement of an entire civil community. Parents accuse the son of rebellion in front of the city elders, in the city gate where civil matters are formally resolved. (De 18:18-19) The elders then enquire, question the parents, the son and others familiar with the situation, and must align with the parents in their struggle. Then all the men of the community participate in executing the son, after his legal conviction.

So, unless parents live in a society which incorporates the civil aspects of Torah within its legal code (as every society should), this command to stone a rebellious son cannot be rightly obeyed. This does not mean the law is obsolete; God has not abolished it (Mt 5:17); it simply doesn’t apply outside this civil context. However, when Messiah returns to rule the nations (Ps 2:9), we can be sure He will enforce this law (Mi 4:2), and it will be holy, righteous and good. (He 1:8)

Secondly, the charge requires both parents to publicly testify that their son is in willful rebellion against them both (De 21:20a), implying both parents are uniquely accountable for training their children into adulthood, and in this case neither parent has been successful in getting their son to cooperate

Thirdly, the requirement for the son to obey implies he is still a child, not yet an adult, and therefore unable to provide for himself; he remains under his parents’ roof and dependent on them, and therefore required to obey them. Further, the context implies the son is sufficiently mature to understand the gravity of the consequences of his rebellion; though still a child, he is choosing to defy his parents and is old enough to be held accountable for his actions.

Finally, the accusation must include the sense that the son, in addition to being defiant, is focused on pursuing his own interests and pleasures. (De 21:20b) The rebellious son is intent on gratifying his own personal appetites without providing for himself; he is acting irresponsibly and burdening his parents rather than contributing to the welfare of the family.

These public accusations, and the threat of brutal execution looming before him, provide a final opportunity for the rebellious son to repent, or perhaps to expose his parents if they’ve been neglectful, abusive or cruel. (De 25:1) In either case, the conflict is dealt with decisively by the community such that open childhood rebellion is not normalized at any level within the culture. (De 21:21c)

Just imagine this command of God playing itself out in a society over decades, over centuries, as parents raise up children amidst grandparents, aunts and uncles, extended family all keeping an eye out for domestic strife, ready to intervene, to love, encourage and advise as needed.

What parent could afford to be careless, negligent or selfish here, unreasonably harsh or undisciplined, knowing a bloody execution could be the outcome? That they’d lose a son, nephew or grandson in brutal termination before the entire community. To be remembered as the family who couldn’t control their kids.

What sobriety this would encourage! (Ti 2:1-6) What self-control and wisdom! What prayerful discipline of all the children in the household, care taken to promptly and prayerfully address any signs of rebellion with firmness, impartiality, fairness, consistency and love! (Pr 19:18)

How it would encourage wisdom in courtship! to choose a compatible, godly spouse, to intentionally avoid turmoil and chaos in the home. How it would motivate parents to collaborate and work together to solve relational issues, both between themselves and among their children, to seek God in maintaining a loving, stable equilibrium in the family, constantly aware of the pulse and disposition of each of their children as they grow and mature.

Might this be a good thing?

And what are our alternatives? Tolerate such abuse and disruption in the family? Do nothing of consequence to deter and prevent it? (Ps 119:155)

And how is that working out for those who despise God’s Law? (Pr 28:9)

I hear the Jews claim that throughout their recorded history, not a single Jewish son has ever been stoned for rebellion. If true, this certainly is something to think about, as we search down the corridors of our prisons — it’s rare indeed to find among the inmates the son of a practicing Jewish family.

articles ♦ blog

A Soft Answer

As we enter into strife with others, as we become agitated, defensive or oppressive in trying to control a situation, the outcome is seldom good; we’re actually forbidden to do this (Php 2:3), since our striving is generally rooted in pride. (Pr 28:5)

Calming ourselves down and getting ourselves grounded again in God is certainly the first step (2Ti 2:24), yet this is only part of the equation; when others are pursuing contention (Pr 26:21), knowing how to deescalate and avoid strife is invaluable. (Pr 19:11)

A de-escalation technique recommended in scripture is a soft answer (Pr 15:1), which comprises more than a gentle, unassuming posture or tone. It might be couched in this general demeaner, and perhaps often should be (Mt 10:16), but it can be much more subtle and powerful. (Pr 25:15)

For example, calmly repeating back what we hear, asking for clarification, confirmation and agreement on intent, is offering an accuser an opportunity to think through their words and stand by them under cross-examination. It gently introduces a bit of accountability without being aggressive or confrontational. This is softness, but not weakness. (Jn 18:23) It actually demonstrates strength, for only a mature, stable, secure soul can tread unthreatened out into the vast, uncertain territory of Accusation. Further, it clearly tells our accuser they’re valued, and that they’ve been heard and understood. With a person of good will, this might be all we need to disarm them.

Calmly and thoughtfully summarizing and re-stating a claim dispenses with emotionalism, and this will invariably both weaken the accusation itself (for, we tend to emotionally charge claims when evidence itself is insufficient) and confront any manipulation, irrationality and/or inconsistency without retaliating. If the claim has merit at all, this will distill and clarify the relevant substance for inspection.

Then we might also explore the implications of an accusation, as if we’re a neutral investigator, asking if the ramifications were thought through and intended, and how any apparent inconsistencies have been resolved. (Mt 12:2-4) Doing this does not strengthen false accusation; invariably it brings truth and light to bear, exposing any darkness for what it is. Showing any implication of a claim to be false proves the claim itself is false: it’s proof by contradiction.

People often speak emotionally within a specific context, perspective or presupposition which is not apparent to others, or perhaps even to themselves. Asking insightful questions exposes these presuppositions and allows them to be analyzed thoughtfully, challenged and corrected as needed. (Mk 10:18) This is helpful to all who are engaged in conflict.

Another key, when people accuse, is to remind ourselves they may indeed be entirely wrong, merely telling us something about themselves and nothing at all about us.

We’re often much too quick to accept an accusation as authoritative, without realizing we need not defend ourselves or be intimidated. It’s in trying to protect our own vulnerability and hide our imperfections that we’re lured into resisting groundless accusations and defending ourselves when this is entirely unnecessary. (1Pe 2:23)

And if an accusation happens to be legit, even partly, humility rejoices in discovering another opportunity to grow, makes amends, and asks God for grace to overcome, unconcerned in the efforts to shame, disvalue or belittle, resting in ultimate security in God. (Php 4:7)

When we take ourselves too seriously, thinking too highly of ourselves (Ro 12:3), that we’re something when we aren’t, we’re deceiving ourselves (Ga 6:3); this isn’t Love (1Jn 2:16), it’s the pride of life. When our mind is stayed on God, grounded in Love (Ep 3:17), we’ll be at perfect peace. (Is 26:3)

articles ♦ blog

Bring Them Up

The goal of parenting should be to equip children with the knowledge and skills necessary to become successful and productive adults. (Ep 6:4) It’s an educational mandate we ought not delegate; we may entrust others with formal academic training, but we’re required to teach our children how to live (De 6:6-7), and enable them in every way possible. (Pr 22:6) In order to do this effectively, parents are given authority in the home and children are required to obey their parents. (Ep 6:1-3)

But this state doesn’t last forever; children grow up. When and how are they supposed to transition into adulthood? When, if ever, are children free from the duty to obey their parents?

God does not instruct adults to obey their parents (1Co 11:3); He instructs children to do so. (Co 2:20) So, the duty of children to obey their parents ends as they mature into adulthood, yet this process of becoming an adult is not formally defined in scripture. How should we navigate this?

Well, we might take a cue from Nature (1Co 11:14a); God has designed the human body to mature in the second decade of life; we reach a given height and stop growing. It’s a reasonable, tangible measure of adulthood.

Another consideration is mental maturity, reasoning ability, discipline and self-control; when one is capable of taking care of themselves with minimal assistance from others, able to navigate the basic complexities and challenges of life, equipped to live independently and provide for themselves, they’re an adult.

If parents are wise, caring and respectful toward their children (Ro 12:10), this transition into adulthood should be natural, healthy and gradual; there’s not a specific day in which a child turns into an adult, yet if they’re being prepared for adulthood by their parents, they’re becoming more and more adultlike as they mature physically.

Parents should be preparing and equipping their children for this transition from early childhood, teaching them responsibility and letting them learn from their mistakes (within reason), guiding them with wise counsel, and explaining life to them. Parents who are neglectful here, as well as those who are overly protective, domineering and/or controlling, do immense harm to their children, violating their dignity and stunting their personal growth and development, which may provoke children to anger, frustrating and discouraging them. (Co 2:21)

As children mature, parents must respect the basic dignity and humanity of their children as God’s image bearers, not lording authority over them or demanding they agree with all their personal beliefs or perspectives. Children are free moral agents, responsible before God for what they believe as they are capable of understanding. A wise parent will respect each child’s unique gifts and orientation, leading by example, reasoning with them as unique individuals and honoring their choices within reason, even if they disagree.

Further, young adults should never have to struggle to free themselves of their parental home, nor should they be forced to leave ill-equipped and unprepared, if they’ve been willing to learn and bear responsibility within their capability. (De 15:13-14) When either tragedy occurs there’s been a terrible breakdown in the family unit, and there’s no pleasant way to resolve it.

When parents perceive their son (Ge 2:24) or daughter (1Co 7:34a) is prepared to live on their own, they should encourage and enable them to do so and mark the occasion with a special ceremony, celebrating their childhood and commemorating their transition into adulthood. This is a wonderful opportunity for both parents, especially fathers, to bless their children, formally acknowledge their adulthood and give them the confidence they need to begin directly facing the challenges of life, receiving them as equals before God, just as God Himself has designed and honored them to be. (Ga 6:4-5)

In this complex journey of shaping lives, parents ought to be constantly asking God to help them and work through them to equip each of their children to fulfill His perfect design and calling in their lives. Parents should be looking to God to bestow a sense of completeness and adulthood in their children through them.

One might even say our Heavenly Father sovereignly works through the strivings of our earthly parents, even in the man-made rituals and ceremonies, to convey the ultimate sense of adulthood in each of us, helping us understand, accept and celebrate our own maturity and adulthood in Him.

articles ♦ blog