WHEN CAN YOUTH STOP OBEYING PARENTS? By Jonathan Lindvall
This question doesn't even arise in most of Western society today, since the matter of children's obligation to obey parents is increasingly denied by children's rights advocates and the liberal media. Even many Christians succumb to the pressure to at least accommodate the world's family views.
Does the Bible speak to these issues? In fact, God reveals His heart on these matters both overtly and subtly (via assumptions) in His word. I recently received the following note from a young man who was angry with me for the way I counseled his parents. His letter, and my response, may be helpful in stimulating thought and discussion regarding how the Bible approaches this subject.
Dear Jonathan Lindvall,
I am the son of [parents' names] of [city], whom I have heard through the proverbial "grape vine," contacted you earlier this year. I left my family's home seeking freedom as a 20 year old young man in the Lord. (I am now 21.) I could no longer live in a family of Lindvallians. I wanted to be a living, breathing, active, FREE CHRISTIAN. (Unfortunately for me, they were not very good followers of the Lindvallian way.) Maybe in another letter I will discuss what I disagree and agree with you about, but I am writing this letter to you to tell you that no matter what we may disagree about, I am disappointed with you. When (and if) you recommended that my parents shun me (supposedly according to the scriptures) you did NOT contact me to get my side of the "story." My parents do not thoroughly understand me or why I left. Therefore, you also do not know my thoughts, feelings, intentions, and REGRETS. You don't know me or my parents yet you listened to them, and heard their opinions and formed an opinion of your own without hearing my thoughts and opinions on the current issues. I am not a toddler whose opinions mean little or nothing to adults when real life is at issue. I am a grown and responsible adult. As a Christian leader it was very low of you to recommend some parents to shun their adult son WITHOUT hearing both sides. Since I moved out Dec 29th of last year I have not been allowed to see or communicate with my 19-year-old brother. Neither have I been welcome at my parents' house. (I would like to add that my parents have not attended ANY family events or reunions since I moved out). We shared my bedroom during the last year that I was at home. We were getting closer emotionally as adult brothers. We were becoming friends! We were looking forward to going on camping and hiking and canoeing trips and other things that we never did as a family. We were the best of friends. There were no others.
I have not seen my mother or brother for 6 months, 28 days, 6 hours, and 45 minutes.
It is not normal for parents to separate the siblings after the elder sibling moves out.
I place the blame squarely at the feet of Jonathan Lindvall for dividing a Christian family.
I do NOT hold this against you, BECAUSE my parents made the final decision.
But I would like to hold you accountable to something you said, whatever it was.
I have forgiven my parents, otherwise God would not have taken me from where I was 4 months ago to where I am today. (God doesn't use bitter vessels like He has used me.) Praise God! Please prayerfully consider what I have told you. I would welcome a reply.
From your note, it is apparent that you desire to identify with Jesus as our Lord and Savior. I sure honor that, and your pursuit of Christian freedom. Paul said (Gal. 5:1), "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." We are not to allow anything to rob us of our liberty in Christ.
However, Paul balanced his admonition a few verses later (verse 13), saying, "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." It is possible to misuse liberty. There is a correct use of liberty, and that is serving the Lord and one another. I don't mean to increase any hostility you have toward me (I'll even forgive the intentional offenses--"Lindvallian"), but I can only exhort you as lovingly as I know how that I believe you have fallen into the trap of confusing true Christian liberty with rebellion. I certainly could be the one who is wrong, but I ask you to show me from scripture where I might err. I pray that you are open enough to carefully weigh what I'm going to say. Obviously, don't take my word for anything. I simply appeal to you to take my words before the Lord, and to be "noble" like the Bereans who, after hearing Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11) "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
Before you read any more, let me appeal to you to ask yourself if you are willing to repent if I can show you from scripture that you have sinned against God and your parents. Would you be willing to humble yourself if you are shown to be wrong? Or are you unwilling to be shown a possible sin that you didn't realize previously? Your primary challenge to me is that I "did NOT contact [you] to get [your] side of the story" before advising your parents. I'm guessing you have in mind passages like Proverbs 18:17, which says, "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." It is certainly foolhardy to take sides in a conflict before hearing both sides. (By the way, I did not "formed an opinion of [my] own" about this matter based on their opinions. I have sought to have God's word shape my thinking here.)
You assume that it is a scriptural requirement of a Biblical counselor before advising parents how to relate to their children, that they hear the details of an conflict from both sides. Is this really what the Bible teaches? If you were advising parents about handling their disobedient children, do you believe you would be obligated to ask for the child's "story" before advising his parents to discipline him? Of course, there is a deeper and more significant assumption you hold, that is the basis of all this. You conclude that because of your age you are no longer to be treated as a child. From your own words it is clear this is really the whole basis of your conflict with your parents, and needs to be explored in light of scripture.
Let's start with basics. Scripture is unequivocal about God's will for children to obey their parents. In the ten commandments God said (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), "Honor your father and your mother." Interestingly, God was not speaking exclusively to little children here. Jesus rebuked ADULT Pharisees (Matt. 15:3-6; Mark 7:6-13) for excusing and rationalizing dishonor of parents by ADULTS. Another time Jesus was approached by someone who asked him what he needed to do to obtain eternal life (Matt. 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23). In his initial response regarding obeying the commandments, Jesus specifically quoted this one, "Honor your father and mother." How old do you suppose this fellow was? Luke refers to him as a "ruler" and each account tells us he was "very rich."He was clearly an adult. I suspect he was at least as old as you are, yet Jesus expected him to honor his parents. Interestingly, Paul interpreted the fifth commandment as a mandate to obey. He wrote (Eph 6:1-3), "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." How did he know this obedience to parents is right? What evidence does he provide? He immediately quotes the command, "'Honor your father and mother,' which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth." Paul linked the command to honor with a command to obey. The question is when does a child no longer have to obey his parents? You have determined that you have reached that point. On what basis do you conclude that? What scripture can you point to? Certainly our society would agree with you. Well before the legal age of 18 years most worldly counselors would say a young person is old enough to make his own decisions and a parent is out of order in commanding obedience. Is this God's view?
The only possible evidence I can find for your point of view is that a man was included in the census beginning at the age of 20 years (Num. 1:1-3). But does this mean he was no longer required to obey his father? Let's consider some of the abundant evidence for the opposite understanding revealed throughout scripture. At the very least, when is a man authorized to leave his father and mother? Jesus (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7) and Paul (Eph. 5:31) quoted Genesis 2:24 regarding marriage, saying, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother." You may disagree with me, but I believe we should take this literally, and that young people are not to leave their parents until marriage. But let me take the matter further. I'm thankful that, based on the above scriptures, I committed to obeying my parents until I married. But I could hardly wait to marry and get out from under their authority. I now recognize that while I obeyed them outwardly, my anticipation of freedom from them revealed a rebellious heart. I failed to give them my heart as I should have.In the Bible, even married men (as opposed to women) were expected to obey their parents (and/or parents-in-law) as long as they lived. There was no age level at which this mandate changed. Let's consider some interesting examples. Genesis 6-9 tells of Noah and his three sons. The sons were all over one hundred years old and married when God sent the flood to destroy the earth. They apparently bore the scorn of the rest of society (but the blessing of God) in FOLLOWING THEIR FATHER'S DIRECTIONS in building, loading, and entering the ark. After they got off the ark Noah displayed what we would understand to be sinful imperfection--he got drunk. One of his sons (Ham) dishonored his father by verbally exposing his shame, while the other two (Shem and Japheth) overtly honored their father by covering him. Shem and Japheth were blessed as a result of this, but Ham's descendants were cursed. These were grown men, over 100 years old. Yet they were still expected to honor their father. Isaac was forty years old when his father gave a servant authority over him. The servant was to choose a wife, and was directed (Gen. 24:6) "Beware that you do not take my son back there." As in the case of his earlier submission (when Abraham was going to offer him as a sacrifice, Gen. 22:9), there is not a hint of resistance in the account. Even after Abraham's death, Isaac continued to honor his father in unusually overt ways (Gen. 26:18). Jacob was 76 years old when his father sent him to get a wife (calculated from Gen. 29:18, 27; 30:25; 31:41; 41:46, 48; 45:6; 47:9, 28). In contrast to his brother Esau, who married against his parents' wishes (Gen. 26:34), Jacob stayed with them for many years, waiting for their direction. Although Jacob had many character flaws, his honor for his parents in this regard was a major vehicle of God's blessing in his life. Benjamin obeyed both when his father forbade him going to Egypt with his older brothers, and when he later changed his mind and directed his youngest son to go. How old was Benjamin at the time? He was in his thirties, married, and already had ten sons (see Gen. 31:35; 35:18; 46:21, 27). When Jacob decided to move the clan to Egypt, all his sons and their families obeyed him and went along.
Moses was married, eighty years old, and had sons when he asked his father-in-law's permission (Ex. 4:18) to obey God in going back to Egypt. We might argue that he shouldn't have done this, but there's not even the slightest hint in scripture that this was inappropriate.
I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture. The scripture never gives an age limit for obedience to parents. In the New Testament, Jesus Himself reflected this assumption on several occasions as we've already seen. But let me point to another that might strike closer to home. He told a story of a young man who decided he was old enough to be independent of his father (Luke 15:11-32). We don't know the young man's age (which was apparently irrelevant to Jesus), but I can easily imagine him being about your age. When the young man "came to himself" (verse 17), he realized he was wrong. What were his words? In his planned speech (verses 18 & 21) he said, "Father, I HAVE SINNED against heaven and before you." How had he sinned? Is it possible the sin was in leaving his father in the first place? Have YOU "sinned against heaven and before" your father? If so, what should you do? Later, the older brother who stayed is shown to have a envious heart. But the fact that he stayed with his father was good. Jesus reveals the normative ideal in quoting this older brother saying (verse 29), among other things, "these many years I have been serving you." Regardless of how old you might think the younger brother was, his brother was even older, and yet he stayed with his father, serving him. And despite his envy of his younger brother, his father still commended him for doing the right thing all this time. What did the father say (verse 31)? "Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours." He was ALWAYS with his father. And the result of serving his father was an inheritance.
By refusing to stay with your parents and serve them (under their authority, not on your terms), are you throwing away an inheritance or blessing from your father?
Paul seemed to think serving a father is the role of an adult son, when he commended Timothy to the Philippian church (Phil. 2:22). He likened his relationship with Timothy to that of the norm of father-son relationships. He said, "as a son with his father he served with me." Sons are supposed to stay with their fathers, serving with them. Sons are supposed to be extensions of their fathers. At age 12, in expressing surprise that Joseph and Mary didn't know where to find him, Jesus said (Luke 2:49), "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" Sons are supposed to be "about [their] father's business." Jesus assumed everyone knew that.
Do you know sons are supposed to be "about [their] father's business?" Psalm 127 says (verse 3), "Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward." You are God's gift to your parents. Are you stealing from them what God gave them? The next verse (4) says, "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth." Children are to be extensions of their parents, furthering their reach like an arrow surpasses the warrior. Yet the arrow is under the direction of that warrior (your father).
You wrote, "I am not a toddler whose opinions mean little or nothing to adults when real life is at issue. I am a grown and responsible adult." Clearly you have opinions. The fact that your opinions differ so markedly from your parents is evidence that you have never fully given your heart to them. Solomon appealed to his son (Prov. 23:26), "My son, give me your heart." A son is supposed to give his father his heart. That means he fully surrenders to his parents' desires, opinions, tastes, aspirations, etc. Instead, you obviously see yourself as your own man, rather than being an extension of your parents. You see yourself as an individual, going out to make your own mark on the world, rather than finding your identity in your family. Where did people in the Bible find their identity? Have you ever wondered why the Bible so frequently interrupts the narrative with genealogies? What was David's identity? David who? He wasn't primarily David the warrior, David the giant-killer, or even David the Psalmist, although he was all those things. He was "David the son of Jesse" (this is the identity given twenty times in scripture). He was "Jesse's boy" rather than insisting on finding his own individual identity. If you can't learn to give your heart to your parents, and find your identity in your relationship with them, you will always be handicapped in your life as a man, in any future relationship with a wife, and in your walk with the Lord. You acquire a capacity for bonding your heart with the Lord and others by first giving your heart to your parents. If you want your life to be blessed, you need to consider what God says will bring that blessing. Certain people are promised "it will be well with you." Who receives this promise? Those who "honor [their] father and mother" (Deut. 5:16; Eph. 6:2-3). The Biblical norm is that regardless of age, a man is to honor and obey his father. Clearly if any authority requires us to disobey God, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). But normally we demonstrate our obedience to God by submitting to the authorities He places over us. But what should a father and mother do if their son refuses to obey them? Perhaps in some cases they can leave him to the Lord, and let the Lord deal with him. (The Lord's chastening is much more painful than parents' discipline.) But what if they determine that their son's rebellion is infecting others? Eli, a high priest at a strategic point in Israel's history, was a godly man whose adult sons committed great wickedness ("they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting," 2 Sam. 2:22). Eli rebuked them, saying (verses 23-24), "Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons! For it is not a good report that I hear." In light of his rebuke, wasn't his response adequate? Didn't he fulfill his obligation before the Lord? Apparently not. God sent a prophet to condemn Eli for not going further. The prophetic word was (verse 29), "Why do you... honor your sons more than Me?" But Eli had rebuked them, and appealed to them to repent. What more could he do? They were clearly adults! A short time later God appeared to the boy Samuel and spoke of Eli's sin. He said (1 Sam. 3:13), "For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and HE DID NOT RESTRAIN THEM." Restrain them? How was Eli to restrain his adult sons. He was an old man, and they were no doubt physically stronger than he was. What more could Eli have done? Somehow God apparently required something more of Eli than simply rebuking and appealing for his sons' repentance. The scripture doesn't spell out here exactly what Eli should have done, but we clearly see that his actions were inadequate. At the very least he should have refrained from authorizing their sin. Instead, Eli allowed his sons to continue functioning as priests, knowing that they were defying God and him. He should have at least revoked this authority. Do you imagine that if Eli had gone to some wise counselor and asked for advice on how to handle the situation, that the counselor would have been obligated to listen to the "story" of Hophni and Phinehas before recommending that Eli disown his sons until they repented? Of course, any counselor's advice is contingent upon the accuracy of what he is hearing. But given accurate details or not, it is still legitimate to articulate Biblical principles.
I counseled your parents to do what I believe a prophetic advisor would have suggested that Eli do, at the least. But in the Old Testament, the parent of a rebellious son had a much more dire mandate. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 directs, "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city." The passage goes on to direct that after taking their son to the "elders of his city" and stating their accusation, the elders are to do something. Interestingly, it never says anything about them pausing and listening to the son's side of the story. While it seems to me this might be wise, especially for the purpose of appealing one last time for him to repent, God's word doesn't direct so. Instead, God commanded, "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear." Thankfully, in the New Testament we're not under the law, and many such mandates no longer apply to us literally. But the law is still to serve for our instruction (Rom. 2:18; 2 Tim. 3:15-16), shaping our thinking and understanding of God's heart and what is normative for us. Notice that the beneficial result of stoning rebels was two-fold. First, "the evil" (rebellion) was eliminated from among the people. Rebellion is contagious. Rebels will advise others to exert their independence. Your parents believed they saw evidence of this influence in the life of your younger brother. I advised them to "put away the evil from among you." The second result was that those who saw and heard about the rebel's stoning "shall hear and fear." Even those who might not have been directly influenced by the contagion of this particular rebel, would be strengthened in their resolve against rebellion when they heard the report of the consequences of defiance and individualism exerted against parents. In my estimation, this is urgently needed in the modern Western church.
Instead, as apparently in your case, other family members, friends, and the church community often take the side of the rebel, condemning the parents for their lack of flexibility. Paul described how when a culture rejects truth, God turns the people over to increasing deception and wickedness. He said these would be (among other perversions) "disobedient to parents" (Rom. 1:30-32), and that those around them would "not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." Disobedience to parents is so typical among Christians that many consider it normal. Paul predicted this would happen. He said (2 Tim. 3:1), "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For MEN will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, DISOBEDIENT TO PARENTS..." What a shock! Paul foretold a day when MEN [not just children, but MEN] would be "disobedient to parents." Up until fairly recently in Western culture, and even still in many other parts of the world, it was assumed that you are to obey your parents as long as they live. But in our age of individualism we prefer independence. Our culture glorifies rebellion, and the church is subtly and gradually impacted by the world's thinking. Most Christian parents today assume they are to prepare their children to be independent of them. Thus we foster individualism to the neglect of corporate identity (finding our identity in our family, as they did in scripture, or in our relationships with the Lord and His church). Although I don't believe the Lord would be pleased with your parents, or the leaders of your community, stoning you (I hope you can imagine the smile on my face at this ludicrous thought), I do believe there is a New Testament application of the same principle. Thankfully, Christians are not to kill those who disobey God's commands today, but the New Testament DOES tell us what to do. Repeatedly we are told to corporately or individually cut off fellowship with those who persist in sin. In the passage I just quoted about "MEN" being "disobedient to parents" (among other sins) Paul concludes by saying (2 Tim. 3:5), "from such people turn away!" Your parents, I, and other Christians are directed to "turn away" from you if you are "disobedient to parents." Jesus told us to treat unrepentant brothers persisting in sin "like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matt. 18:17). Paul directed to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly" (2 Thes. 3:6), and to "note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thes. 3:14-15). The goal is reconciliation because this is a true Christian brother, but one who needs prodding to repent. Paul continued, "Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." You may feel your parents are treating you as an enemy, but they are actually seeking your best (as well as that of your younger brother whom you've had a negative influence on). Their goal is not exclusion. That is the means. The goal is that you would "be ashamed" of your rebellion, repent, and be reconciled to your family under your parents' authority. These are not isolated scriptures. The New Testament is full of similar exhortations. Paul told Timothy (1 Tim 6:3-5) "If anyone... DOES NOT CONSENT TO WHOLESOME WORDS... From such withdraw yourself." He told Titus to "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition" (Titus 3:10). Avoiding, rejecting, or shunning brothers who refuse to walk in God's ways is a scriptural practice.
I advised your parents, if all appeals to you failed, to apply the principles of 1 Corinthians 5 to you, for your good, as well as that of the rest of your family and the body of Christ. Paul told the Christians they were wrong to put up with a brother who was overtly sinning. He told them to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved" (verse 5) and "purge out the old leaven" (verse 7). In regard to the brother in question, he directed them (verse 11) "not even to eat with such a person."
All of this may seem harsh to you, and you may not have heard such a thing taught by other church leaders. I find that distressing, but it doesn't change God's word. Unless you can show me in scripture where your parents and I are wrong, I must appeal to you to repent and submit to your parents. They are not avoiding and excluding you because they hate you. They love you and long to be reconciled with you. But such reconciliation must be done God's way. It can't be on your terms, with them acquiescing to your rebellion.
Since you wrote this letter I have been in contact with them. They gave me explicit permission to counsel you. You probably noticed, and may have been angered by the fact I am sending them a copy of this interaction. My purpose here is to reinforce the scriptural authority of your family, rather than circumventing it. I desire to help "turn The hearts of the fathers to the children, And the hearts of the children to their fathers" (Mal. 4:6). Your parents love you and long for you to return home and come back under their authority. But they are not, by God's grace, going to allow you to manipulate them. Although they love you, they won't be emotionally blackmailed into giving you your way in order to enjoy the relationship they so long to have with you. I don't know your parents, other than through correspondence. I'm by no means claiming they are right on every issue. No doubt they have major flaws like you and I do. Like Noah, when he got drunk, their flaws are not the issue. The issue is between you and God, and whether you are willing to honor and obey imperfect authorities HE has place over you (are there any perfect authorities?).I have not addressed your parents' responsibility to send you forth "like an arrow in the hand of a warrior" (Ps. 127:4) because that is not really your concern. But there is certainly a time for encouraging you to flourish beyond them. However, the foundation for them sending you forward cannot be rebellion, but rather your commitment to give them your heart, honor them, obey them, and serve them. Then they will increasingly trust you and bless you.
At this point I applaud your parents for standing firm, despite their longing for fellowship with you. I pray God will be able to say of your father, as He did regarding Abraham (Gen. 18:19), "For I know him, that HE WILL COMMAND HIS CHILDREN AND HIS HOUSEHOLD after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD." And I pray for you, that you will respond to God's call to respond to your father's command.
This question doesn't even arise in most of Western society today, since the matter of children's obligation to obey parents is increasingly denied by children's rights advocates and the liberal media. Even many Christians succumb to the pressure to at least accommodate the world's family views.
Does the Bible speak to these issues? In fact, God reveals His heart on these matters both overtly and subtly (via assumptions) in His word. I recently received the following note from a young man who was angry with me for the way I counseled his parents. His letter, and my response, may be helpful in stimulating thought and discussion regarding how the Bible approaches this subject.
Dear Jonathan Lindvall,
I am the son of [parents' names] of [city], whom I have heard through the proverbial "grape vine," contacted you earlier this year. I left my family's home seeking freedom as a 20 year old young man in the Lord. (I am now 21.) I could no longer live in a family of Lindvallians. I wanted to be a living, breathing, active, FREE CHRISTIAN. (Unfortunately for me, they were not very good followers of the Lindvallian way.) Maybe in another letter I will discuss what I disagree and agree with you about, but I am writing this letter to you to tell you that no matter what we may disagree about, I am disappointed with you. When (and if) you recommended that my parents shun me (supposedly according to the scriptures) you did NOT contact me to get my side of the "story." My parents do not thoroughly understand me or why I left. Therefore, you also do not know my thoughts, feelings, intentions, and REGRETS. You don't know me or my parents yet you listened to them, and heard their opinions and formed an opinion of your own without hearing my thoughts and opinions on the current issues. I am not a toddler whose opinions mean little or nothing to adults when real life is at issue. I am a grown and responsible adult. As a Christian leader it was very low of you to recommend some parents to shun their adult son WITHOUT hearing both sides. Since I moved out Dec 29th of last year I have not been allowed to see or communicate with my 19-year-old brother. Neither have I been welcome at my parents' house. (I would like to add that my parents have not attended ANY family events or reunions since I moved out). We shared my bedroom during the last year that I was at home. We were getting closer emotionally as adult brothers. We were becoming friends! We were looking forward to going on camping and hiking and canoeing trips and other things that we never did as a family. We were the best of friends. There were no others.
I have not seen my mother or brother for 6 months, 28 days, 6 hours, and 45 minutes.
It is not normal for parents to separate the siblings after the elder sibling moves out.
I place the blame squarely at the feet of Jonathan Lindvall for dividing a Christian family.
I do NOT hold this against you, BECAUSE my parents made the final decision.
But I would like to hold you accountable to something you said, whatever it was.
I have forgiven my parents, otherwise God would not have taken me from where I was 4 months ago to where I am today. (God doesn't use bitter vessels like He has used me.) Praise God! Please prayerfully consider what I have told you. I would welcome a reply.
From your note, it is apparent that you desire to identify with Jesus as our Lord and Savior. I sure honor that, and your pursuit of Christian freedom. Paul said (Gal. 5:1), "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." We are not to allow anything to rob us of our liberty in Christ.
However, Paul balanced his admonition a few verses later (verse 13), saying, "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." It is possible to misuse liberty. There is a correct use of liberty, and that is serving the Lord and one another. I don't mean to increase any hostility you have toward me (I'll even forgive the intentional offenses--"Lindvallian"), but I can only exhort you as lovingly as I know how that I believe you have fallen into the trap of confusing true Christian liberty with rebellion. I certainly could be the one who is wrong, but I ask you to show me from scripture where I might err. I pray that you are open enough to carefully weigh what I'm going to say. Obviously, don't take my word for anything. I simply appeal to you to take my words before the Lord, and to be "noble" like the Bereans who, after hearing Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11) "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
Before you read any more, let me appeal to you to ask yourself if you are willing to repent if I can show you from scripture that you have sinned against God and your parents. Would you be willing to humble yourself if you are shown to be wrong? Or are you unwilling to be shown a possible sin that you didn't realize previously? Your primary challenge to me is that I "did NOT contact [you] to get [your] side of the story" before advising your parents. I'm guessing you have in mind passages like Proverbs 18:17, which says, "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." It is certainly foolhardy to take sides in a conflict before hearing both sides. (By the way, I did not "formed an opinion of [my] own" about this matter based on their opinions. I have sought to have God's word shape my thinking here.)
You assume that it is a scriptural requirement of a Biblical counselor before advising parents how to relate to their children, that they hear the details of an conflict from both sides. Is this really what the Bible teaches? If you were advising parents about handling their disobedient children, do you believe you would be obligated to ask for the child's "story" before advising his parents to discipline him? Of course, there is a deeper and more significant assumption you hold, that is the basis of all this. You conclude that because of your age you are no longer to be treated as a child. From your own words it is clear this is really the whole basis of your conflict with your parents, and needs to be explored in light of scripture.
Let's start with basics. Scripture is unequivocal about God's will for children to obey their parents. In the ten commandments God said (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), "Honor your father and your mother." Interestingly, God was not speaking exclusively to little children here. Jesus rebuked ADULT Pharisees (Matt. 15:3-6; Mark 7:6-13) for excusing and rationalizing dishonor of parents by ADULTS. Another time Jesus was approached by someone who asked him what he needed to do to obtain eternal life (Matt. 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23). In his initial response regarding obeying the commandments, Jesus specifically quoted this one, "Honor your father and mother." How old do you suppose this fellow was? Luke refers to him as a "ruler" and each account tells us he was "very rich."He was clearly an adult. I suspect he was at least as old as you are, yet Jesus expected him to honor his parents. Interestingly, Paul interpreted the fifth commandment as a mandate to obey. He wrote (Eph 6:1-3), "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." How did he know this obedience to parents is right? What evidence does he provide? He immediately quotes the command, "'Honor your father and mother,' which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth." Paul linked the command to honor with a command to obey. The question is when does a child no longer have to obey his parents? You have determined that you have reached that point. On what basis do you conclude that? What scripture can you point to? Certainly our society would agree with you. Well before the legal age of 18 years most worldly counselors would say a young person is old enough to make his own decisions and a parent is out of order in commanding obedience. Is this God's view?
The only possible evidence I can find for your point of view is that a man was included in the census beginning at the age of 20 years (Num. 1:1-3). But does this mean he was no longer required to obey his father? Let's consider some of the abundant evidence for the opposite understanding revealed throughout scripture. At the very least, when is a man authorized to leave his father and mother? Jesus (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7) and Paul (Eph. 5:31) quoted Genesis 2:24 regarding marriage, saying, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother." You may disagree with me, but I believe we should take this literally, and that young people are not to leave their parents until marriage. But let me take the matter further. I'm thankful that, based on the above scriptures, I committed to obeying my parents until I married. But I could hardly wait to marry and get out from under their authority. I now recognize that while I obeyed them outwardly, my anticipation of freedom from them revealed a rebellious heart. I failed to give them my heart as I should have.In the Bible, even married men (as opposed to women) were expected to obey their parents (and/or parents-in-law) as long as they lived. There was no age level at which this mandate changed. Let's consider some interesting examples. Genesis 6-9 tells of Noah and his three sons. The sons were all over one hundred years old and married when God sent the flood to destroy the earth. They apparently bore the scorn of the rest of society (but the blessing of God) in FOLLOWING THEIR FATHER'S DIRECTIONS in building, loading, and entering the ark. After they got off the ark Noah displayed what we would understand to be sinful imperfection--he got drunk. One of his sons (Ham) dishonored his father by verbally exposing his shame, while the other two (Shem and Japheth) overtly honored their father by covering him. Shem and Japheth were blessed as a result of this, but Ham's descendants were cursed. These were grown men, over 100 years old. Yet they were still expected to honor their father. Isaac was forty years old when his father gave a servant authority over him. The servant was to choose a wife, and was directed (Gen. 24:6) "Beware that you do not take my son back there." As in the case of his earlier submission (when Abraham was going to offer him as a sacrifice, Gen. 22:9), there is not a hint of resistance in the account. Even after Abraham's death, Isaac continued to honor his father in unusually overt ways (Gen. 26:18). Jacob was 76 years old when his father sent him to get a wife (calculated from Gen. 29:18, 27; 30:25; 31:41; 41:46, 48; 45:6; 47:9, 28). In contrast to his brother Esau, who married against his parents' wishes (Gen. 26:34), Jacob stayed with them for many years, waiting for their direction. Although Jacob had many character flaws, his honor for his parents in this regard was a major vehicle of God's blessing in his life. Benjamin obeyed both when his father forbade him going to Egypt with his older brothers, and when he later changed his mind and directed his youngest son to go. How old was Benjamin at the time? He was in his thirties, married, and already had ten sons (see Gen. 31:35; 35:18; 46:21, 27). When Jacob decided to move the clan to Egypt, all his sons and their families obeyed him and went along.
Moses was married, eighty years old, and had sons when he asked his father-in-law's permission (Ex. 4:18) to obey God in going back to Egypt. We might argue that he shouldn't have done this, but there's not even the slightest hint in scripture that this was inappropriate.
I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture. The scripture never gives an age limit for obedience to parents. In the New Testament, Jesus Himself reflected this assumption on several occasions as we've already seen. But let me point to another that might strike closer to home. He told a story of a young man who decided he was old enough to be independent of his father (Luke 15:11-32). We don't know the young man's age (which was apparently irrelevant to Jesus), but I can easily imagine him being about your age. When the young man "came to himself" (verse 17), he realized he was wrong. What were his words? In his planned speech (verses 18 & 21) he said, "Father, I HAVE SINNED against heaven and before you." How had he sinned? Is it possible the sin was in leaving his father in the first place? Have YOU "sinned against heaven and before" your father? If so, what should you do? Later, the older brother who stayed is shown to have a envious heart. But the fact that he stayed with his father was good. Jesus reveals the normative ideal in quoting this older brother saying (verse 29), among other things, "these many years I have been serving you." Regardless of how old you might think the younger brother was, his brother was even older, and yet he stayed with his father, serving him. And despite his envy of his younger brother, his father still commended him for doing the right thing all this time. What did the father say (verse 31)? "Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours." He was ALWAYS with his father. And the result of serving his father was an inheritance.
By refusing to stay with your parents and serve them (under their authority, not on your terms), are you throwing away an inheritance or blessing from your father?
Paul seemed to think serving a father is the role of an adult son, when he commended Timothy to the Philippian church (Phil. 2:22). He likened his relationship with Timothy to that of the norm of father-son relationships. He said, "as a son with his father he served with me." Sons are supposed to stay with their fathers, serving with them. Sons are supposed to be extensions of their fathers. At age 12, in expressing surprise that Joseph and Mary didn't know where to find him, Jesus said (Luke 2:49), "Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" Sons are supposed to be "about [their] father's business." Jesus assumed everyone knew that.
Do you know sons are supposed to be "about [their] father's business?" Psalm 127 says (verse 3), "Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward." You are God's gift to your parents. Are you stealing from them what God gave them? The next verse (4) says, "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth." Children are to be extensions of their parents, furthering their reach like an arrow surpasses the warrior. Yet the arrow is under the direction of that warrior (your father).
You wrote, "I am not a toddler whose opinions mean little or nothing to adults when real life is at issue. I am a grown and responsible adult." Clearly you have opinions. The fact that your opinions differ so markedly from your parents is evidence that you have never fully given your heart to them. Solomon appealed to his son (Prov. 23:26), "My son, give me your heart." A son is supposed to give his father his heart. That means he fully surrenders to his parents' desires, opinions, tastes, aspirations, etc. Instead, you obviously see yourself as your own man, rather than being an extension of your parents. You see yourself as an individual, going out to make your own mark on the world, rather than finding your identity in your family. Where did people in the Bible find their identity? Have you ever wondered why the Bible so frequently interrupts the narrative with genealogies? What was David's identity? David who? He wasn't primarily David the warrior, David the giant-killer, or even David the Psalmist, although he was all those things. He was "David the son of Jesse" (this is the identity given twenty times in scripture). He was "Jesse's boy" rather than insisting on finding his own individual identity. If you can't learn to give your heart to your parents, and find your identity in your relationship with them, you will always be handicapped in your life as a man, in any future relationship with a wife, and in your walk with the Lord. You acquire a capacity for bonding your heart with the Lord and others by first giving your heart to your parents. If you want your life to be blessed, you need to consider what God says will bring that blessing. Certain people are promised "it will be well with you." Who receives this promise? Those who "honor [their] father and mother" (Deut. 5:16; Eph. 6:2-3). The Biblical norm is that regardless of age, a man is to honor and obey his father. Clearly if any authority requires us to disobey God, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). But normally we demonstrate our obedience to God by submitting to the authorities He places over us. But what should a father and mother do if their son refuses to obey them? Perhaps in some cases they can leave him to the Lord, and let the Lord deal with him. (The Lord's chastening is much more painful than parents' discipline.) But what if they determine that their son's rebellion is infecting others? Eli, a high priest at a strategic point in Israel's history, was a godly man whose adult sons committed great wickedness ("they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting," 2 Sam. 2:22). Eli rebuked them, saying (verses 23-24), "Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons! For it is not a good report that I hear." In light of his rebuke, wasn't his response adequate? Didn't he fulfill his obligation before the Lord? Apparently not. God sent a prophet to condemn Eli for not going further. The prophetic word was (verse 29), "Why do you... honor your sons more than Me?" But Eli had rebuked them, and appealed to them to repent. What more could he do? They were clearly adults! A short time later God appeared to the boy Samuel and spoke of Eli's sin. He said (1 Sam. 3:13), "For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and HE DID NOT RESTRAIN THEM." Restrain them? How was Eli to restrain his adult sons. He was an old man, and they were no doubt physically stronger than he was. What more could Eli have done? Somehow God apparently required something more of Eli than simply rebuking and appealing for his sons' repentance. The scripture doesn't spell out here exactly what Eli should have done, but we clearly see that his actions were inadequate. At the very least he should have refrained from authorizing their sin. Instead, Eli allowed his sons to continue functioning as priests, knowing that they were defying God and him. He should have at least revoked this authority. Do you imagine that if Eli had gone to some wise counselor and asked for advice on how to handle the situation, that the counselor would have been obligated to listen to the "story" of Hophni and Phinehas before recommending that Eli disown his sons until they repented? Of course, any counselor's advice is contingent upon the accuracy of what he is hearing. But given accurate details or not, it is still legitimate to articulate Biblical principles.
I counseled your parents to do what I believe a prophetic advisor would have suggested that Eli do, at the least. But in the Old Testament, the parent of a rebellious son had a much more dire mandate. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 directs, "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city." The passage goes on to direct that after taking their son to the "elders of his city" and stating their accusation, the elders are to do something. Interestingly, it never says anything about them pausing and listening to the son's side of the story. While it seems to me this might be wise, especially for the purpose of appealing one last time for him to repent, God's word doesn't direct so. Instead, God commanded, "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear." Thankfully, in the New Testament we're not under the law, and many such mandates no longer apply to us literally. But the law is still to serve for our instruction (Rom. 2:18; 2 Tim. 3:15-16), shaping our thinking and understanding of God's heart and what is normative for us. Notice that the beneficial result of stoning rebels was two-fold. First, "the evil" (rebellion) was eliminated from among the people. Rebellion is contagious. Rebels will advise others to exert their independence. Your parents believed they saw evidence of this influence in the life of your younger brother. I advised them to "put away the evil from among you." The second result was that those who saw and heard about the rebel's stoning "shall hear and fear." Even those who might not have been directly influenced by the contagion of this particular rebel, would be strengthened in their resolve against rebellion when they heard the report of the consequences of defiance and individualism exerted against parents. In my estimation, this is urgently needed in the modern Western church.
Instead, as apparently in your case, other family members, friends, and the church community often take the side of the rebel, condemning the parents for their lack of flexibility. Paul described how when a culture rejects truth, God turns the people over to increasing deception and wickedness. He said these would be (among other perversions) "disobedient to parents" (Rom. 1:30-32), and that those around them would "not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." Disobedience to parents is so typical among Christians that many consider it normal. Paul predicted this would happen. He said (2 Tim. 3:1), "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For MEN will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, DISOBEDIENT TO PARENTS..." What a shock! Paul foretold a day when MEN [not just children, but MEN] would be "disobedient to parents." Up until fairly recently in Western culture, and even still in many other parts of the world, it was assumed that you are to obey your parents as long as they live. But in our age of individualism we prefer independence. Our culture glorifies rebellion, and the church is subtly and gradually impacted by the world's thinking. Most Christian parents today assume they are to prepare their children to be independent of them. Thus we foster individualism to the neglect of corporate identity (finding our identity in our family, as they did in scripture, or in our relationships with the Lord and His church). Although I don't believe the Lord would be pleased with your parents, or the leaders of your community, stoning you (I hope you can imagine the smile on my face at this ludicrous thought), I do believe there is a New Testament application of the same principle. Thankfully, Christians are not to kill those who disobey God's commands today, but the New Testament DOES tell us what to do. Repeatedly we are told to corporately or individually cut off fellowship with those who persist in sin. In the passage I just quoted about "MEN" being "disobedient to parents" (among other sins) Paul concludes by saying (2 Tim. 3:5), "from such people turn away!" Your parents, I, and other Christians are directed to "turn away" from you if you are "disobedient to parents." Jesus told us to treat unrepentant brothers persisting in sin "like a heathen and a tax collector" (Matt. 18:17). Paul directed to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly" (2 Thes. 3:6), and to "note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thes. 3:14-15). The goal is reconciliation because this is a true Christian brother, but one who needs prodding to repent. Paul continued, "Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." You may feel your parents are treating you as an enemy, but they are actually seeking your best (as well as that of your younger brother whom you've had a negative influence on). Their goal is not exclusion. That is the means. The goal is that you would "be ashamed" of your rebellion, repent, and be reconciled to your family under your parents' authority. These are not isolated scriptures. The New Testament is full of similar exhortations. Paul told Timothy (1 Tim 6:3-5) "If anyone... DOES NOT CONSENT TO WHOLESOME WORDS... From such withdraw yourself." He told Titus to "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition" (Titus 3:10). Avoiding, rejecting, or shunning brothers who refuse to walk in God's ways is a scriptural practice.
I advised your parents, if all appeals to you failed, to apply the principles of 1 Corinthians 5 to you, for your good, as well as that of the rest of your family and the body of Christ. Paul told the Christians they were wrong to put up with a brother who was overtly sinning. He told them to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved" (verse 5) and "purge out the old leaven" (verse 7). In regard to the brother in question, he directed them (verse 11) "not even to eat with such a person."
All of this may seem harsh to you, and you may not have heard such a thing taught by other church leaders. I find that distressing, but it doesn't change God's word. Unless you can show me in scripture where your parents and I are wrong, I must appeal to you to repent and submit to your parents. They are not avoiding and excluding you because they hate you. They love you and long to be reconciled with you. But such reconciliation must be done God's way. It can't be on your terms, with them acquiescing to your rebellion.
Since you wrote this letter I have been in contact with them. They gave me explicit permission to counsel you. You probably noticed, and may have been angered by the fact I am sending them a copy of this interaction. My purpose here is to reinforce the scriptural authority of your family, rather than circumventing it. I desire to help "turn The hearts of the fathers to the children, And the hearts of the children to their fathers" (Mal. 4:6). Your parents love you and long for you to return home and come back under their authority. But they are not, by God's grace, going to allow you to manipulate them. Although they love you, they won't be emotionally blackmailed into giving you your way in order to enjoy the relationship they so long to have with you. I don't know your parents, other than through correspondence. I'm by no means claiming they are right on every issue. No doubt they have major flaws like you and I do. Like Noah, when he got drunk, their flaws are not the issue. The issue is between you and God, and whether you are willing to honor and obey imperfect authorities HE has place over you (are there any perfect authorities?).I have not addressed your parents' responsibility to send you forth "like an arrow in the hand of a warrior" (Ps. 127:4) because that is not really your concern. But there is certainly a time for encouraging you to flourish beyond them. However, the foundation for them sending you forward cannot be rebellion, but rather your commitment to give them your heart, honor them, obey them, and serve them. Then they will increasingly trust you and bless you.
At this point I applaud your parents for standing firm, despite their longing for fellowship with you. I pray God will be able to say of your father, as He did regarding Abraham (Gen. 18:19), "For I know him, that HE WILL COMMAND HIS CHILDREN AND HIS HOUSEHOLD after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD." And I pray for you, that you will respond to God's call to respond to your father's command.
Comments