Recovering Grace receives a large number of emails from people previously and currently involved in ATI and IBLP, including many requests for advice over problems faced because of the dangerous teachings in both programs. A lot of these emails contain striking similarities, and we have attempted to formulate Christ-centered, grace-filled responses to various key issues. We have decided to share some of our responses via a "Dear Grace" column. Identifying details have been altered, and some letters are a composite of multiple requests for advice.
Dear Grace,
I am 26 years old with a good head on my shoulders, and am currently in a courtship with a 29-year-old man who has a solid career, is in church leadership, and loves the Lord and me. I’ve always been obedient to my parents and done whatever they’ve told me in the area of relationships. I see tremendous value in having my parents involved, but I believe they are now over-involved.
When we began the courtship my parents told us it was a flexible courtship, but they have not been the least bit flexible with us. It is their way or the highway. We’ve spoken about this to my parents, and they say we’re lucky they let us go out to dinner sometimes without a chaperone. Because of the controlling nature of the courtship, it is strangling our relationship with my parents. We are frustrated with all the rules and are becoming bitter towards my parents’ “standards.” We want to make decisions in our relationship on our own now because it is practice for making decisions when we are married. And their response to that is, “You two knew the conditions and you agreed to do the courtship. Now you are backing out of your agreement and not honoring us. So we will not bless your marriage, and we will never accept your future husband into our home.”
I do not believe I am being dishonoring. But according to them, I have no free will. I am torn. I want to honor my parents. But there is a difference between honor and blind obedience. I want them to bless my marriage, but I don’t know how I can have a healthy relationship with both my boyfriend and them with the way the courtship is currently structured. Whenever I try to explain my position to them and try to reach a compromise, all they do is defend why their way is best, and right, and most godly. Is my parents’ way the only right way to prepare for marriage? We’re both in our mid- to late-20’s. Are we wrong for wanting to do something different than what my parents mandate?
Please–any help would be greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
Exasperated in Exeter
Dear Exasperated,
Unfortunately your situation is a very common one among those who grew up in the Advanced Training Institute (ATI). I, too, was once involved in ATI and a very controlling courtship, which ended when the man decided that my family was too much for him. After that, I swore off courtship. A few years later, God brought a wonderful man into my life. We dated, and have been happily married for 11 years now. We currently serve in our church as mentors to engaged couples.
First of all, let me say that God’s design for marriage is for a couple to leave their parents and cleave to each other, becoming one flesh. Either a failure to leave, or a failure to cleave, can destroy a marriage. Leaving one’s parents is often a hard thing for couples to do, but it is one of the best things they can do for their marriage. Your situation is certainly more severe than most couples we deal with in our church. (Most of them have never even heard of courtship!) But you should understand that 99% of couples will have to have a hard conversation with their parents at some point. I’ve certainly been there, and I can tell you that it was hard, but so worth it.
Please understand that you cannot control your parents’ actions. They may never give their blessing to your marriage. They might not accept your husband into their home. You might even have to leave your home before you marry and they may not be a part of your wedding. My question to you is, “Is he worth it?” If not, you shouldn’t marry him. If he is worth it, then consider those hard conversations an investment in your future happiness. Back when I was dating my husband, I told my family not to make me choose, because I would choose him. I had to reiterate that a few years into our marriage when my mom wrote me a nasty letter about my husband. I told her that if she wanted to be a part of our lives, she couldn’t talk badly about him. The choice was up to her. Thankfully, she chose to bite her tongue and I have a great relationship with her now. But I realize that she could have cut me off and I would have had to live with that. Setting appropriate boundaries is an important part of growing up.
One bit of advice that we give our couples with regard to family situations is this: You should each be the bad guy in your own family. Don’t put your husband in a situation where he is fighting with your family. He wasn’t born into your family, and your parents will always be more willing to accept you than him. In addition, be very careful involving your parents in conflicts with your spouse. You may forgive him and be willing to move on, but they won’t. And you most certainly shouldn’t accept financial help from them.
I’m really sorry for the position that you find yourself in. I’ve been there, and I can tell you with certainty that it gets better. It takes time and perseverance, but it develops in you an inward strength that you might not have found elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Grace
August 21, 2020
RG your response is great, but I think you need to include some scripture verses or links to other articles that give a scriptural answer to this. My thought is Eph. 6:1,4.Children are children until they are brought up. Late twenties is certainly brought up.
OOps, I think you did have one link.
RG thanks for this me and my girl friend are going through this right now and it is heart wrenching because we want to be together in spite of her parents disapproving of me. At the same time neither of us want to hurt anyone or be cut off.. Ultimately we have to make a choice and take a leap of faith.
Please walk away from your parents teaching, and don't feel guilty of this. If you are in your mid 20s, its your decision. I was homeschooled too, and I know this thought pattern. I left it behind, and I'm happier for it. Perhaps your parents will grow to understand you more, perhaps they never will. Unfortunately, you do not have control over this. You only have control over how you respond.
I can identify! I left my ATI family at age 20, and started dating at age 22. While I had no intention of following Gothard's courtship regulations like I had been forced to put my signature next to at age 12, being a good person I still wanted to try to include my dad. I introduced him to my first boyfriend, and all hell broke loose. It turned into a very bad situation! Long after I had broken up with him, my dad still was emailing/calling him and even had breakfast with him! WEIRD. Needless to say, my dad was not introduced to any of my other love interests until I was ENGAGED to one. My marriage was not "blessed" either. My advice: Get out on your own, get away from your manipulative folks, and trust yourself that you're a good soul and that you are capable of making good decisions and dealing with the mistakes. And yes, your relationship will be in shambles shortly if you don't SET BOUNDARIES.
The best two books on the market for people like us are: Take Your Life Back by Janja Lalich & Madeleine Tobias, and Boundaries by Cloud/Townsend. I have read 30+ books trying to make sense of my past with ATI and "fix" all the "hangups" that I have now because of it. These two books have the best content for our situation, in my opinion. :)
Stacey, your advice is "Trust yourself that you're a good soul and that you are capable of making good decisions"? Unless you're not a Christian at all, this should alarm you. It's exactly the same advice any unbeliever would offer and gives God no say in a person's choices--particularly one as life-changing as marriage! "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." Proverbs 14:12
The Scriptures referred to in the answer were Genesis 2:24, where, from the beginning, God says how it is "leave mother and father and cleave to spouse". Jesus reinforced that in Matthew 19:5. But yes, it appears that Ephesians 6:1 has most often been thrown in the faces of adult children trying to, well, become adults.
Thanks for this. I look forward to more such Q & A.
This is good advice for such a difficult situation. I wish we had set better boundaries with our own parents. Even though we did set some, the sense of looking to someone else for how we interacted instead of working it out together was not a good pattern for marriage. But courtship is set up so that even parents who have no particular desire to interfere with their adult children feel like they must for their own good.
[...] Thank You That This Is Not (Was Not) My [...]
I wish I had read this article when I was in the dating stage with my husband. We have been married for over a year now and still hearing/dealing with how my parents still fell about my husband cause they really didn't approve of him. I hope we can see more Q & A!!!!!
Here's hoping this lands in the thread where it is supposed to :-)
In answer to Don:
Alfred,
1. What are Mr. Gothard's ideal desires? Elaborate a bit maybe?
"Ideal" is best practices for successful living, based on God's design and supported in Scripture. We have "problems" because we violate one or more of these ideals, often without realizing it. Food, relationships, marriage, etc. etc. Correction of the violation leads to relief. That is the idea. Maybe I am missing your intent . . .
2. Regarding your statement on extremes, if a parent has been extremely too permissive with a child, should they then "bend it back in the opposite extreme" and physically abuse the child?
Why discuss something evil? Tell me that you yourself have never done "course corrections" on family standards. I used to be a teacher (briefly). Sometimes you roll in with a slate of new rules when things have gotten lax and you defend them vigorously. "Don't smile until Christmas". Once the group has embraced them you back off and don't worry it quite as tightly.
3. Regarding Mr. G giving "balancing statements," has he ever recanted that some of what he taught previously might be going too far? I would be very interested to know if he has.
Recanted? That is a tough word. Modified, moderated . . . lots of times. Some hills he has abandoned as indefensible. He has not done the overt "I was wrong" often, but he has.
Nope . . . what a bunch of spaghetti (thread). Will add below . . . sorry Kaytlin . . . no way to delete.
Michael Pearl has taken a strong stance against what has been presented as "Betrothal" . . . "To Betroth or Not to Betroth" . . I have heard him express his deep disgust with parents in exactly the situation presented.
While BG gave a lot of guidance on courtship in early seminars, I have heard very little on the topic for many years. The one time i heard it brought up in the last 5-6 years it was to distance himself from the Jewish "betrothal" model espoused by Jonathan Lindvall (a friend of mine) and others, which has parents picking spouses. His point was that things that worked in a tight Jewish culture fail in our wide open, cosmopolitan setting . . .
Pearl's bottom line is that in the end children need to make the choice and be prepared to assume full responsibility for that choice before the Lord. Good advice.
http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/to-betroth-or-not-to-betroth-that-is-the-question/?topic_slug=protecting-your-children
Alfred elswhere on this site you fully support BG now on this matter even though you obviously still support him say BG has stepped back from this particular view of John Lindvil. What about emotional purity has BG withdrawn his support of that erroneous view as well?
Where has BG said this?
It seems to me that some of Bill Gothard's staunchest defenders are not defending an objective truth or belief. Rather, they are defending the ex-cathedra authority of the man himself. So when Bill says "A is true" they will defend that by any means necessary, and when Bill later says "Never mind, now B is true" it's not a problem because it was never about any underlying truth by which Bill himself could be held accountable, rather, it was about the authority vested in the man himself. If Bill is the "Lord's annointed" then our job is not to question him or hold him accountable. "It is not ours to question why, it is simply ours to do or die."
That is one of the problems with prejudice, isn't it . . . prejudging, taking surface characteristics or "litmus tests" to define a person. There were many times our ATI "Home Superintendents Council" (initially ATI fathers, then expanded to include Moms as well) disagreed with HQ in general and Mr. Gothard in particular. This area was one of them.
In more specific reply to Chris: I was at a seminar when he said it.
Mr. G is all about ideals . . . how things work best. Example is food . . . daily ground wheat bread, absolutely pure water, fresh fruits and veggies is "ideal". But realities of life in a sinful world bring us up short from the ideal . . . in fact, we may kill ourselves financially and even physically trying to make it so. He knows that . . . I went through a brief shock when, upon visiting HQ for the first time in the early '90s I was served hot dog buns during the little lunch they had.
I learned something then, which I have heard him confirm later. There is a strong public stance which serves to strongly establish a God-ordained principle which Christians have more or less lost. It is overkill, which he likened to straightening a bent item back to normal by - at times - bending it hard in the opposite direction. Once the principle is embraced, normal balance can return.
The following would be my comments, as Mr. G has never said it . . . "Emotional Purity" is an ideal. God never intended us to "marriage attach" our emotions to multiple people we do not marry. The ripping apart and broken hearts and emotional vulnerability that ensue are not God's plan. But . . . just like physical weaknesses that come from eating refined flour and sugar, it happens . . . and sometimes it can't be avoided. In fact, extreme steps taken to avoid it entirely make result in other problems.
Another example, again my own. We all want highly effective immune systems, to select the "good" and reject the "bad". North Americans, by virtue of their superior diet, have much more sensitive immune systems than people in 3rd world countries. If one of us goes to parts of South America and gets bitten by a certain fly, a tiny larva ends up circulating through the blood stream and lodges in the retina of the eye. Our superior immune system detects it, fights it, destroys it . . . and in the process can destroy the eye. The immune system of locals there ignores the larvae, to the point that thousands will live in the back of the eye . . . with no consequence.
Which is better? Nobody wants larvae living in their eyes, but the reality of a sinful world actually gives a situation where "ideal" is worse.
So . . . what to do? What my family has chosen to do is keep learning all about the ideal, as much as we can. We implement all we can, as the Lord allows. Decisions on different things need to be made, and what is right for our family is not right for others. Our young ladies wore nothing but dresses and skirts, even to sporting events for years. It can be done, it was done for hundreds of years, still done universally in certain cultures. When our personal “culture” of support diminished to the point where we were the only ones doing so (virtually no ATIers, others of this mind around us), we had a decision to make. I decided that the cost to continue to support this ideal was not supported by the benefits.
I have seen the “ideal” courtship model work well in numbers of occasions. I have even seen “betrothal” work extremely well. I have also seen some real tragedies, things you would do about anything to avoid. So has Mr. G. Which probably was behind the cautionary note he gave.
Even on some issues that are pretty “at the top” he has made balancing statements in later years. In the last 10 years he has often said, “You can obey and be despised for it, and you can disobey and be respected for it”. In other words, not all disobedience is rebellion. It gives another perspective for God-fearing people who want to do what is right, but are faced with situations that defy a simple answer.
Alfred, the problem is that Gothard leads people away from the emphasis of Scripture. I wrote several months ago about why I reject IBLP and what you are describing is pretty much one of the reasons. https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/why-i-reject-iblp/
I read the article. I am impressed with your sincerity and love for the Lord and His word. All I would say is . . . "balance" . . . "balance".
Perhaps Solomon got his 3,000 very practical proverbs by direct revelation . . . or maybe they are a practical result of seeing how Scripture applies to real life. There is much of life that simply does not have a "chapter and verse".
Take the whole business of "dating", "courtship" . . . to declare that God simply doesn't have an opinion, especially when certain courses of action lead to consequences that materially do affect what God is trying to do as defined in Scripture . . . well, that just isn't reasonable to me.
If God is smarter than anyone else, if He invented the world, its laws, us, well, one would expect that things He tells us to do will act in harmony with that design to provide the best possible outcome.
God invented relativity and quantum mechanics, He is way ahead of the scientists, He routinely laughs at them. To presume that He didn't bury some of the things He knows in Scripture where one day we will figure it out seems almost funny. Depends on how real and how smart you think God is.
"Perhaps Solomon got his 3,000 very practical proverbs by direct revelation . . . or maybe they are a practical result of seeing how Scripture applies to real life. There is much of life that simply does not have a 'chapter and verse'"
Wow... If you really believe that part of Scripture was not given by direct revelation, then we have no basis to have a theological discussion.
I would agree that not all of life has a 'chapter and verse.'" These areas are left to Christian liberty and the leading f the Holy Spirit; otherwise, you are saying that Scripture isn't sufficient.
Define "leading of the Holy Spirit". Does God talk to us directly? As an application, does the conscience tell people what God wants independent of Scripture, to the point that men will be judged by that standard in a coming day? (ref. Romans 2:15) I would love a clear answer to that question before proceeding to the next.
Define "Christian Liberty". Does that mean that the God that created every aspect of us and the laws that make things work or break is ambivalent about choices we make?
The Bible commands us to not have fellowship with demons (1 Cor. 10:20) If so, and you are pretty sure cabbage patch dolls were invented by demons, would warning other people about that be scriptural or unscriptural? (I have never figure out that connection, so nothing I worry about . . . just making a point with one of the BG footballs that gets kicked around a lot)
The Bible tells children to obey and to fear their parents. Does "Christian Liberty" allow us to ignore that Scripture when we feel lead, i.e. "Christian Liberty" trumps Scripture? (that is NT teaching, but just for grins, read Lev. 19:3 . . . the word "man" is the Hebrew "Ish", which can be nothing other than "grown man")
I am tweaking you a bit . . . but I am thinking you will acknowledge that "scriptural" extends out into applications of Scripture. And if you allow that conscience - and in Romans 1 the study of nature - are God ordained to teach us about Him and His ways apart from Scripture, then you will have to modify your statements a bit.
I believe that Scriptural applications do not include things that are not the purpose of the text. For example: When Scripture says, "They sang a hymn and went out" it's telling what happened, not prescribing the order of the church service. The order of a service is not prescribed by Scripture and when Gothard insists it is, he is abusing the Word of God. Since it isn't prescribed by Scripture, we are free to do it different ways, as the Holy Spirit leads.
When it comes to courtship/dating, courtship people only pick the stories in Scripture that can be "applied" to courtship. Even though Scripture cleary says that God was in Samson's "courtship" he didn't do what his parents wanted so it is not cited as a passage we shoud apply as the story of Rebekah and Isaac is.
But since you've already said you don't know for sure if all of Scripture is inspired, I don't see how it matters to you how we apply it. If it's man's wisdom, it's man's.
Don't misquote me :-) All of Scripture is inspired . . . but very little comes to us by "open revelation", say the way the law was written ("Thus saith the Lord", as He dictated it).
Unless you believe that the Lord dictated the Pauline letters? "God breathed" is divine direction . . . but you have an interesting time with, say, Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 7:
vs. 10: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord . . . "
vs. 12: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord . . . "
So . . . which mode was Proverbs written in?
And . . . you didn't answer my question about the Lord talking to us directly . . . via our conscience, the Holy Spirit, creation . . . anything.
You said, "Perhaps Solomon got his 3,000 very practical proverbs by direct revelation . . . or maybe they are a practical result of seeing how Scripture applies to real life. "
The "practical result of seeing how Scripture applies to real life" doesn't sound to me like an orthodox view of "inspiration" or "special revelation."
It does sound like you are equating Gothard's many appications -- though many are abuses of Scripture -- to the God-breathed Scriptures.
OK, around and around we go. Where did Paul get the perspectives that he stated were "I, not the Lord?"
Didn't mention another "inspiration conundrums", where Paul corrects himself (1 Cor. 1:14, 16) I believe every word to be God's Word, divinely directed . . . please don't get me wrong. But normal human processes were used besides the obvious "open revelation", God actually talking out loud. Paul cites some of these processes as reasons, motivations for writing.
Name dropping . . . I have a somewhat famous cousin Dr. Win Corduan, formerly Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Taylor University, author of many books, co-founder and President of the International Society of Christian Apologetics (ISCA) Which regularly features Don Veinot, BTW, including topics on why Bill Gothard is bad.
He took up the topic of "what does inspiration mean" in some of his recent blog entries . . . here is one in the middle: http://wincorduan.bravejournal.com/entry/112702 You might enjoy his perspectives.
Clickable link: "Some Puzzles on Biblical Inspiration"
It should work if you do a full a href tag in angle brackets.
Haha! I guess that wasn't right . . . how about this: "Some Puzzles on Biblical Inspiration"
I'm not the one who is having a problem with inspiration.
Interestingly, Scripture does not divide itself into as many categories as we do. Poetry and Wisdom are not Scriptural divisions of Scripture.
It is "law" or "prophets." Scripture calls David a prophet. And I see some prophetic things in Proverbs. I think you are doing an injustice to the Word of God to say it was just a man's observations.
That aside, this conversation began because you are insisting on using "applications" of Scripture to tell peope how to live. That sounds good, but having spent a good number of years "in the program" myself, I know what that means. It desn't mean following the clear direction of Scripture. It means adding a whole bunch of principles that are "mined" from Scripture by misapplying the text and putting people in bondage to silliness -- like insisting on singing hymns at the end of the service or teaching people to fast on Sunday if they really want to honor God.
That is not living by the "principles of Scripture." It's teaching as the law of God the traditions of men.
I think you need the ability to accuse me of not believing in divine inspiration. Which I suspect I shall get thrown back at me in future discussions. Otherwise you would have heard and acknowledged what I have already stated multiple times. And since you won't answer the questions I posed that would highlight and explain my statement, I guess it is fruitless. But not right.
You are accusing me of not answering questions? That's reay funny.
Sorry for getting a bit too serious on this . . . but . . . yeah, you aren't :-) I guess once I ask two or three times for a reply on a question, I guess I am not going to get one. We can drop it here if you want.
Do you know how often you ignore the questions asked of you?
My problem with your view of inspiration comes from this statement "or maybe they are a practical result of seeing how Scripture applies to real life." That seems to say that the book of Proverbs is just his insight and not God's Wisdom. If you didn't mean that, explain, because until you do, that's what I'm taking issue with
When you say that to support "principled living" it looks like you are comparing Gothard's "insight" to Solomon's. With that I take issue. Solomon's insights are part of the Canon. Gothard's are not.
Surely someone has already pointed out that "children" obey their parents, while adults honor their parents, according to Biblical admonition? and that the two are not one and the same? Why is this even still a point of discussion? Do you, Alfred, obey all of your parents' wishes? My own parents never did, not even close.
The responses are so buried in the thread by now that nobody much cares . . . but . . . in answer: No, I don't. In fact, I had to learn to honor my wife over my mother (Dad is with the Lord) . . . failure to do so caused some real marital friction (ya think?). My comments about Jacob obeying his Dad and Mom when he was 75 would strengthen the "until you are married" perspective, I guess. And "honor" is a reverence that goes all the way up to the Lord. You can honor a person while you disobey them . . . as in, "I love you too much to get you in trouble for doing what you told me to do when the Lord told us differently". That is a risky business, but there are times where it applies. Jesus submitted to his parents instead of staying in the temple as a 12 year old . . . 18 years later he declined to give his mother and brothers an audience as they were about to try to make him stop preaching.
By "Jacob obeying his parents", are you referring to that little incident where he stole from his brother, lied to his father, and finally, when he couldn't do much more damage, let his mother spirit him away to safety, while pretending to his father that it was really about finding a godly wife? THAT is what you call, "obedience"? I call it something else, entirely... High treachery, deception, mama's boy... But obedience is not *exactly* the descriptor that comes to mind.
Again, I say, *if* Jacob obeyed his parents as an adult (which is highly debatable to begin with), it was due to the culture of the day. That is all that your point highlights, the local culture of the time. We don't generate biblical mandates from culture.
"Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram" (Genesis 28:7)
"Ye shall fear every man ("ish", grown man) his mother, and his father" (Lev. 19:3)
The latter is a command straight from the mouth of God . . . cultural?
God's Word seems quite comfortable with something our generation decries as weird and unacceptable. What we especially can't do is say that God wants or demands that unmarried adults leave home.
I am really opposed to dependent type relationships between adults and their "more adult" parents. No parent in their right mind would want that role or responsibility. In the name of balance, I am just pointing out that God's Word doesn't support arrogant rebellion, at any age ("Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone" - Billy Joel)
Alfred gives an example of an unmarried man obeying his parents yet leaves out the examples in the same book of married men obeying their parents. He uses a verse which talks about all men but then applies it to only unmarried men. Classic bait and switch - give an argument which would apply to all adult men but then pretend like it was about only unmarried men all along. Unless Alfred is willing to take his example and verse and apply his conclusion to married men as well, his argument has a fatal flaw - these things can't be used to support the "until you are married" limit.
So, if Scriptural example and command are to be used to show an adult unmarried child is still obligated to obey his parents, the same applies equally to adult married children. But if one accepts that the obligation ends at marriage, then there is no good basis to reject that it ends at adulthood.
Good points, David. I don't mean to stick my nose in where I shouldn't, but the Jacob thing is really stretched as it is.
The thing that Jacob "had obeyed" was the specific command to go back home to get a bride. He was given latitude in choosing his own bride, as long as she was from back home, not local. Esau married someone local and his mom felt that one more of those and she would die. If anything, the focus is on Jacob marrying a "daughter of Laban." The story is not emphasizing an abiding obedience on Jacob's part but rather moving the action and the characters along. The stories in the OT are skilfully told, with economy of words, and meant to be easy to hear and remember. Here, Esau tries again with a different wife and Jacob has a dream, gets a promise, and falls in love. Jacob works 7 years for Rachel but we don't make a principle out of that, nor out of the fact that Laban lied and cheated Jacob, nor out of the fact that Jacob married two sisters. Nor out of the fact that those sisters were his first cousins.
This is the issue of descriptive versus prescriptive. These things are descriptive: they are describing what actually happened. Esau, the bad guy, was an outdoorsman while Jacob was a indoors person. Do we interpolate that being an outdoor person is somehow bad? No, that's just description. Much of what Jacob did was not great (cheat and lie), and some was not repeatable (the dream, wrestling with the angel). Obviously Jacob did the right thing in honoring his parents' wishes but stretching an isolated detail like that out of a story to try to make it a universal principle is disrespectful to the narrative. The story belongs as a story, not as a collection of principles wrenched from here and there.
I hope this doesn't sound heated because I'm not; I'm trying to help show why reputable teachers do not interpret Scripture that way.
"God's Word seems quite comfortable with something our generation decries as weird and unacceptable."
You could say the same for Jacob marrying his cousin, and then her sister. But it's a descriptive story, not a prescriptive principle.
David: You missed the point . . . I clearly suggested that it might have something to ponder for "UNMARRIED" adults . . . right? The command to fear has no limit, though.
Matthew: Good to hear from you again :-)
My point remains that we learn from the examples of Scripture. No shame in a 75 year old UNMARRIED man obeying the wishes of his parents. To leap into your last statement, no sin in a man marrying his cousin either . . . right? Polygamy . . . God has never overly condemned, although you are left with the thought that it is not a great idea (and for the record something Jacob got tricked into (at that point, at least)). There are tribes won to the Lord where the saved chiefs enter their Christian walk with multiple wives. Not a sin . . . is a barrier to Christian leadership, but not a sin.
So, you're telling me that Scripture does not support Jesus? Because he was considered about as rogue and rebellious as one could get, in his day.
My point, (AGAIN!) is not that Scripture commands us not to obey our parents at x point in time, but that, by NT church teaching, it *exludes* a command for adults obeying. The issue is not direct command, but omission.
I'm saying it's not in there, and it's out of place for man to place such an injunction on his fellow man, when God did not.
Fwiw, I do not decry adults obeying their parents, in all circumstances. In our culture (but not all cultures), this is a matter of personal choice. What I *do* decry, is *staying* with a controlling abuser, when you have opportunity to get away.
"You missed the point . . . I clearly suggested that it might have something to ponder for "UNMARRIED" adults . . . right? The command to fear has no limit, though."
I may have missed your point...but you were absolutely not clear about this meaning. Not in this particular thread of conversation. Let me run you back through what has transpired in this thread with regards to obeying your parents...
1. You introduce the topic: "The Bible tells children to obey and to fear their parents. Does "Christian Liberty" allow us to ignore that Scripture when we feel lead, i.e. "Christian Liberty" trumps Scripture? (that is NT teaching, but just for grins, read Lev. 19:3 . . . the word "man" is the Hebrew "Ish", which can be nothing other than "grown man")"
So, the start has to do with you (and please correct me if I misunderstand), saying that Scripture commands adult unmarried children to obey their parents (as well as fear them).
2. Hannah this pushes back and asserts that there is a distinction between honor and obey - the former is required only of the child, but not the adult.
3. You affirm that the command to obey ends at marriage and then bring in the example of Jacob (a crossover from another thread maybe?). You seem to be reaffirming that obedience is commanded by Scripture to the unmmaried adult.
4. Hannah points out some problems with the example of Jacob and asserts that his obedience was due to cultural standards (not because it is commanded).
Up to this point, there has been no hint that either Hannah is suggesting rebellion to parents or that its foolish for children to obey their parents. It has been focused (on both sides as far as I can tell) on the question of whether adult unmarried children are *required/commanded* to obey their parents.
5. You respond to Hannah with a specific verse showing Jacob obeyed, then follow this up with a verse showing how adults are commanded to fear their parents. Your accompanying comment was "The latter is a command straight from the mouth of God . . . cultural?"
So, given the thread to this point, it seemed quite clear that this last comment (along with the preceding verses) was intended to further your previous assertion that adult unmarried children are commanded by Scripture to obey. If not, then this latest comment makes no sense at all. (Maybe I am missing something major going on in another thread?)
So, lets go back and clarify what you intended to say up to this point...
A. When you said that Scripture tells children to obey this parents, are you asserting that Scripture tells adult unmarried children to obey their parents?
B. Is Jacob to be taken as an example of an adult unmarried obeying his parents because he is obligated to, or simply because he had no problems doing so?
C. Is the command to fear your parents to be taken as equivalent as a command for unmarried adult children to obey their parents?
"My point remains that we learn from the examples of Scripture. No shame in a 75 year old UNMARRIED man obeying the wishes of his parents."
Who is saying that it would be? There is a big distinction between an adult choosing to obey and an adult being obligated/commanded to obey. Which are you trying to address in this thread?
Alfred, another distinction that I'm not sure you're "getting", is that the Lev. command was given to a specific people at a specific point in time, and is not reiterated in full for NT believers. Children obeying and all honoring, is reiterated, but not obedience to parents that extends beyond childhood. Yes, a command straight from the mouth of God, but addressed to whom?
In this case, it was addressed to Israelites. Who, in their culture, became adults at age 12, but perhaps were not fully emotionally mature to make all their own decisions at that point. Then they would marry young, often shortly after puberty, certainly younger than our majority age of 18. The culture and the context kind of put a whole new spin on the command.
It's a mistake to ignore context, and attempt to apply universally, what was a command to one people, at one point in time.
Point being, that if you wish to make a case for "adults obeying" up until marriage, you are generally talking about a 12 year old obeying, maybe a 16 year old. In general, you are not talking about an 18 year old, a 30 year old, or a 75 year old.
Which is all irrelevant, because, according to Jewish culture, men built an extension onto their father's house when they married and started a family, and continued to obey their fathers, all their lives :) By the culture of the day, this is what you are advocating for... Which, gives you no "out" for not obeying. You want the best of both worlds, ie, the ancient Israeli culture plus our modern U.S. culture, and it doesn't work that way.
Hannah, I think it is mistake to relegate Lev 19:3 to a command only for that time and place. The word in this context refers to reverence, honour and respect. Additionally, it falls within the context of other commands such as not worshiping idols, keeping the sabbath and being holy. In short, its a restatement of the command to honour parents. Yes, it is a command for a specific time and place, but it is also one which is given again for believers in the NT.
However, even in this context, it is clearly universal to all people of all ages without regards for their marriage status. Additionally, it is not a command to obey (though such may naturally follow from the command to honour/revere in many cases).
Or, to put it another way, if this verse is going to be used as proof that adult unmarried children are to obey their parents, then it is equally a command to married adult children to obey their parents. Turning this into a command to obey is problematic in the first place, but there is absolutely no basis for applying to unmarried adults but not married adults.
David, it was a part of OT law, given to the Nation of Israel. It was reiterated in a form by Paul, for NT believers, but not in such a way as to make one think that an adult must obey their parents. You don't have to agree, but I believe we are under the NT admonition, not under OT law. This is a position I understand from Galatians, "We are not under Law, but under grace." There are any number of portions of OT law one could cherry-pick to apply universally, but this is not consistent with my understanding of Galatians.
I'm sorry, David, I didn't mean to mess up what you were doing there. I admit that sometimes it takes a bit for your words to sink in. Please, carry on. I know what I've said may split the conversation into many more directions, but it is the general concept behind the contextual question of, Who was this written to?
Er... Tell me, again, why are we arguing the Lev passage, as it does not even mention obedience, but only respect? Alfred, we already agree with you that "honoring" parents is lifelong, as reiterated in Eph 6.
Probably bashed this to death. OT stuff is given "for our learning". Are we learning anything from it? What do we learn about a 75 year old future patriarch "obeying" his parents? That it is a command? No . . . we learn that God blessed what he did . . . but you and I have seen the opposite where people are trying not to grow up, or let their offspring grow up. I can't help but think of the little story of Micah and his Mom (Judges 17) . . . it always seemed like a very unhealthy relationship, and God did NOT bless it, even though he had his Mom's blessing.
Balance, balance. If we are to err, we err on the side of caution and respect. There is a time to say, "No, Dad, No, Mom". It comes with a risk, but at times it is necessary to follow Jesus. Our job is to validate that we are following Jesus and just our own whims and desires. Then, when the time comes, you do what you have to do and leave the final judgment with Jesus. Ultimately we report to Him and no-one else, not parents, not spiritual leaders . . .
David: As far as Bill Gothard moderating his teachings . . . I know the examples in the Basic Seminar leave no room for wiggling. But - again - I have heard him say multiple times in recent years: "You can obey and be despised, you can disobey and be respected for it." Such a statement would find no place in the Basic Seminar.
Well, thank you for that, Alfred. Considering our differing perspectives and without attempting to hammer out the finer points of disagreement, I think this is probably about as close as we can come to agreement, at this time: the understanding, that sometimes an adult of any situation, must tell their parents, "no". (At least, I think that is the understanding, if I understand what you are saying).
I know you think it should be reserved for extreme situations, but that is exactly what many of us have escaped from, extreme situations which we were placed in, by parents who had been taught that the principle of "authority" basically left them without accountability. Maybe it helps to realize where we are coming from, that we are not simply a subset of the general population who need to be reminded to "reapect your elders", when in fact, those "elders" have proven toxic to us. I don't know if that helps, or not.
Alfred,
Some questions I have regarding what you said:
1. What are Mr. Gothard's ideal desires? Elaborate a bit maybe?
2. Regarding your statement on extremes, if a parent has been extremely too permissive with a child, should they then "bend it back in the opposite extreme" and physically abuse the child?
3. Regarding Mr. G giving "balancing statements," has he ever recanted that some of what he taught previously might be going too far? I would be very interested to know if he has.
Alfred,
After reading this several times to make sure I understood the analogies, it would appear from your words that the "ideal" should be striven for whenever possible (when it's easy and supported by other participants) but when there are not supports a decision must be made whether or not to continue. These "priciples and standards" were taught by BG as well as other lecturers as being absolutes, straight from God Himself. Only you can decide if that's true or not. But to live that way seems that it would be inherantly dangerous to the mental and spiritual growth and well being of children and young adults. Not to mention it is an extremely dishonest witness to those who have not yet come to Christ. Such is how false prophets come to power. Preaching a dishonest gospel that simply suits the time and culture of your world is wrong. That's the type of false-gospel that BG has been teaching for far too long.
Here's hoping this lands in the thread where it is supposed to :-)
In answer to Don:
Alfred,
1. What are Mr. Gothard's ideal desires? Elaborate a bit maybe?
"Ideal" is best practices for successful living, based on God's design and supported in Scripture. We have "problems" because we violate one or more of these ideals, often without realizing it. Food, relationships, marriage, etc. etc. Correction of the violation leads to relief. That is the idea. Maybe I am missing your intent . . .
2. Regarding your statement on extremes, if a parent has been extremely too permissive with a child, should they then "bend it back in the opposite extreme" and physically abuse the child?
Why discuss something evil? Tell me that you yourself have never done "course corrections" on family standards. I used to be a teacher (briefly). Sometimes you roll in with a slate of new rules when things have gotten lax and you defend them vigorously. "Don't smile until Christmas". Once the group has embraced them you back off and don't worry it quite as tightly.
3. Regarding Mr. G giving "balancing statements," has he ever recanted that some of what he taught previously might be going too far? I would be very interested to know if he has.
Recanted? That is a tough word. Modified, moderated . . . lots of times. Some hills he has abandoned as indefensible. He has not done the overt "I was wrong" often, but he has.
Alfred,
You were talking about ideal vs. reality, I think? That's what I was referring to. I do have a couple problems with your statement though.
You said "Ideal" is best practices for successful living, based on God's design and supported in Scripture. " Isn't it supposed to be based on Scripture, not just supported? If we don't base it on Scripture, then we open ourselves to promoting extra-Biblical rules as Biblically mandatory, which would be legalistic
Secondly, you say "We have "problems" because we violate one or more of these ideals, often without realizing it." Don't you mean when we sin, we have 'problems?' Also, what are you defining as "violations" of these ideals, including the ones you mentioned?
Regarding the "going to extremes" issue, I know that to be true, that sometimes one will do that, and sometimes it can be necessary. However, does that justify going further than God did/does? I don't think so.
When has Mr. G "modified" or "moderated" statements? When has he done the "I was wrong?" On what issues? It is a well-known fact that Mr. G has a reputation for not being confrontable, and instead, will defend himself and defame those who question him. For instance, in his Christmas letter in 2011, he basically claimed regarding all the people who have been hurt by ATI, that all their problems were due to listening to rock music. That seems to indicate a quickness to blame, rather than take responsibility.
Ray: "These "principles and standards" were taught by BG as well as other lecturers as being absolutes, straight from God Himself."
He is a very confident man, and backs things up with Scripture. You are left with the "absolute" perception. Frankly I like people which boldly and clearly make a point and back it up. If it is a wagon I want to climb on it supplies a lot of energy. It is up to me to see where it fits in my life.
Therein lies the greatest problem: Scripture tells us that the right way to receive a preacher is to do what the Bereans did, who, facing a REAL Apostle of Jesus Christ (Paul) giving authoritative statements in the form of Scripture, searched every one of them out against revealed truth to make sure it was so. (Acts 17:11) If we abdicate our responsibility to do this, we ultimately have no-one to blame but ourselves.
"Universal, nonoptional principles".
We are left with far more than "a perception".
And yes, it is right that our parents should have searched him out prior to blindly swallowing it. Unfortunately, my parents were young, immature Christians. My mother was young and immature, my father was just immature/new to the Christian faith. They were lured in by a teacher who talked smoothly, quoted Scripture, overall sounded good. They were lulled into a false sense of security.
And me... I was 5 years old, at the time. I hope you don't mean I should have been more discerning, prior to involvement.
Well, Many years sounds like more than is practical to support in argument. I guess we could ask if ATI/IBLP continues to require students to sign to courtship when they participate in any activity with the organization. Alfred, you should ask the young students what BG is teaching today.
Bill Gothard has always told us students that we could take young people farther than we could take their parents. That usurping of parental authority is a tragedy. That he taught us to do the same thing is an even greater sin if he believes in parental authority at all. He taught us his techniques in his counselling seminars. Ask Bill about it someday. Ask him if he ever taught young people that they could take other young people farther than they could take the parents and how to do it.
I am not super bothered by that. Young people have a much greater capacity for accomplishment and change than we more "mature" folk. So, also, says the Scripture:
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." (Psalm 119:99)
I know that BG requires "single service" of single staff, unless planned otherwise . . . I have a son who is 10 years there now. Beyond that . . . I don't know. I would favor the notion of my young people involving me in the initial steps of anything designed to lead to marriage. I have seen too many disasters to not want an influence here, if I ever have an influence anywhere. I cannot give my blessing for things that I understand the Scriptures to prohibit. Beyond that I see it as fundamentally a "counsel" mode. In the end they choose and they have to make it work.
Alfred: Younger people have greater capacity for accomplishment and change.
Psalms 119:99 - I understand more than my teachers because I meditate on God's testimonies.
Alfred, can you please explain how you derived the former from the latter. I see nothing about greater capacity for accomplishment and change or how it is related to being young vs. "mature".
The presumption is that the "Teachers" in Psalm 119 are older folk, right? The ones with experience. The only other thing that comes to mind is the lesson of the wineskins (Luke 5:36-38) . . . new wine into new skins because they can stretch and "change" . . . old skins have already stretched and changed and will rip with any "new" wine. Same with sewing an old cloth patch on a garment.
I am not sure I care to defend it further . . . it is just one of those things that is true :-)
While not unreasonable to assume that teachers are older than the student, it doesn't necessarily follow that the student is a "young person". I am 42 and still have teachers. Or the author might be referring to all who have ever taught him, both past and present. Its problematic to insist on one assumption when others are just as reasonable.
Still, its not an unreasonable assumption, so for the sake of the discussion, let's go ahead and assume the author is speaking as a young person. Even assuming this, it doesn't address the much more significant part of the verse and how you seem to be using it. The author states that he has more understanding - you state that its about greater capacity for accomplishment and change. Very different things. The author of the Psalm also attributes his greater understanding to his meditating on the testimonies of God - you attribute their greater capacity simply to the fact that they are young. Again, these are very different things. How do you derive you assertions from what the Psalm says?
And please don't misunderstand my intent here. I am not disagreeing with your initial assertion about the capacity of young people - that seems pretty unexceptionable. What I am curious about is the manner in which you seem to be using Scripture.
Young folks have more capacity for change and accomplishment? Wow! I'm sure that's a hard one to convince Moses of. Lots of change and accomplishment late in life.
And how about Sarah? Having a first baby at 90 --- that's some capacity for change and stretching.
I think that's an excuse we use as we are older to not bend when we should.
And since the testimony of Scripture isn't 100% on your side, I don't see how you can say it "is just true" even though you can't defend it.
Ileata, I am pretty sure he was generalizing. Pointing to extreme examples doesn't really disprove a generalization. Plus, its not really the generalization which is troubling, but his use of Scripture to try and support this generalization.
But the generalization is super inaccurate. Older people are perfectly capable of change and accomplishmment. Sarah and Moses were 80 and 90. Alfred is including much, much younger people in his generalization. People in their 50's and 60's acomplish much and almost everyone can change when it's required. And the "change" being discussed here is adjusting our lives to the truth of Scripture, right? Sanctification isn't dependent on our abilities anyway; it's the Holy Spirit that sanctifies us. This generalization is quite false along with being "supported" by a misuse of Scripture.
Let me be more frank...
Alfred throwing in this statement about greater capacity is a red herring. It gives only his perspective and does nothing to further his position. It's not worth pursuing for its own sake as it only distracts and generates rabbit trails which can digress from much more central issues. It seems more productive to let a throwaway comment such as this remain unchallenged and examine instead how he deals with Scripture.
Hey, *I* didn't bring that statement up (and I am too tired to look up the tree to see who did). In fact, I never heard it. It was allegedly said to my children (children like mine) in Student Sessions. So . . . I examined whether I was as shocked as the writer by the notion that my children are much more able to change and move ahead spiritually than I am. I was not. Tried to explain why. Fair enough.
Regardless of who brought it up, I am still intested in how you went about using Scripture to support it.
I will say I believe Scripture to be friendly to the notion - the Scriptures quoted (Ps. 119, the "wine skins") impressed me in that direction without knowing Mr. G made such a comment. I say that practical experience would bear it out. That's about the furthest I would care to take it.
Dear Exasperated,
I understand this situation intimately. I struggled for so long, learning and understanding that no matter what I did to prove myself or he said about it, my father did not truly believe that I had free will and would not grant me enough freedom to have my own relationship with God. Each person IS responsible for him/herself before God... It's not my father's place decide if my choices are God's will -it's between me and God.
The turning point for me was in realizing that my father, in demanding that I replace my relationship with God for an obedience to my father was the one "out of God's will" and holding me back from what God desired for my life. (My own relationship with God.)
I eventually had to cut ties with my father because he honestly believes that his guidance = God's will in my life. This is NOT true. God wants a relationship with each person.
Initially I had no trust in my abilities to make decisions and thought that God had rejected me for "rejecting His will through my father", but I have grown so much and have happiness and joy I never imagined possible!
It's me and God.
Oh! And one reason I read through this article and commented was that everyone called my father "stern" and "overbearing" or "overprotective", acting as if because he had good intentions in "protecting" me, the rest should be overlooked.
No. The man was abusing his role as a father and stealing my relationship with God for himself. He put himself into God's shoes in my life and demanded to be respected as such an authority. And that cannot be diminished to "overbearing".
Unfortunately, these problems that begin manifesting during courtships do not tend to simply go away in most cases.
Many parents are not prepared in the ATI system to release their children from the "chain of command" as the transition to marriage occurs. Their counsel, many times disapproval, is so strong and overbearing that the married couple must prevent it from damaging their spouse, and later children, as that chain lashes about. It's devestating in many cases. Many of us find ourselves with out-of-control parental "authorities" that destroy every vestage of family that is left as they lower demands on us adult married couples in ways they NEVER would have allowed! In relationships, many ATI and even post-ATI families find themselves in worse shape than their non-ATI family counterparts.
I suspect that is due to losing a sense of grace and 'freedom under God.' It's much easier to understand our role as "over others" in the ATI system instead of "under God."
I am sure you have noticed, but the sad reality of "over-active parents and in-laws" is somewhat universal. We just call it by different names . . . ATI parents just use different techniques.
In fact . . . I think there is an allusion to this by Jesus . . . I am thinking the "good" ones are the younger set, the "bad" ones the parents (in-law):
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Matthew 10:35) Whatever it is, Jesus did it. So much for harmonious chain of command, eh?
Lame excuses for abusive behavior.
Oh goody, that means I don't have to forgive and try to reconcile with whichever relation I've got an issue with, because of that verse.
Or, as you seem to be suggesting: It's ok for parents to interfere with what essentially is not their life decision/business, as long as their intentions are good. Hmm. If that's not opening the door for wrong treatment, I don't know what is.
Both of those scenarios are what you call misinterpreting a text. Bangs head against table.
Or I should say, 'misinterpreting THAT particular text.'
Alfred, please explain how you derive "over active parents/in-laws" from Jesus saying that he would set son/daughter/daughter-in-law against father/mother/mother-in-law. It seems that if Christ had meant something about over-active parents/in-laws He would have said it the other way around - that he was setting father/mother/mother-in-law against son/daughter/daughter-in-law.
If He is doing the setting, then the presumption is that that is the right thing. He starts out by saying "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father . . . " (Matt. 10:35)
I didn't make any mention of whether or not the setting is the right thing. In fact, I didn't even think you were trying to suggest it was a good thing (but now that you state this openly, it raises more questions...but lets deal with the first things first).
You make an assertion that Jesus is alluding to over-active parents/in-laws. I am curious as to how you reach this conclusion. I point out again that if were about this, wouldn't one expect the "setting against" to be stated in the other direction?
No. He doesn't make people sin, so "setting against" is a good thing. "Sorry, Dad, I can't follow you there . . . sorry Dad, I disagree"
You make an assertion that Jesus is alluding to over-active parents/in-laws. I am curious as to how you reach this conclusion.
Well . . . "setting against" would be the opposite of "respecting and obeying", eh? Anyway, that is how it strikes me. Why else would there be a conflict if parents aren't putting pressure on their kids or kids-in-law in a direction that the younger set resists, disobeys?
Now that I finally know how to do working hyperlinks, let's try the Pearl courtship/betrothal article again: "To Betroth or Not to Betroth"
Maybe next I can learn to get text to go blue or red.
And Michael Pearl's teaching on courtship relates to Gothard's teaching how? Oh, because they both teach abusive authority and other heresies? http://www.createdtobehis.com/?p=118
Dude, nobody here reads Pearl :D Know your audience.
[falls off chair, laughing]
Pearl?!?!? Definitely the last person I would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, read or listen to.
Agreeing with Ileata here! Let's stay away from the abusive parenting techniques.
I'm not sure which is worse, Pearl teachings or Gothard teachings. Both are fallacious and damaging in the extreme.
"Know your audience" The person posing the question to "Grace" might relate, from her comments . . . unless this is "Dear Abby", where you make up interesting questions that your audience might relate to?
I'm sorry, you are giving advice to the original correspondee?? I don't think someone writes into RG, when they actually wanted to hear from an ATI father.
I'm sorry, but Pearl wrote a manual on child abuse. Now, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I will not pursue such a discussion, here. But I hope that no one representing RG, would ever recommend Pearl.
Well . . . at least "Hope" got the point that I was giving the correspondent something to approach her parents with. Something that might actually change their minds. Not you . . . got it.
So, basically, yes you were. And you were giving tools to continue trying to negotiate with unreasonable parents, a frustrating proposition at best, and an impossible one at worst. It seems to me, that if these parents were willing to listen to reason, they would have already done so.
Well, shucks, being an unreasonable parent myself I tried to put myself in their shoes.
I'm always baffled why so many parents embrace this unrealistic standard set by a man who never has been married or had children.
I'm fortunate that my parents after one advanced seminar ran for the exit and didn't go bac .
I know some parents who insist that Gothard's ideas about sexuality and intimacy in marriage were not his own but he was passing those on from married people who were counseling him. I think they instinctively realize how silly it would be for a single man to give such intrusive orders for private things and therefore invent this plausible explanation. Once you have decided that someone is offering you want you need, and they alone are uniquely able to provide this, I think you quit evaluating what that person says, redirecting your energy to attack and defend from those who don't accept it as you do.
I doubt Dr. Dobson has experienced all the things he gives advice on . . . right? He hears the experience of others, he involves experts . . .
The other problem with that argument is that the Apostle Paul apparently was also not married. Yet in 1 Cor 7 he gives detailed marriage and sex advice . . . even to the point of saying certain directives were "the Lord" (vs 10) and certain things "say I, not the Lord" (vs 12). Which goes back to a sub-thread bouncing around elsewhere here.
Wisdom is not solely derived from experience. Which is not to say that you wouldn't give a "walker" more credence than a "talker".
Lame excuse for giving abusive advice to parents.
Experience is definitely overrated, especially in the area of marriage. I'd say I understood marriage and my wife a *lot* better before I was actually married ;-)
As far as Paul goes, he said that the bedroom should be egalitarian, and that the husband and wife should celebrate their intimacy routinely ("not deprive" each other). Gothard's advice: basically don't do it unless you have to, and especially not on Saturday. That's the sort of thing that causes some people to call Bill a closet Catholic, actually.
I don't listen to Dobson, either.
While I am also not a Dobson fan, at least he is a licensed child psychologist with a PhD in Psychology from USC. Dr. Bill Gothard is nothing but a cult leader with a PhD from a Bible college in Louisiana. Big whoop. Alfred, you are a member of a cult.
Wasn't that an honorary doctorate Cate for BG? Lol Or did BG actually get a real doctorate?
From my understanding (and please, anyone who knows better please correct me), it was a granted degree, not honorary. However, it was granted based on "life experience" and no classes, papers or even a defended thesis were required. IOW, he got the worst of both worlds - a degree that is not honorary and is scholarly absurd.
Cate, this is so true and I often wonder the same thing: "I'm always baffled why so many parents embrace this unrealistic standard set by a man who never has been married or had children."
My parents did a few Basic Seminars and an Advanced seminar in the 70's. They ran for the exit and didn't look back. So glad the influence of BG/IBLP was limited in our family.
I think at twenty- something you need to draw some boundaries with your parents you're an adult not a child. I think it sad that they are treating two grown adults like rebellious teen-agers. The Bible says train up a child on the way he should go and when he grows old he'll not depart from it. This implies that if you instill a set of values into a child that providing you did it right and with consistency that the now grown adult will continue in the way they were raised. Why do ATI parents have such difficulty trusting their adult children and letting go? If their style of parenting is so superior why not trust their adult children to make the right decisions all on their own? I think the heart of the matter is control and enjoying the power of micro-managing someone else's life. Gothard preaches a brand of legalism that is on par with that of the Pharisees of Jesus's day, and I think Jesus agrees with what Bill Gothard teaches about as much as he did the Pharisees. Legalism is taking the freedom of grace away from Christianity and choosing to ignore Jesus's gift of dying on the cross for your sins, and willfully choosing to live under the law instead of the grace and mercy he gave his all to buy you on the cross.
Ummm. Alfred... BIG mistake in this group to compare Apostle Paul to Gothard, even unwittingly. =(
He does act and speak as if he were The Apostle of the Last Days... but PLEASE do not compare Gothard and Paul. Please? =)
(In any discussion, that should send up red flags - all the more in a group that is specifically trying to draw attention to the teachings/actions of a self-proclaimed apostle whose ministry has harmed so many it was intended to help.)
What Will said.
Well, Will . . . Paul told us to. Compare what Gothard does to what Paul did. 1 Cor. 11:1 . . . that's what a disciple, a follower does, try to be like another person.
Alfred, I have.
Gothard is NOT Paul-like.(and vice versa)
I believe Paul wrote Galatians for folks like Gothard, and Gothard ignores that book of the Bible while placing his own 'insights' on level with inspired Scripture.
If Bill ever said 'This is my OPINION' and opinions STINK, so take it or leave it," I'd be a lot easier on him.
He speaks as if from the Throne of the Almighty. "God's Word teaches us," "This Sc'iptural Principle," etc...
Please, many of us want to know when was Bill Gothard universally recognized by the Church at Large as being God-Breathed, Inspired, and Canonical...?
If such an event did, in fact, not occur, where does BG get permission to personally speak for God Almighty?
(poked the sore spot, you did...) ;)
"where does BG get permission to personally speak for God Almighty?"
Same place you do: "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11)
Speak as though God is speaking through you. What else do you think this means?
... And then tell people that they dare not argue with "God's Anointed"! C'mon Will, get with the program ;D
Alfred, the verse you quote is in the context of repeated 'one another' admonitions: how we are to minister to each other for the glory of Christ.
"above all things have fervent love for one another...
If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever..." (1 peter 4:7-11)
The problem w/BG is that he holds himself ABOVE the repeated 'one another' teachings of the NT.
He has been dispensing "God's" wisdom and insights for 50 years at least, but he himself does NOT see each and every christian as his equal in 'speaking the words of god' is such a way that HE must comply to THEIR teachings. =(
It is all one-way, from God to Bill to us.
That IS a problem, whether it be Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, or David Koresh doing the speaking.
It is the PRINCIPLE (wink) of the thing that is wrong - if I'd been exposed to this in another ministry, I would feel it necessary to speak out against them - this is definitely something we are called to do in the NT.
No one is above being held accountable for their teaching - especially if they claim to 'have it all right,' as Bill does.
I think it was from Gothard that I heard the phrase: "the greater the influence, the greater the responsibility..."
Will: I know it is to fellow Christians . . . but you didn't seem to shocked that we are to speak "as the oracles of God", as though God is speaking to and through us. If you understand it differently, let me know.
If I read 1 Cor. 14 right - and I allow that the "prophecy" there is "preaching", not foretelling the future or inventing new Scripture - there is lots of room to speak with that kind of authority. What follows is: "Let the prophets speak . . . let the other judge." (1 Cor. 14:29)
So . . . judge away . . . but let him speak, with authority :-)
He speaks with the authority of a false prophet. Sure, I'll allow him that.
Alfred, You said "While BG gave a lot of guidance on courtship in early seminars, I have heard very little on the topic for many years." This is one of the things that really bothered me over the 15 years we were in ATI. He would present stuff, push it, publish booklets on it, then if later he decided it wasn't such a good idea, he just stopped talking about it. Wouldn't it have been more helpful if he would have brought it up and said something like, "I've been convinced that my former teaching wasn't so great and everyone should rip up these "Courtship Covenants" they signed. ONCE in the 15 years we were in ATI did he actually clearly say he was wrong about a teaching.(It was when the President of ATI left his wife) I think he still sells those courtship booklets and yes, we are responsible to be balanced, but I wish he wouldn't have so strongly encouraged dependence on his teachings. The fact that he will not publicly apologize to all these kids who have indeed been hurt by him, has caused me to lose all respect for him.
Dang, we were out of the program by then... the one time the guy admits to being wrong, and I didn't get to hear it ;P
Leaving and cleaving is absolutely critical to a marriage. But I believe there is a degree of leaving that should happen with the onset of adulthood, irrespective of marital status. Gender doesn't matter here- God calls us and speaks to us directly, both men and women. (the "God speaks through your authority" idea is not something I see supported by scripture) And, once you are an adult (the exact age would vary from culture to culture) your parents are not "in authority" over you except as you allow them to be. Paul says that when he became a man he put away childish things, and one of those things is the role of the child under the authority of parents, I would imagine. Think about this- when the angel came to Mary to announce her pregnancy, did he go to her parents first? Were her parents even mentioned in that story? In fact, where in scripture does God ever speak to a young lady through her parents? The closest example I can think of would be Ruth and Naomi, but for me, if my mother-in-law told me to go get into bed with my late husband's cousin and propose to him, I'd want some explanations....then again, we don't practice levirate marriage any more, thank goodness. =) My point is- where in scripture does it tell you to involve your parents AT ALL in your choice of a spouse? Culturally, in bible times, parents did often select spouses for children, but if we're taking precedent as precept here then polygamy is great too, and I doubt if that would go over very well with the ATI crowd. =) Where, in scripture, are we as young ladies told to 1. Submit ourselves to our parents, or 2. Involve them in our marriage decisions? I can't find a place. So I would encourage you to, WHETHER YOU MARRY THIS GUY OR NOT, start setting some healthy boundaries with your parents. I heartily second the "Boundaries" book recommendation. You may have to move out to do this, and that is a very scary thing. It may be a long process, but I would encourage you to begin now.
I find it significant that I will stand individually on my own to give account to God. I will not stand behind my parents or pastor or my wife or kids. Every person is individually responsible to God. That can be a solemn thing but it's also a freeing thing. If I can't use someone as an excuse for why I made the choices I did then I should not let them control those decisions.
That is absolutely true. Yet, although final responsibility rests with the individual, you would have to admit that people are also called on to give an account for what those under their care do . . .
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Heb. 13:17)
Like a CEO or soldier . . . those further up are not interested in what individuals did, they just want to know how well the business, army, group succeeded, and they hold the leader responsible. Which is why that leader will put pressure on those under his care. That is what authority is all about.
Obviously that begs the question of when a child leaves the authority of parents . . . many believe that the act of blessing a marriage is the release. Even if a parent believes this, they themselves must give account to the Lord if they attempt to fulfill their own wishes and needs in this area instead of those of the One who gave them the children for His purposes.
And don't be too hard on me for citing Michael Pearl. That fact that people see him and Gothard in more or less of the same camp, with most that embrace one embracing the other, it would be instructive that he can't contain his disgust for the scenario presented in the letter above.
Michael Pearl is a known heretic who denies the doctrine of original sin and teaches semi-pellagian theology. He aso laughs when chidren die from abuse That sort of makes it hard to respect anything he says.
And, as you cited, he and Gothard are very much in the same camp. That is a strike against each of them from a theological perspective.
Really don't know about all of that. Those labels are really fun, maybe bizzare. I am quite sure he believes in original sin . . . I have heard him laugh at overbearing zealots, but never against people that are suffering. Unless it is to laugh at the devil who tried to destroy the babies but instead sent them into the arms of the Savior. That would sound like him. That might be worth some documentation.
Just pretend I was talking to someone else who likes him . . . and likes Bill Gothard . . . and believes they need to honor their parents . . . is trying to understand what to do with parents who apparently are overstepping their God-ordained roles. Which is sort of what I thought this thread was about.
Funny, I thought the whole discussion was about adults making their own decisions, regardless of what their parents thought.
Alfred, I hope you are not one of these parents, but some of them are give-them-an-inch-they'll-take-a-mile. In which case, you simply *cannot* give an inch. It's not dishonoring, but neither is it giving in to someone who is not a healthy participant in your life, and who will only manipulate you for more and more. Parents of this genre are like sin: they'll take you further than you wanted to go, require more than you wanted to give, and keep you longer than you wanted to stay. They are toxic to their children.
Unless you have been that oppressed "child", I don't believe you have the faintest clue what it is like.
If such a thing is possible, I apologize on behalf of ATI parents that function that way. You do know that ATI attracts parents who "want more for their families" and are willing to make great sacrifices to get there. Also attracts those who have failures of their own in the past and have never really grasped what sin is all about, leaving them with the notion that if you only try harder, you won't sin. ATI is really "trying harder". We parents are always harder on our children in areas we ourselves have failed . . . some of that is good, some of that is bad, if it springs from a type of penance. And those with active sin in their lives will be extra hard, not having the "grace" that comes from personal brokenness and humility.
Anyway . . . we are a motley crew. May the Lord give much of Himself, much "grace" in exchange for what was unjustly suffered.
That's kind of you to say, Alfred.
I believe there is a lot of truth to your comment as well. The parents did not join ATI hoping to make their kids miserable. They were hoping for the best and they were choosing to invest a tremendous amount of commitment into something that they expected would result in long-term joy and peace for their kids. And indeed, some families have done well. Some parents are now feeling pain in equal or greater measure to that commitment and wondering what went wrong. It's hard on them, too, and my heart goes out to them, wherever in this whole journey they may be.
In my case, my parents have apologized for their controlling ways, and that admission from them, did bring great psychological healing to me. Others here, have not been so lucky, and even in my case, it was many years of heartache, before I was able to have a relationship with my parents, again. Thank you for trying to understand. It does mean something to those trapped in or having come out of, excessively controlling relationships.
I'm confused. Can you explain further how this is okay Biblically? My family is still in ATI ... I'm in my 20's, and we've been in the program since I was 5. My parents, and most of my younger siblings, wholeheartedly believe the teachings ... despite me "casually" mentioning your website (they're not very happy with me for reading articles that have a different perspective than Dr. G).
While I haven't yet started dating or courting, I am trying to figure out the whole Biblical freedom & grace vs. under parent's authority situation. My parents and I have different views on courtship/dating, music, single adults living on own vs. at home, etc., and they believe since I'm still single (& esp. since I'm a girl), I should hold the same beliefs they do, and if I don't, I'm not honoring or obeying them ... but ... when the Bible talks about obeying, it says children obey ... and (everyone) "honor your father & mother."
I have friends in the same position I am. Any brilliant ideas?
Alex, you are in a tough spot. I am going to be praying that some good words of wisdom come your way. In the meantime, I want to affirm your good and healthy desire to be a Berean and keep searching for truth. Have you seen this document: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/10/a-call-for-discernment/
No, I hadn't. Thanks Matthew
Sorry, Alex, I have replied to your comment, below... I should have put it, here.
Point them at Michael Pearl's website, ministry (he wrote "To Train Up a Child", his wife wrote "Created to be His Helpmeet", both favorites among ATI families). He supplies some of the perspectives that are not highlighted enough elsewhere. He has some very focused advice to parents of adult children when it comes to responsibility, releasing. If your intent is survive instead of bailing, this can really help.
"To Betroth or Not to Betroth - http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/to-betroth-or-not-to-betroth-that-is-the-question/?topic_slug=protecting-your-children"
I am also still in ATI . . . ATI Dad . . . 11 kids. So you understand that I do not represent the perspectives of a majority who grace these pages. But I am one who feels that home schoolers in general and ATI families in particular have flipped way too far in the other direction in their zeal to get closer to what the Scriptures encourage when it comes to courtship and marriage. I have seen a number of unmitigated disasters - the Pearls allege their mailboxes are full of stories. He gets pretty disgusted.
For the record my perspectives have yet to be tested as none of my young people are married or even in a serious relationship. I am sure I have a lot to learn.
Michael Pearl and his wife, Debi, promote a very unbibical view of authority. Certainly someone who isn't a known heretic has better teaching on how to have a God-honoring dating relationship.
And, Alfred, many of us have experienced courtship. Why not ask us what works?
I will . . . I really want to know.
"Unbiblical view of authority" represents a different perspective than I have come to. What do you find unbiblical about their teaching? That is a serious question. My wife and I had the privilege of going to one of their retreats years ago. My wife is not nearly as loyal to BG as I am . . . she really likes the Pearls.
For the record, here is a man that openly declares that, when asked to go to a certain seminary that his father favored or leave home with no support, he went upstairs to pack his bags. Later his father commended him (all his friends washed out at the washed out seminary) . . . as he says, he was obeying the father's true wishes, as was subsequently proven.
Anyway, I am real curious on what troubles you.
Here's my review of "To Train up a Child" http://missusleata.xanga.com/724546038/a-review-of-to-train-up-a-child/
Here's a review of "Created to Be His Helpmeet."
That's a start for explaining my concerns. Did you read the other article I linked?
oops, here's the ink for the review of Created to be His Helpmeet: http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/2005/07/created-to-be-his-help-meet-part-1.html
Created to be His Doormat? I find the Pearls' teachings to be a dangerous guide for spousal and child abuse.
OK, Ileata, I read the two article links above. I am not greatly moved . . . not sure I should go into a blow by blow. A couple of comments:
o Theology: I know where he is coming from, I think. If he denies original sin, I part ways with him, but that has yet to be proven. When it comes to the nature of a young child, I frankly am not at all sure. I am sure that - after "accountability - each one must trust Christ in order to be saved . . . but I am also convinced that there is something dreadfully wrong about calling a baby "depraved". I am one who believes the little ones - and the severely mentally handicapped - are covered by the blood of Jesus before "accountability" sets in. But . . . one has an awful hard time with that if there is also not something significant that happens at that point. I will say no more - because I don't know. At least the Calvinists have it easy - they allow for babies being saved in the womb, whenever God chooses, so the elect are still saved, and the non-elect lost, whatever the age. That perspective is revolting - I am sorry.
o Abuse: I disdain those that blame the teaching of men of God for failures that they are, themselves, almost entirely responsible for. Bill Gothard gets blamed for a lot of things, for which I say, "Use your head and your God-given senses" Child spanking is Scriptural. I heard Charles Swindoll - yes, Charles Swindoll - say that "beat with a rod" in Proverbs is essentially to "club", a very severe phrase in the Hebrew. And is presented as the only sure way to "deliver his soul from hell". Now Charles Swindoll does not dwell on such things and I know of few as balanced as he, but he was very honest. So . . . if we are to blame someone, we can start with Solomon . . . or God, if we believe He wrote it (and I DO) I know their ministry, and child abuse is not the result of that.
o Tempting With Evil: God left Hezekiah to "try" him. He tried Saul with a test . . . the young prophet on the fast, God set him a severe test. Whatever "tempted of evil" means in James, it clearly does not prohibit Him from "trying the reigns", as we read in Jeremiah 17:10.
I best stop . . .
On "Helpmeet" . . . that REALLY baffled me, that review. I mean . . . did you read it? Debi Pearl is not conservative enough. She tells wives to put on a "merry heart", where the blogger insists they confess their sin of unhappiness to their husband first. A quote: "She (Debi) never addresses confession and repentance to our husbands. Confessing our sins to Jesus and our husbands is critical to the full restoration of the marriage, even if our husbands refuse to confess their wrongs."
Anyway . . . my wife, who is anything but a doormat I assure you, likes Debi Pearl, her spirit, her teaching. I have not read the book.
I wasn't asking for your critique of my opinion. I only shared it because you asked.
If you don't see a difference between God testing someone's faith and actually tempting them to sin then I see nothing more to discuss.
As to CTBHH, I reject a teaching that says that a wife is her husband's source of sanctification and where the author finds it necessary to constantly insut those who disagree with her by calling them names. But this forum isn't about the Pearls and I don't see where you are actually interested in hearing a different perspective to learn rather than argue.
I am interested, Ileata. I want to know what others that really love Jesus are offended by. Whether you believe it or not, I do change my mind, even long held perspectives. I just don't do it very fast.
I absolutely understand the difference between tempting and testing. If God can't do the former, then the "test" of the tree in the garden is not that. And that - according to what you said - is what Pearl was referencing. Which still made me not understand what you were unhappy about.
Pearl tells us why God put the tree in the Garden. Scripture does not. Then he says that God was specifically tempting Adam and Eve. God says that's impossibe.
I have so many issues with Pearl that they can't be discussed here. My review of the book covered a few.
You don't have to agree but I'm not going to spend more time defending my thoughts. I've researched Pearl extensivey. I have no respect for him.
And if the fact that he laughed when a child died rather than expressing any sympathy or remorse at all that someone wuold use or misuse his material to that end is disgusting If that doesn't change your opinion of him, then I don't understand you.
Can you point me to "the laugh"? That obviously sounds indefensible.
Alfred,
Thanks for mentioning this post. Although most of us don't agree with many of the Pearl's writings, I think this particular article could be really good to help encourage Alex's parents in the "letting go" process now that she is an adult.
Interesting perspective. Thanks Alfred
Well Alfred, for once I do agree with you on one point. I too think the theology of condemning a baby to hell is horrific at best. there may not be a clear Scripture to support my view, but I do not believe that God would angrily condemn the slaughter of innocents, and command us to show mercy if He himself did not show mercy to those who are unable to 'choose' Christ.
Amen
How about, instead of pointing Alex in the direction of more man-made doctrines and how-to manuals for living, we point her towards seeking her Heavenly Father's will for her life? DIRECTLY, not through her parents? (Or him...not sure if this was a female or male writing)
You know, at Christmastime, someone pointed out something I thought was amazing. When God told Mary His plan for her, she accepted all on her own. It's hard to imagine that her parents were happy about it. And she was probably very young. But it was between her and God. That doesn't fit we with what we were taught about authority and daughters in ATI. But it's Scripture.
I think many of us had to come to a place where we realized that we have to give account to God for our actions -- that we wouldn't be able to say "my parents made me do it." How it actually works out is between each person and God.
Not to mention what Mary accepted was absolutely outrageous and scandalous. Who would believe that she really was still a virgin?
Good point, Ileata
Alex, jsyk, Alfred is a current ATI father, and not representative of the experiences of other ATI students, and not representative of RG's stance, or of anyone associated with RG.
Yea ... I kind of picked that up from following the conversation :-)
Alex, first and foremost, be loving and be honest with your parents. After that, you are going to have to be honest with yourself and what you believe. The first thing to figure out is whether you believe your parents are your authority when you are an adult simply because they are your parents (and you a female). Does the command to obey apply to adult children? Unless you know what you believe about this there will be no good way to deal with your situation.
David - that's exactly the question I'm pondering. I believe (I think), that the command obey applies to children ... that adults are to honor. However, my parents see it as I'm under their authority till I marry. It's hard. I've been raised with their point of view, and, sometimes wonder if I'm going "off the deep end."
I will point out that
A. There is absolutely no positive command or teaching in Scripture which would support your parents assertion that they are your authority till married.
B. At best they can point to cultural practices - ones never affirmed by positive Scriptural teaching - to support their view.
C. All the verses I am aware of which are used to support such a belief are based on fallacious reasoning and twisted Scripture.
D. The number of Biblical scholars today which would hold such a view are very few indeed.
So, no, at the very least I don't think you are going off the deep end. Still, the emotional aspect is not so clear cut. So I would encourage you to really search Scripture - maybe even ask your parents the basis for their belief (and really try to understand and appreciate it) - and first get a good grip on what you really believe is true. Without that, guilt and doubt will interact with otherwise perfectly fine emotional ties to cause all sorts of problems.
"A. There is absolutely no positive command or teaching in Scripture which would support your parents assertion that they are your authority till married. "
There is even less to assert that a person EVER leaves the authority of their parents. Positive command, I mean. Point me to one.
In fact, the most positive one clearly has marriage in view:
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." (Mark 10:7)
This is mostly "devil's advocate" for the moment, but you need to admit there there is more going for her parent's point of view than you say.
Alfred... In absence of a command, we may do as we choose. That should be obvious without us having to spell it out for you.
No, sir, the burden of proof is on you, not us.
It is absolutely right that there is no positive teaching that the authority of the parent ever ends - not for marriage and not for unmarried sons. Yet only the most extreme would hold that parental authority never ends. Not even Mr. Gothard.
So, since its not really a question of whether parental authority ever ends, its instead a question of under what conditions it does end. Since there are no positive teachings in any particular direction, its just as valid to assume it ends with adulthood as with marriage. My point was not to argue that it does end with adulthood (as you say, there are some reasons to believe otherwise), but to point out that believing that it ends with adulthood is not "out there" Scripturally speaking. The arguments for parental authority ending with adulthood is, at the least, just as good as for it extending to marriage (or for it never ending for that matter).
So, I am not saying the parents don't have anything going for their point of view (they do). To the contrary, this is why I avoid asserting firmly one position over the other and instead encourage her to come to some firm conclusions about what she does believe. I merely pointed out that her parents point of view isn't as strong as they would like to believe and that alternative views are reasonable as well - at least as reasonable as her parents. She isn't "going off the deep end".
I kinda get what David is saying, although I don't see it all the same way. I'm of the mindset that there is not a clear scriptural mandate, here, therefore it is left to personal choice.
What really baffles me, though, is how you, Alfred, can see the apparent heartache of these young people, and, in absence of Scriptural mandate, you can try to create one out of this air, in favor of parents that aren't worthy of it, as shown by their past actions. I mean, if we're just going to "make up" Scriptural mandates, why can't it be in favor of the victim, vs the perpetrator? Please... compassion. Rightly divide between your fellow man, when injustices are done. The above scenario (in the original letter) is a clear injustice to my mind, and violation of another's rights. It's oppression. Let's call it what it is: abuse in the name of God.
By the same token, we could say that there is no clear Scriptural mandate that the unborn are fully human and that abortion is wrong. There are Scriptures that address similar issues, but none specifically that really spell that one out, for us.... But when in doubt, why not support the supposed victim in the scenario (the unborn)?
Personally Hannah, I think the question of when parental authority ends is really beside the real question. The NT emphasis is not on what sort of authority parents have or how far it extends. Instead the emphasis is on what the parent should do with the authority they have.
Paul teachings on relationships is particularly interesting. When dealing with slavery, the most inherently abusive relationships, he neither affirms the authority of the master nor denies it. Instead he deals with things as they are and seeks to teach how the master and slave should relate. But just as it would be twisting to use NT teaching as a support of slavery, it would also be false to use him as a positive argument against slavery. There seems to be much higher things at stake than who has legitimate authority over whom.
Ditto for the parent/child relationship. So, if we are going to stay as close to NT teachings as possible, it would be, IMO, just as false to argue that children should seek to leave their parents authority when they reach age X as it would be to argue that Scripture teaches parents have authority over their adult children. Both arguments, IMO, miss the point from a Scriptural point of view. I think there Is a much more Scriptural perspective to be had than either of these.
But I'm not arguing that adults must leave their parents' authority at x point in time. I'm saying there is nothing Scripturally, that binds them not to. Therefore, it becomes a matter of personal choice.
If I have counseled someone that they "must" leave, it is borne out of my own experiences in an abusive situation, and the injunction that it will be better for their overall health, mental and otherwise, to remove themselves from that situation.
I do not support or condone controlling abuse, nor staying with an abuser, if one has opportunity to get away.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that this is what you were saying. Its just something I see pop up a lot around this topic.
As to leaving the parent's authority as an adult, yes, I agree it is largely an issue of personal choice. I guess my point is that, like other issues of personal conscience (ie. eating meat offered to idols, or, in our modern context, drinking), NT teachings never focus on one's freedom but on one's relationships to others. Hence, the question of "am I under their authority or not" should, IMO, be secondary to other considerations. Specifically, considerations of relationships and love - NOT, as those in ATI would often teach, issues of holiness or higher standards.
"In absence of a command, we may do as we choose."
Now that isn't right.
"14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2:14-16)
We have a conscience, a witness in our spirit, that is absolutely dedicated by God to tell us right and wrong. No, we don't get to do what we want, even if we don't have a command from God.
Wow. I try to explain a very basic point, and you completely miss it. "No, that's not true, in absence of a command from God, you should worry about it and gnaw it to death, and ultimately choose my version of morality!"
I can't even talk to someone who refuses to use basic logic.
Sorry, Hannah. If I knew you I would be less likely to say things that miss the point.
Some on this site have openly defended the notion that "Grace" means - literally - "No Rules". Which gets my hackles up. Which is not what you were saying. You were saying we have things commanded and there are other areas where we need wisdom. Which is exactly correct.
Mostly what I was saying. I was also saying that I believe there is a point at which God leaves the choice with us, but certainly a young adult in an abusive situation, needs wisdom.
Alex, your question reflects a very recent struggle for me. How do I, as an adult still living at home, honor my parents while also honoring the Lord? What is the difference between honoring and obeying? Several things really helped me. First, one of our other authors wrote an article specifically titled "Honor vs. Obey" - here's a link. https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/09/honor-vs-obey/
Second, sharing my thoughts with others who were similar in age and background gave me a sounding board. I strongly recommend joining one of our Recovery Groups as Hannah mentioned. At the same time, though, I sought counsel from adults closer to my parents' age who were not from an ATI background, because I wanted to be sure I was not venturing too far in the other direction. I found these varying perspectives extremely helpful as I started thinking through the issues for myself.
Finally, I had to personally come to the realization that *my* relationship with God was *my* relationship with God. I didn't need to hear Him through my parents. Many intelligent, godly people disagree pretty strongly on many issues. My responsibility before God is to know how He wants me to live based on my understanding of Scripture, recognizing that others can help me understand, but I am ultimately responsible before God.
I will pray that you find the answers you seek. One of the most important steps to finding these answers is to start looking and asking questions, as you're doing now. Keep it up!
Wow, thanks Carolynn. So ... basically ... keep learning and asking advice :-)
Alex, I was in ATI for many years. I made a commitment to courtship and I lived at home until I was 26. None of that was easy because my parents didn't fully communicate their expectations and so, to me, it seemed they espoused what ATI taught but looking back on it now I think they weren't as gung-ho has I thought. I worked outside the house a lot. I started wearing pants/shorts no problem. It wasn't until I started dating someone that my father began to show his displeasure. He emotionally distanced himself from me even though my "friend" came to talk to him in the best way he knew how not being raised in that type of belief. He was a good strong Christian too. Long story short a few weeks ago, after being married 8 yrs and being long gone from ATI, I had the realization that we as women represent the bride of Christ, being made up of individuals who have chosen to follow Him for themselves. He does not guilt us or manipulate us into a relationship w/ Him. Therefore as wives/daughters we choose our groom. We are responsible for ourselves. Your salvation doesn't depend on whether you live w/ your parents, work outside the home or "date" instead of court. These are not salvation issues and your parents will need to be reminded of that. They also need to realize they are charged in scripture not to provoke their children to anger. They are the parents who need to take the initiative to respect you as an adult in order to set an example for you of how adults interact with each other. Being independent is what we are meant to ultimately obtain as responsible adults. This is far from rebellious. The reference in Samuel The Institute uses about rebellion being like witchcraft is taken out of context. Saul had disobeyed the word of the Lord. We are told we must work out our own salvation in the New Testament. Our fathers cannot do that for us in any way. Please be encouraged and know you are not alone! Many of us still feel misplaced guilt and still undergoing deprogramming.
Erin ... without going into too much detail, what do you do if your father is backing off ... saying he'll just be a sounding board ... but ... sounding like he's very disappointed with you and the decisions you make - it hurts.
Alex, a few questions came to mind as I read your comment, I'll share them as food for thought -
I wonder what it might look like to honor a parent even when that parent expresses disappointment in a decision you have made.
You are putting your finger on an important issue: how high of a priority is it for you to assure that your parents (or others) are never disappointed with you? Do you see yourself at say, age 40, holding that at the same priority? Some well-meaning parents don't realize how convenient it is for them to express disappointment as a way of influencing or controlling someone else's decisions. Turning that around, you could consider how much you expect that your disappointment should influence their (or others') life decisions.
From another angle, if you were seeing a counselor, they might ask you to consider hypothetically what it would cost you if you were to withstand your parents' disappointment in a decision you make; it might cost you a feeling of security, for example (which could raise a new question, for example: how much of my security in life should be based in my parents not being disappointed with me?). For you it might be something else besides security, just tossing it out as a common possibility.
Something else to consider is how your answer to those questions might relate to the thought in Matthew 10, or in 1 Timothy 2.
Not trying to barrage you, just thinking out loud :-)
What Matthew said! ^
Alex, so glad you're on here and are seeking to do what honor's God! The first step for me in learning how to respond to my authorities as an adult was to realize that I am completely responsible to God for my actions. He will not say, "Well, since your parents or whoever was over you made you do that it's okay." Instead, He views me as an individual directly under Him and His authority. When I started asking and listening to God's voice on matters it caused huge conflict with my authorities (I was living and working at a training center at the time). Gradually, I learned how to set boundaries calmly, lovingly, and respectfully and my authorities came to accept this.
In my relationship with my parents, when I felt that I as an adult had to obey them this led to my trying to manipulate and control them to get what I wanted. When I recognized that honoring them meant simply "giving weight" to their opinions and not necessarily following them or obeying them I was free to say "no" to them without getting angry or upset or trying to manipulate. Knowing I was right with God and under His authority enabled me to respond lovingly and firmly to my parents without making a huge argument out of things. Our parents will not agree with all of our perspectives and beliefs and views, but we can respectfully choose to disagree. A lot of issues I just didn't discuss with my parents if I knew we didn't agree on them. If your parents start to get verbally abusive towards you regarding your choices and decisions that is when it gets really tough.
Others have already recommended this book, and I want to recommend it again. The Boundaries book by Cloud and Townsend is excellent in learning where I end and where others start (i.e. where the adult child holds responsibility and control vs. where the parent holds responsibility and control).
Living in your parents' home makes the situation more difficult as they set the rules for their house. If you are able to move out I think you will find navigating your relationship with your parents will grow much easier.
One more thing about honoring - as your parents are believers their highest desire for you is/should be that you honor and obey God. So in honoring and obeying God with your decisions you are honoring your parents (even if your parents don't agree with your decisions). Keep pursuing Jesus and the life He designed for you to live (even if it's opposite of your parents' ideas:)).
This is excellent advice, "Hope"!
Alex, I would also add that your parents *should* have trained you to listen to God first, and them second. If it's the other way around, where their opinions are equivalent to God's will for you, that is parental idolatry and must be addressed head on. I think most parents in ATI have been taught the very, very wrong belief that they speak in God's place on behalf of their children. Scripture says that there is only one mediator between God and man--and that is Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5).
I am a former ATI student and now a parent of three kids. I am training them from the earliest age possible to listen to the Holy Spirit and *expect* God to fellowship with them and teach them in their spirits. While they are young (my oldest is 6), I am guiding them in how this often happens. But I've even started teaching my 6-year-old to pray, expecting that God might just speak to him in his spirit (no, not necessarily an audible voice like Samuel). My son has a very tender heart towards the Lord, and I don't want to squelch it, or assume that God *won't* speak to him or guide him in ways I won't expect as a parent. I'll also teach him as he matures to look to Scripture and compare what He feels God is saying with Scripture to make sure what he heard wasn't just indigestion (I kid--but only partially)!
THIS is the goal of parents--to raise up children from the earliest age possible who listen to God and follow HIS leading for their lives. If we don't do that, and if we insist that WE are the mouthpiece of God to our children until they reach a certain age (say 21) or until they are married, how is that NOT putting ourselves as parents in the seat of God, which is clearly idolatry? And how is that preparing them to walk with God and hear from Him? That is crippling them in their relationship with God, causing them to rely on us for answers to life that only God can give them.
My biggest advice for you, Alex, is to start listening to God and trust that He WILL speak to you and guide you apart from your parents. It will take practice if you're not used to this, but I believe He can and will do so. He loves you and wants to guide you as you move forward in this journey--just you and Him walking together.
"When I recognized that honoring them meant simply "giving weight" to their opinions and not necessarily following them or obeying them I was free to say "no" to them without getting angry or upset or trying to manipulate. Knowing I was right with God and under His authority enabled me to respond lovingly and firmly to my parents without making a huge argument out of things."
- Thank you. That helps.
" A lot of issues I just didn't discuss with my parents if I knew we didn't agree on them."
- This is what I've been doing ... all the while wondering if I'm wrong for doing so
"The Boundaries book by Cloud and Townsend"
- already have it reserved @ the library
"So in honoring and obeying God with your decisions you are honoring your parents (even if your parents don't agree with your decisions). Keep pursuing Jesus and the life He designed for you to live (even if it's opposite of your parents' ideas:))."
- Hmmm ... hadn't looked at it that way before. I still feel like I'm breaking a rule for doing that, because of what I've been raised with ...
Alex, I wish you joy, comfort, and clear vision as you grapple with these things. The most amazing feeling in the world is falling in the arms of God, and FEELING SAFE. For the first time ever, 'I'm going to be ok.' I literally can't describe it properly, but that is what I hope for you. God go with you!
Well, we know that legally it is not the case, that a 20 yr old is still under their parent's authority, regardless of gender. As you have already pointed out, obedience to parents is a biblical admonition to children, but not to adults (which, you are the latter).
I believe you have already answered your own question. For many of us, as adults in our parents' home, the problem came when we would actually assert the autonomy which was rightfully ours. At this point, our parents' only legal recourse to force our compliance, was to remove their resources from our disposal. As cruel as it is, I would be issued the ultimatum to give them everything they wanted, or be kicked out. This, after they had refused to let me have a job or any "wrong friends" that I could go to for help. I had no options. So, I tried to give them everything they wanted (which was never enough), and in the process, I completely lost myself as a person.
It ended with me, broken, depressed to the point of wanting to die, unable to make any decisions for myself, or to do anything I wasn't told to do. Thankfully, a friend figured out what was going on, and helped me to escape. From there, I managed to slowly get on my feet, get a job, attend college. I had a lot of help from friends along the way.
I don't know whether your parents are willing to re-examine their stance on this and loosen their grip. If not, you must take steps to get out. You need a job, even minimum wage will help as a starter job. You need a network of friends who will help you. If at all possible, start attending a different church from your parents, something a little more mainstream, some place where your story will be believed. That's where I got a lot of help, getting out. Sometimes, even a shelter will take in situations like this.
Also, join one of our Recovery groups on Facebook, at the top of this page, where you can interact with others facing similar struggles. Prayers for you.
(The above comment is intended as a reply to "Alex")
I couldn't agree more! Alex, you'll be in my prayers. Asserting yourself and defining healthy boundaries is very hard, even if it is the right thing to do. It can be a very emotionally difficult thing, and a scary thing, striking out from what you've been taught all your life based only on your own conscience and your own relationship with God- but it is GOOD. =) Trust your own scripture reading and the voice of God in your own heart. You CAN be trusted to hear from God for yourself, every bit as well as can your parents. I've been there- you may feel guilt for going against your parents, and they may, consciously or unconsciously, contribute to this. When your parents see the error in what they have taken in good faith, they will be heartbroken- at least, this was the case with my parents. Love your parents, be gentle with them, but remember- you are responsible to yourself and to God, and "but my parents said it was wrong" is no excuse for a life wasted waiting for release from authority that was not legitimate in the first place. I would encourage you to study what the bible actually SAYS on authority, as opposed to what you have probably been taught it says, and then walk in the light you have, whether your parents agree or not. I pray you will find freedom in Christ and a healthy, independent relationship with your parents. All the best!!
" It can be a very emotionally difficult thing, and a scary thing, striking out from what you've been taught all your life based only on your own conscience and your own relationship with God- but it is GOOD. =)"
- very true!
" you may feel guilt for going against your parents, and they may, consciously or unconsciously, contribute to this."
- yes :-)
"When your parents see the error in what they have taken in good faith, they will be heartbroken- at least, this was the case with my parents."
- can't see this happening in the near future :-)
"and then walk in the light you have, whether your parents agree or not."
- I'm scared to do this ... I've been taught to obey, do what they want, etc. I've been searching for (so far haven't found) a Bible verse/section/etc. that makes it clear adult children are accountable to God. Any ideas?
Alex, I don't have a Scripture right off the top of my head for adult children being accountable to God, but I did think it was interesting the way you phrased it. Every adult is somebody's child. Really, what IS the point where it's you and God now? It really is a great question, I don't know if I've ever put it into those words. But maybe, if you think of it like that, I mean, your parents are the adult children of their parents. Was it marriage that made them suddenly accountable to God? I don't think so, unless they got married very very young, but even then, I question it..
I believe Salvation has a great part to play in it. Of course someone who is saved has a link to God they never had before. One who was saved as a child would of course remain under their parent's authority in many ways until they reach their legal age (which depends on their culture), however are they not still accountable to God for their thoughts, words, actions, even though discipline and earthly guidance comes through the form of a parent?
But once you are grown, you're done being 'raised' or 'brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord'. Once you 'became a (wo)man, and put away childish things' Childish things could be actual physical things, or thought processes.. the putting away of childish things could represent maturity into adulthood, and a measure of responsibility that grows as you grow.
Anyway, I hope that helped put some perspective for you. :)
"unless they got married very very young, but even then, I question it.."
- married right out of college
Alex, the New Testament doesn't really talk a lot about children as separate from parents - there is MUCH more discussion of the fact that each believer is directly responsible to God for his own decisions.
Here are a few categories that demonstrate the concept of a personal/individual accountability before God. These are just a quick summary of the applicable verses:
Eternal life result of INDIVIDUAL, personal belief. - John 1:12, 3:16, 5:24, 6:40,47; 11:25
Each of us will give an account for HIMSELF to God. - Rom. !4:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10
"One another/each other"passages teaching how Christians should relate to each other - ALL based on PERSONAL attitude/action toward others before God. - Jn. 13:34; Rom. 12:10, 15:7; Gal. 6:2; Col. 3:9; 1 Jn. 3:23
Unless your parents are reading a different Bible altogether, the one reference to honoring parents in the NT letters to the churches is completely overwhelmed by teaching on the personal responsibility and relationship, life and growth of each believer as an individual before and with God.
I hope this helps in some small way. =)
This perspective by Will is right on. It's not New Testament, but I would say the Proverbs talk about honoring our parents and their teachings but there is a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility for our attitudes and actions.
The "one another" passages are a big and significant theme, worth spending time on. I think "fruit" and putting off / putting on are a couple other major themes that show up all over the place.
A 12 year old kid in a relationship to the Lord will exhibit fruit in some different practical circumstances than a 20 year old does, but the emphasis all through is about relating to God and others, and about letting the Spirit bring love, joy, peace, etc. from the inside out. It's much more significant that I am plugged into the Lord and letting him produce that fruit than it is whether I am a mechanic, a farmer, a hairdresser, a musician, living at home or in my own place, etc.
Back in 1974, author Wilfred Bockelman said this:
That heavy emphasis on submission to the authority of parents was an early warning sign that Gothard was taking things to extremes. His view is not something that naturally arises from Scripture. It is something he has pressed back onto it.
Hannah ... I have moved out & do have a job that pays minimum ... can't say where I am because that would be saying too much :-) I'm starting to have friends, and just "received permission" to choose my own church (though my parents aren't happy about it). Baby steps, right :-)
Good for you, Alex!
I have so been there! I went through that exact struggle for quite a while. But it boiled down to the fact that I *knew* for sure that God wanted me one place and my parents would have preferred another. Thankfully, they have always told me that they want me to follow God, even if it isn't what they think He wants. But knowing that they were hurting and disappointed was extremely hard to take.
God led me and my parents both little step by little step. We were gradually able to talk about more things, and they began to understand why I had needed to act as I did. And I began to understand their reasoning better as well. We now have a very good relationship. (There are still certain topics that I do not discuss with them, because they affect me too much. They understand that now, and avoid those topics. But I had to be very firm at first.)
I would say that, for me, being away from my parents and exploring life on my own has, in the long run, greatly improved my relationship with God and with my parents.
And yes, my parents do read what I write here now. (I hid my writing here at first until I was pretty sure they would understand. I needed the space. And no, I don't feel guilty about that at all.)
Eliza, how did you know for sure it was what God wanted?
Alex, long story short, I knew it was not emotionally healthy for me to be at home. I needed space to explore and discover who I am, apart from anyone else. I won't go into details here, but if you will message RG, I will have them give you my contact info.
As for the age thing. I was 35 when I finally left home. Because I needed space from my parents, I surrounded myself (in person and online) with mentors and people I respected. I listened to their counsel, to my parents' counsel, then made decisions. This helped me not to "go off the deep end." :)
I think Scripture actually gives a pretty clear upper age limit for "children obey." When the Israelites refused to go into the land of Canaan, God very clearly said that those age 20 and up (age 19 by our reckoning) were responsible for their own decision. At that age, there could be no hiding behind a patriarch's decision. It was up to each individual. And I personally (though can't prove it) believe this applies to both men and women. You don't hear of any women over age 60 going into the promised land 40 years later.
So, to me, this indicates that (at the very latest) by age 19, all life decisions are the responsibility of the "child" now adult.
However, the Jews also had age 12/13 as a significant milestone. This was when a young person became accountable to God for their own walk with God. Jesus Himself highlighted this age as a time when questions are to be welcomed. He sought out the highest religious leaders of His day and asked them question after question. As this is the approximate age when a person has developed the brain capacity for reason and logic, it makes perfect sense. Jesus gently refused His parents' rebuke for his actions.
As such, I believe that the time for a child to simply accept a parent's explanation and "obey" without questioning definitely ends at least by age 12. This does not mean they are allowed to go out and make every adult decision. They aren't ready for that yet. But it is the time of searching for answers for themselves so they will be ready for full release by age 19. You can't go from having every decision made for you to making all your decisions wisely on your own in a short time; it doesn't work.
I'm not totally dogmatic on all this yet. I haven't studied it in enough detail to be. And there are always times when the "principle" or "rule" will need to be bent a bit (special needs child, etc.). But this makes a lot of sense to me. It seems to fit with Scripture. And with what we know of a child's brain development.
And no, I do not see that young men and young women were to be treated differently in this regard. There are plenty of examples of young women or unmarried women in Scripture standing up for their rights or making major decisions for themselves. Scripture does not condemn them for this; rather, it often praises it and rewards it.
Wow, those age references are helpful!
Good for you! However, if you are living on your own, what will your parents do if you choose to go to any church you want? Or make any of your own decisions, for that matter? They can't do anything. They have no recourse. They can't take away your livelyhood as a means of controlling you. Why would you even ask their permission to go to a different church?
I left home with nothing and no money, no job, only with the help of a friend for a couple of months. All the best to you.
Well ... if I can't make it on my own, it'd be nice to know I have something to fall back on.
Also, I'm so used to obeying them ... it's a habit. The biggest thing they could take away is their approval of what I'm doing, being dissapointed with my decisions (that hurts ... emotional I know, but it's true)
I know. And that is all well and good, if your parents give you freedom to make your own decisions, recognizing you as an adult. But if they are prone to control at all, you are better off to develop a network of other friends to help you, vs your parents. Hence the reason to attend a different church. Many of us have had to kiss our parents' approval goodbye, being as they held us back from becoming autonomous adults. It is very painful, but sometimes necessary. I hope your situation will not require it :)
Alex, I went through the same sort of inner turmoil. Loving the Lord, wanting to please Him with my life and my decisions,and honoring my parents for the Godly, wonderful, nurturing people they are...but my adult discoveries of truth, Scripture, life experience...just didn't line up with some of their dearly-held beliefs. And our differences of perspective eventually led to a decisive divide. The major Truth that hit home through the entire ugly battle with my heart was this: my goodness is IN CHRIST. It is in HIM ALONE that my rightness stands. He sees my heart for how ugly it truly is apart from His Redemption. So to seek His face in each daily decision, and walk through life in the light of His Presence is all I can do. I honor my parents as best I know how, and when we meet division points, and I in good conscience before God and His Word must walk differently from what my parents 'prescribe'...that lies with my Savior Who knows each one of us to our core. It's been a new chapter in walking by faith vs. by sight. I can't SEE how hard decisions can possibly end well! I can't SEE how parents who've blessed me all my life can say suddenly say 'we remove our blessing because of _____ decision', and how I could possibly be honoring to them by saying in response, "I love and respect you more than I can say, but before God, I must stand by my decision." But look. Our parents' core desire for us, above all things, is that we know and honor Christ above every earthly thing, above every earthly relationship. HE TRUMPS ALL. When we come to this point where He is leading us, guiding us, and we KNOW, as Samuel knew, that it is HIS voice calling us to differ from the actions of those we've honored, and to stand for something we don't fully understand...This will EVENTUALLY fill a godly parent's heart with respect and pride. It's a new season. New seasons are tough. But it's all about Christ being everything we EACH INDIVIDUALLY need for life and Godliness. If we take our eyes off of Him and focus on the wind and waves of our parents' emotional reactions, we begin to sink in doubt, fear, and emotional turmoil. We cry out 'Lord, save me!',Christ reaches out His hand, we grasp it and find that the wind and waves are merely that. And we go on knowing that whenever again we feel ourselves sinking, HE HIMSELF is the Answer. It's not about me. Not about my parents. Not about (dare I say it??????...) verses of Scripture, even! This is about Jesus Christ wanting me. ME! Not my family, my convictions, my obedience, my parents' blessing...He has come for ME. All of me. This is the point where He says, "Anyone who loves parents or children more than Me is not worthy of Me." {{{HUGS}}}, dear girl!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, Eliza, for pointing out the "age of adulthood" in the Bible. And the legal age here is 18, so I guess we can consider ages 18 and 19 as "borderline" and "transitional". Most 18-19-year-olds here still live with their parents, and each family deals different with what kind of decisions their young men and women(Alfred, I credit you for referring to yours as such) can make. Making ALL adult decisions often comes with great discussion, regarding the consequences; mainly financial. Parents do have the right to decide whether or not their adult son or daughter can drive their vehicle, for example. But if they decide no to that, they still can look for a job, save money, and eventually buy their own vehicle. Or the parents can say, only if you pay your share of the gas expenses, or negotiated plans made about who needs to be where. The goal being, to learn, step by step, adult responsibility. Most often, parents decide that if they don't want their adult son or daughter to go to a certain college that they won't financially support that decision. Or not as much as the one they would rather they go to.(ie, one that is further away and costs more money)
Alex, you're doing great! Keep on taking those baby steps and seek the Lord in each one.
Um... I can't view 18 and 19 as "transitional", because that transition should be completed by age 18. Therefore, the teenage years prior to that, would be "transitional". I'm not saying that every 18 yr old will or should be financially independent, but so far as having the freedom to make one's own decisions, yes, this is their legal right, and I think it is a pretty poor parent who tries to control vs allowing for it.
Also, I believe that, while a parent is not obligated to allow their adult child to use their car, per se, they should most certainly be making provisions in the teenage years, for the child's eventual independence, the ability to hold a job and drive a car. A parent is remiss to not offer their child such mecessary resources, as the fledglings are taking flight.
This letter is another example of frustration and rest assured, dear lady, that you are not alone in this. Many of us have experienced the same thing. I was just speaking with a former ATI young lady who was expressing that she still struggles with the fear of man. That is something that I struggled with for many years (even though we are taught as ATI students not to) and found freedom by realizing a couple of things. It sounds like your affraid that if your parents don't bless the marriage that God won't bless it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Blessing comes from doing what is right by the Word of God not from the words and attitudes of our parents. The fatal flaw of the umbrella of authority is that the total power that it gives parents is a hard thing for them to let go of. If they're behaving this way when you attempt to make small decisions apart from them now, how much more intrusive will they be when you have to make major decisions when you're married? The things they've said and their behavior has seemed to offend you and your boyfriend, and that's ok. Being offended forces us to begin to re-evaluate what we believe to be true, and right. It doesn't always change our minds but it empowers us to make decisions. Take the offence and turn it into an opportunity to evaluate all that ATI has taught you AND your parents. Ask yourself, "why would someone teach authoritarianism unless they wanted control over your life instead of God? If you start with that question, the other questions regarding the specifics of your situation will come to you naturally and through personal prayer and study God will give you the answer as to how to obtain HIS blessing. As a brother in Christ and your confession of purity and Godly desire, I ask God to bless your relationship with love, intimacy, and true wisdom found in Him and not in the words of man! God bless you with grace and peace!
Here is something I read and quote; "Justice dictates that when two legitamate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just."
That's assuming that the parent has a right to control, and the adult child has the right not to obey. Even if I believed the rights were equal, I already know which one does more psychological harm in the long run.
Was it this thread that Alfred was arguing in favor of polygamy?
Wes, I wouldn't say he argued in favor of it. He mentioned it in this comment: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/01/dear-grace-overbearing-parents/#comment-13581, saying it's "not a sin".
My comment to this would be that this is the danger of failing to read a narrative as a story and instead try to turn it into a collection of morals. Frankly, people need to learn how to read narrative. It may be appealing to take the comment that "Jacob had obeyed his parents" and turn it into a moral: Adults have to obey their parents. But then Jacob married a cousin and then her sister... and now you are in the spot of saying, well... Scripture does say that he did so. But show me one happy polygamous marriage in the OT where the story suggests it's a good idea that we should all do. In fact, the stories allow that it happened but they also leave you with a sense that this wasn't such a great idea. Anyway, I don't see Alfred arguing in favor of it, but it was a little surprising to see him say that it's not a sin, leaving one to wonder exactly what he would say about someone who would attempt it - and perhaps he's thinking of other cultures where it is a normal part of the culture, who knows. I would expect that most churches in the West would consider it a pretty alarming transgression. Churches which practice church discipline would probably be expected to do so over a polygamous marriage, I would imagine.
Well, I'll actually take up for Alfred, here. It's true, polygamy is not condemned in Scripture. In our culture, we would be shocked. But Scripture is silent on it, except to say that a church leader may not have more than one wife. The problem with polygamy in the U.S., is simply that it's illegal, not that it is a sin, per se. We just can't presume to condemn something as sin, that Scripture does not.
Again, we don't generate Biblical mandates from culture ;)
Hannah, I was going to say that but have almost been stoned in the past for pointing that out. :-)
Just because something isn't a good idea doesn't make it Biblically forbidden.
"it was a little surprising to see him say that it's not a sin, leaving one to wonder exactly what he would say about someone who would attempt it"
That's easy. "It's illegal, you knucklehead".
If the government suddenly started to allow it, then you say: "Do you want to be a Christian leader? Do you want to be forever barred from such a position? Me neither"
That it is discouraged is reason enough for any serious believer to avoid it. However . . . if someone came to church in some country with two legal wives, and they acknowledged it was Biblically "not a good idea" and there were no other issues . . . on what basis would they be excluded from fellowship?
Fair enough.
I know that some missionaries in some cultures have been guilty of focusing too much on the issue of not having multiple wives, pressuring a man to put away the 2nd (or more) wife, but then leaving that wife and her kids in an economically unviable situation.
That's all separate from the focus of RG, so I wouldn't want to pursue it here anyway, and I could be mistaken but it sounds to me like we would actually have a fairly general agreement on this issue :-)
It still breaks my heart to read and hear about those who have been told God will not bless them and that He wil, in essense, curse you when you fail to follow these man made ideas. Although I will admit, part of me thrills to find others who have lived through this and I am not alone!
We purposely did not have my parens involved in our relationship in any way, shape or form.
Thankfully by the time I met my husband I had been on my own for some years and God has begun to change and heal me and to correct my man made ideals and to replace them with the Truth of Scripyure.
[…] 5: Dear Grace: Overbearing Parents […]