Skip to main content

Christ, culture and parenting

Orright, following on from my previous post, I'm gonna try and use the great turning points of redemptive history that Don Carson identified in his Christ and Culture Revisited, to do a cultural analysis of parenting. This from a childless single man. Brave? Or foolhardy? Oh well...

The ability to have children is a blessing from God, part of us ruling over the earth (Gen 1:28). Even after the fall, the children of the violent polygamist Lamech have great skill and creativity in agriculture, technology and the arts (Gen 4:20). The people of Israel were supposed to teach their children about God, and how he had redeemed them from Egypt, and brought them to be his very own people in his special place, in order to live for him and worship him (Deut 4:9-10; 6:20-25; 11:19; Psalm 34:11; 78:5-8). This is a prototype of Christian parents teaching their children the gospel. The Proverbs of Solomon come packaged as parental advice to children (Prov 1:8, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1-4; 10, 20; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1; 10:1; 15:20; 23:22; 31:1). Note the inclusion of maternal teaching in Prov 1:8; 10:1; 15:20. Prov 31:1-9 is ascribed entirely to King Lemuel's mum. Parenting includes disciplining unruly children (Prov 22:15; Heb 12:7-11). Jesus himself submitted to his Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51). Paul addresses parents and children in his letters (Eph 6:1-4; Col 3:20-21). Addressing God as "father" shows the basic goodness of parental relationships. God's fatherhood is not exactly like human fatherhood - it's an analogy, not an identification. But, for the analogy to work, there has to be some basic goodness in human fatherhood.

This shows us that parents have the right, and responsibility, to teach and form character in their children. Home is where character is forged most of all. Other institutions - school, church, other clubs & societies - certainly have a role, but their influence is less than that of the parents. Parents cannot fundamentally delegate their formative role to "professionals". Part of that character formation is restraining children from unruly behaviour, including, if absolutely necessary, coercive force. This speaks against Western ill-disciplined, self-obsessed autonomy.

However, that formation has as its goal Christian character. Parents are not to discipline their children for their own convenience, nor to be good Sri Lankans (pick a country!), nor even to be merely "good people". Their aim is that their children would love Christ because he shed his blood for them, and seek to live in a way that honours Christ above all. Jesus distanced himself from his family when they misunderstood him (Mark 3:21, 31-35), and demanded that he be a higher priority than family (Luke 14:26). This speaks against traditional cultures where family demands highest loyalty. Our children are entrusted to us, for a time, that we would, through our teaching, modelling and discipline, form Christ in them.

If our aim is to bring our children up to be Christians more than whatever ethnicity we come from, we'll allow our children the freedom to live in a new culture, as long as they continue to e Godly. Conversely, Godly children should (eventually?) realise the difference between doing things God's way and doing it just 'coz that's what the olds taught me to do.

Eg: India and Sri Lanka have a tradition of arranged marriages; here in Oz, people find their own partners. Neither is necessarily more or less Christian; both can be used in a Godly manner, or an ungodly manner. An ungodly application of arranged marriage would be the parents being more interested in a prospective partner's wealth than their Christian confession. A godly application of arranged marriage would be the parents finding a spouse for their child who loves Jesus and is temperamentally compatible with their child. I think Sri Lankan and Indian families are free to do either. I've seen both arranged and independent-choice marriages; so far, I can't tell any difference in the quality of relationships.

Um - I'm not sure how well I used Carson's categories there. Anyway - feedback, anyone...?

Comments

Cav said…
Excellently put, Kamal. My goal in raising my three boys is not to ensure quiet children or breed rich successful doctors, but to raise Godly men who will live out the gospel and carry it to their generation.
So far, I seem to have raised Superman, Batman and Green Lantern. However they focus more on rescuing people and being heroes (like rescuing mum from a messy room) than pummeling bad guys, I guess that's a good thing :)
Dhaneel said…
good article dude - not sure what Carson's categories are so can't comment on whether you used them well. keep it up.
Anonymous said…
Dear Kamal, Thanks for your article, I thought it was really good.
One of the things which I think is often ignored is that to bring children up to be godly is actually teaching them to follow God as opposed to the world. Therefore we cannot hand the responsibility over to school or scouts or even church. We must teach our kids to choose to follow God's wisdom not the worlds by the way that we speak and by the way that we live.
Kids watch us as much as they listen to us, it is a tough gig being a parent and one in which we must consider the big picture. What sort of adults do I wnat my children to become? What do I need to do to make that happen?
These are difficult questions and it is hard to remember the answers when you just want them to go to bed, but even harder if we never ask ourselves the questions.
Simon Elliott.

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...