A legalist rejects context.
2
LAW, PRINCIPLE, AND FREEDOM
How should parents make moral decisions and judgments for themselves and for their children? How can they be sure if their judgments are correct? How can they know whether the behavior they allow falls within the parameters of Biblical training? How can they be certain that they parent within the will of God? Furthermore, if parents accept the basic goal of moral training but are unaware of the right methodology to use, how can they distinguish whether their child's actions are offensive or pleasing to God?
To answer these questions, we must start with one basic Biblical truth. Every area of the Christian life is governed by one of three Biblical imperatives. As Christians, what we are allowed or not allowed to do falls within the parameters of one of three Biblical categories--law, principle, or freedom.
Of these three categories, law and principle define matters that are black and white--those imperatives and prohibitions clearly established and stated in Scripture. God's law and principles are eternal. Freedom governs the grey areas of life--the non-absolutes of Scripture. This chapter will focus on the relationships between these three categories and moral training of children.
"Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15) is an example of a Biblical law. Stealing is a behavior directly addressed in Scripture. Biblical principles are derived from stated laws. In the case of "thou shalt not steal," the principle derived covers the rainbow of actions that are acts of thievery.
Parents should ask the following questions when judging their child's behavior. Does the action violate God's Word? If there is no specific chapter and verse forbidding a particular action, then parents should look to the context of the moment to make sure that the action does not violate a biblical principle. If there is a principle governing the action, we are obliged to follow it just as if it were Biblical law.
Areas of freedom result when there is no law or principle to fall back on. You are left with God, your conscience and 1 Corinthians 10:31 ". . . Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Biblical freedom does not mean that you can do anything you want (1 Corinthians 6:12). If an action falls in the grey area, man has the freedom of conscience to participate as long as his actions are in harmony with, complement, or advance God's revelation. His actions can never diminish or detract from it.
Even though God's laws and principles are unchanging, areas of freedom can change from day to day. My decision today may not be the best for next week. In our family, we personally made those grey-area decisions by classifying them into three categories: that which is Biblically best, Biblically acceptable, and Biblically tolerable. In regards to the latter, if an action was Biblically tolerable, it meant we had the freedom to follow our conscience, but our choice (although allowable) might not be the best choice. Out of our love for God and others, we may elect to deny ourselves the privileges of freedom.
Making Moral Judgments
How can you know if what you are allowing your child to do offends or advances Biblical truth? Lets consider a true-to-life example. After morning services, little Stevie Brown was running recklessly on the church patio. Stevies dad, observing the crowdedness suggested that he stop. But his mom said, "No, he's just being a boy. Let him run."
Is there a moral issue in this scenario that should be acted upon? Is there something Biblically wrong with running? To answer those questions, we need to know into which category his actions fall. Can something as basic as a little boy running be governed by Biblical law or principle, or is it always a Biblical freedom?
We cannot classify an action as acceptable or unacceptable without first placing it in its context. The context of any given situation allows you to focus on the right response without compromising moral truth. Context is what helps determine whether an action complements or detracts from Biblical law or principle. The action of a little boy running is morally neutral. Certainly, no verses prohibit the innocence of such play. But, when you add context--a patio filled with elderly people, younger children, those in wheelchairs, and mothers with babies--little Stevies behavior is no longer morally neutral but morally unacceptable. Although there is no verse that speaks directly to his action, the principle of consideration for the feelings and safety of others does.
Little Stevie's action of motoring in the crowd demonstrates a lack of concern and respect for the welfare of others. His behavior is creating anxiety to which he is insensitive. Therefore, his parents are responsible to stop him from running and to explain the problem to him. From the perspective of one walking with a cane, a child running recklessly is a frightening act. The moral question is basic. Should we indulge our children with freedoms that they are not old enough to handle, or should we teach them to consider for a moment the preciousness of those around them?
Little Stevie is a perfect example of permissive parenting. He does what he wants to do when he wants to do it. Mrs. Brown represents the parents side of the theory. She does not interfere with his behavior, believing her little boys freedom of self-expression is more important than the welfare of other people. Is it any wonder that children raised under such a method usually move into adulthood morally bankrupt, insensitive to the concerns and needs of others?
In contrast, Ryan Jones stood close to his parents side. Although he wanted to join Stevie's play, they said he could not. Then they did what is truly reflective of Biblical training: they explained why running was not appropriate on the church patio. Ryan's parents considered the welfare and feelings of others, and made a judgment as to what would be the most appropriate behavior under the circumstances. Then they explained their decision. They helped Ryan to see the potential dangers and explained why standing by their side was the best thing to do given the present circumstances. Ryan was trained to the Biblical principle governing the moment, rather than trained to a general rule that would not be applicable under all circumstances. By training him to principle, they simultaneously trained him to be morally discerning. When a similar situation presents itself in the future, Ryan will be prepared to respond according to principle. This time his behavior was governed by Mom and Dad; next time he can govern his own behavior based on what he learned to be morally right.
To further prove the significance of Ryan's training, lets extend our hypothetical situation. What would have happened if Ryan's parents had not given him the reason for their restriction? What we consistently find is this: todays "no" is only for today and not because of the violation of any principle. The next time a similar situation presents itself, Ryan would have no basis upon which to decide. He simply would not have any moral reasons for not running. The absence of moral reason is what can get children into unintentional trouble.
In hopes of ensuring moral compliance, some parents go to the dangerous extreme of making everything black or white. When they eliminate grey areas, legalism takes over. "Ryan, while at church you are never to run on this patio." Does Ryan's dad really mean never?
The Legalist, Legalism, and Context
One of the greatest attacks on the sufficiency of Scripture in the area of parent discipleship is legalism. Legalism creates prohibitions by elevating a method over Biblical principle. Legalism is a word often hurled at situations by those who struggle with authority or higher standards. Whenever someone wants to lower the standard, he is the first to call those who keep the standard legalists. However, higher standards do not form the basis for legalism.
What is legalism, and what are the characteristics of a legalist?
Legalism can be defined as, (a) putting law in the place of grace, and (b) putting man-made traditions on a par with God's Word as did the pharisees. Legalist from either definition tend to see all decisions in life as either black (immoral) or white (moral). He or she acknowledges no grey areas and often demands that the consciences of every believer be identical.
We have all heard the exhortation "Lets keep things in context." The most notable aspect of a legalist is this: he rejects context. Responding to the context of a situation does not mean we must suspend Biblical law or principle, but that we apply them in the most appropriate way.9 Considering context guards against legalism.10
A legalistic approach to parenting is very dangerous, leaving in its wake a frustrated child--one that fears failure rather than loves virtue. As we progress in this curriculum, we will introduce the importance of first-time obedience. A child is to obey parental instruction the first-time it is given. It is important however, to consider the context of each situation.
The following example illustrates this point. When Ryan's father said, "Stay in bed and leave the light off," he was expecting total compliance. When his little brother Nathan fell out of bed in the middle of the night, Ryan got up and turned a light on to help him. The legalist would see that as a clear violation of the fathers instruction. But his behavior was not in violation of his fathers instructions, because in this vignette, and thousands like it, context qualifies original intent. It was never the fathers original intent to keep Ryan in bed under all circumstances. It is context that allows a child to do the right thing if trained to the principle and not the rule which represents the principle. Our fear is the number of children who would lie in bed fearing to get up to help because they were trained to the letter of the law and not the principle of the law. Failing to teach principle deprives the child of moral discretion.
The legalist would say, "I dont think its right for women to wear slacks" because he holds to the black and white of his own rule. He makes his wife wear a dress as she feeds the livestock. He is not a legalist because he believes women should not wear slacks. That is a personal preference. He is a legalist because he rejects context. Black and white are the only options he will consider even in nonmoral areas. For him, an action is either right all the time or it is wrong all the time. In this example, he sees it as wrong even in the context of working in a barn. If he feels it is wrong for his wife to wear slacks, he probably assumes it is wrong for all women in all situations.
The validity of his assessment depends on whether God placed that judgment in the "black" zone. Does God say by law or principle that wearing pants is morally wrong? Obviously not. Even men in Biblical times didnt wear pants! When there is no direct or indirect prohibition in Scripture, you have a "grey area." If Scripture does not state a higher law, then private interpretation cannot establish it. And silence does not automatically equal prohibition. A woman wearing pants while doing barn work does not detract from the Biblical principle that governs womanly conduct nor does it detract from the original intent of her creation.
To bind the believer based on the grey areas of life contradicts the Apostle Pauls teaching to accept that "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5). Paul went on to say that the law of God speaks to neither position; therefore, the individual believer is free to follow his own conscience on the matter.
The Libertines Disregard of Absolutes
The opposite of legalism is libertine thinking, which expands the grey area so much that it swallows up both white and black. To the libertine, everything is amoral. In the modem vernacular, everyone simply does his own thing. But that approach directly challenges the black and white of Scripture. Lying and adultery are clear prohibitions. The libertine would say, "Its not right for me, but it may be all right for you." Our opinion on those matters does not change God's moral decrees. Right is right even if no one else is doing it; wrong is wrong even though everyone is doing it. To avoid the entrapment of legalism or libertine thinking, the believer should call black, white, and grey what God calls black, white, and grey. This is especially true in the area of parenting, where judgments are made on behavior.
SUMMARY
Many parents are strong on moral theory, but weak on moral practice. The damaging effects are progressive. Taking Biblical parenting seriously means making moral judgments on your child's behavior and then acting on those judgments. The parent stands as a judge, comparing the child's behavior with God's standards. When that behavior does not match up, we are to alter the behavior--not redefine God's moral expectations.
Footnotes:
9 When we ask parents to consider the context of the moment, we are not suggesting they base their ethics solely on the situation (situational ethics). Situationalists reject Biblical absolutes; contextual ethics, as used in Growing Kid's God's Way, manages God's values in differing situations. Mans circumstances can not change what is morally right or wrong.
10 There will be times when circumstances force moral dilemmas. We know disobedience is wrong. The Hebrew midwives were faced with a moral dilemma when they had to choose between obeying Pharaoh or killing the Hebrew babies (Exodus 1:15-19). They chose life as the greater virtue and considered disobedience a lesser evil. Rahab likewise lied to save the lives of the Jewish spies in Jericho (Joshua 2).