Table of
Contents
THE CHRISTIAN
MAN IN RELATION TO HIS CHILDREN
Suffer the
little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for
such is the kingdom of heaven.
- Matthew 19:14
There is no religion that can compete with
Christianity when it comes to the love of children. And the
decline of the Christian faith in a nation is evidenced by
hostility towards children.
A few years ago, we lived near a city that
was shocked and outraged when another case of child abuse was
discovered amongst them. It appears that the mother of a young
boy had locked him up in a large wooden box for two years,
letting him out only on special occasions. When asked why she did
this, the mother answered that she thought the boy was
"brain-damaged". He tested normal. When the child was
interviewed, he was puzzled by the concern. "Aren’t all
little boys put in boxes?", he responded.
The thought of that last statement still
brings tears to my eyes. For it amplifies the horror of child
abuse: it is a crime against innocence. This little boy had no
idea that he was imprisoned in more than a wooden box. His mother
had locked his mind away in a prison of lies. Her deception not
only enabled her to succeed in the imprisonment of her son, but
also to continue to receive his love and devotion, of which she
was unworthy.
Every time another case of child abuse is
revealed, it can only serve to remind us of the hypocrisy of our
society. On the one hand, we act vigilantly to protect children.
Yet on the other, we permit the wholesale slaughter of the
unborn. And as the late Francis Schaeffer has carefully
documented in his book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?,
the practice of abortion has been the psychological wedge
which has produced a radical shift in social attitudes toward
children. Namely, a woman is more likely to injure her child if
she has had an abortion. There is a connection between our
attitudes and our choices. A person who is willing to kill an
unborn child has less to restrain him from abusing a born child.
I said above that Christianity is the only
religion which loves children. Jesus said that the kingdom of
heaven consists of children. However you want to develop that
statement doctrinally is up to you. But I happen to believe that
the majority of heaven’s citizens are children. Considering
that the majority of mankind dies in childhood, and still do, we
can see how this statement is fulfilled literally.
More fundamentally, however, when you
compare Christianity with the other religions of mankind, you
find this startling distinction: in all religions except
Christianity, children exist for the benefit of their parents,
the state, or the social order. In Christianity, children belong
to God (Malachi 2:15) and parents serve them. As the Apostle
declares, "for the children ought not to lay up for the
parents, but the parents for the children." (2 Corinthians 12:14)
The service of the older generation to the
younger generation creates a future-oriented society.
Christianity is a future-oriented religion. All other religions
are tied to the past or the present. Humanism ostensibly is
concerned about the future, but this is so only because it mimics
Christianity. Humanism and its offspring, Marxism, cannot succeed
in a Christian world unless it imitates Christian symbols.
I also said above that the decline of
Christianity in a nation is evidenced by hostility toward
children. We see this markedly today. Children are seen as
burdens instead of gifts from God. They are considered to be
economic expenses instead of investments for the future. They are
judged as past mistakes instead of future opportunities for the
Kingdom of God.
To have a Christian attitude toward
children, one must be ready to be at odds with our society. Homemaking
is not just a hobby, it is a vocation. And
child-rearing is not a responsibility to be shrugged off onto the
daycare worker or the public school teacher. It is a parental
duty one has to God. We like to think that we delegate these
responsibilities to others out of economic necessity. Perhaps,
that is true. But it was not always so. What was yesterday’s
convenience has become today’s necessity. There was a time
when men could earn a "family wage", an amount
sufficient to care for a family. Following the Second World War,
however, women began to enter the work-force in increasing
numbers. This put greater market pressures on the wages working
men received. By the 1970s, the "family wage" had
deteriorated to such an extent that women found they had
to go to work. It was no longer an option. Christians must
realize that few men can earn a family wage anymore. If the woman
is to stay home with the children, the Christian family must be
prepared to lower its standard of living.
The relationship between children and their
parents consists in this: the parents serve, tutor, and meet the
needs of their children; the children obey and honor their
parents. This is the pattern established Biblically. Of course,
the child is to care for his parent when he is enfeebled by old
age. But it is with the inheritance the parent has "laid
up" for his child. There is no room for selfishness or
alienation in this kind of arrangement; for it is God-ordained.
Society operates best in a familial way,
not a statist one. That is why statist substitutions for the
family, like Social Security, will ultimately fail. With statism,
future orientation is absent. Few people realize that Social
Security taxes are being squandered. Its Trust Fund has only
I.O.U.’s for assets. Young Americans are expected to support
the elderly without an inheritance. We thought the generation gap
was a tragic thing. That was nothing compared to what is coming:
a generation war. It will likely destroy all feelings of
patriotism on the part of the young.
A Christian man, more than anyone, is
perhaps in the best position to understand and relate to
children. He had to become a child to enter the kingdom of Heaven
(Matthew 18:3). We know what this means, of course. As the
Apostle says, "In malice be children, but in understanding
be men." (1 Corinthians 14:20). What God requires is
innocence toward sin, purity of character and motive, the absence
of pretensions and deceit, and non-predatory conduct. Meekness.
A man who has a right relationship with his Father in Heaven
knows how to have a right relationship with his children.
The nuts and bolts of fatherhood will be
discussed later. Here, I want to focus on something neglected by
Christian writers: that is motherhood as it relates to
fatherhood.
Mothers are the best mediators between fathers and their
offspring. They are catalysts in bringing their relationship into
fruition. And because women have a natural disposition toward
relational issues, it seems fitting that the mother be the one to
bring family members together.
Therefore, in discussing a patriarch’s relationship with
his children, the role of the mother becomes a vital concern. But
before proceeding with that topic, I must add a little more about
children.
Lo,
children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of
the womb is his reward.
- Psalms 127:3
The above Scripture is worded so that a
dual application can be made: children are gifts from God to
His faithful servants, but they are also our gifts to God. Children
are the Lord’s inheritance in the earth. Righteous children
are a guarantee to God that He still has someone to work with
among the human race. "The fruit of the womb" is our
treasure given to Him so that He might receive the pleasure and
happiness He intended when He made man. Children are new hopes
for new beginnings. And that is why they are so important to God.
When a Christian refuses to beget and raise
up godly offspring, he robs his Creator. It is sacrilege –
(literally, temple robbing). The
Christian’s body is the "temple of the Holy
Ghost". Some pious clergymen are perplexed that people will
rob God in "tithes and offerings" but think nothing
about it if they rob God in the fruit of their bodies. This is,
indeed, a wicked and perverse generation. God does not so much
care about our money. Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven consists
of children, not gold and silver. May we not conclude, therefore,
that God takes greater pleasure in godly offspring than in our
great contributions? Yet, how few sermons are preached on bearing
and nurturing children in comparison to those on tithing!
Since the woman is the one who builds the
family (Proverbs 14:1), we might get a better view of her task if
we had a good definition of what a family is. It is critical that
we begin with a Biblical understanding of the family, lest we
become confused with society’s expectations. Too often, we
begin with what society believes is the proper family, and then
try to prove it from the Scriptures. Shortly, I will show how
out-of-step Christians are with the Bible, and how they become
prey to the humanists and sodomites of our country who want their
perverse relationships validated by society.
The Bible often speaks of a family as
"a house". This analogy is strengthened by the fact
that the Hebrew for "stone" and "son" come
from the same root. As Adam Clarke shows in his commentary on the
Book of Ruth:
We have already seen that "ben" , a
"son", comes from the root "banah",
"he built"; and hence "eben", a
"stone" , because as a "house" is
built of "stones", so is a "family of
children".
And those stones are laid upon the foundation of their father.
In the New Testament, the word which is
translated "family" come from the same words for
"father" (e.g. pater). In the Old
Testament there is often reference made to “my father’s
house”. Thus, the real meaning of the family may come as
some surprise to conservative Christians of our day who have a
tidy definition of it as one man, with one woman, who are married
to each other (state licensed), with their children. Their focal
point is off-centered.
God was concerned with something else when
He made man: who gets the earthly estate? Whoever gets the
estate gets the estate.
For example, most theologians pass-off the
extensive genealogies found in the Bible as accounts of the
Messianic line. I must beg to differ with that traditional
viewpoint. The genealogies were summaries of even more specific
genealogies kept by the Hebrews which have not survived. Their
purpose was to preserve the chain of title to the allotments of
land each family received in the Promised Land, which could not
be sold "forever". The genealogies provided valid title
deed to a man’s inheritance. A man who could not produce
evidence of his ancestry lost title-deed to his land. (The
ancient Cymry kept similar genealogies.)
The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke
was produced to validate His claim to the estate of His ancestor
King David. That estate was the city of Jerusalem, which became
David’s private possession when he conquered it from the
Jebusites. Jesus had legal claim to the city of Jerusalemas well
as the throne of David. He validated His claim, not only by
pedigree, but also by other proofs of his messiahship (i.e.
"the anointed" - a term used of King David and his
successors).
In Biblical law, a man’s legal status was figured,
generally, by patrilineal descent. A man received his
father’s name because it was his father’s land he would
receive as an inheritance. The patriarch’s relationship to
the land will be discussed later. But it is sufficient to say
here that the concept of the family held by traditional
Christians is truncated. The extended, multi-generational
family, with its estate, is perhaps the closest
description. As pointed out by Dr. Michael Schluter in Rushdoony’s
Chalcedon Report:
Although
"Family" in early Israel was a broad concept, there
was no special term for the nuclear or conjugal family. The
smallest family unit recognised in the language was the 3 and
4 generation site-resident family living in neighboring
houses on a single site. . . (T)here is no English word
- equivalent for this institution.
If the traditional definition of the family lacks recognition
in the Scriptures, then where do we go for a Biblical
description? I believe it is in God Himself.
Biblically-sound theologians will agree
with me when I say that the Trinity is the very foundation of all
of reality. As creator and sustainer of the universe, the
"ontological Trinity" has stamped their image on all of
reality. Van Til and Rushdoony are two theologians which have
expounded the principles of unity and diversity found in the
Trinity. They have articulated Christian philosophy out of that
doctrine. My Separatist Papers No. 1 discusses
that perspective at length in "A Metaphysics for
Separatism". What this doctrine teaches is that all of
creation must reflect some aspect of God’s being. This
imaging of God culminates in man, who is called "the son of
God" (Luke 3:38).
The "ontological Trinity" is a
term which refers to the persons of the Trinity in their co-equal
status in being and in their self-contained relationship with
each other. When they relate with creation, we refer to the
"economical Trinity"; for in dealing with creation, the
Son and the Holy Spirit choose to be subordinate to the Father.
However, in reality, they are equal in all the attributes of
deity.
God’s final revelation of Himself was that
He consists in Three Persons, and that those Three Persons are
known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He chose
modalistic terms with familial titles, not institutional ones.
God is first a Father before He is a Creator. He is a Son before
He is a Messiah. This is important.
In this chapter I introduce a thesis which was
hinted earlier:
The
God-ordained institution of society which best images the Holy
Trinity and the heavenly host is the family, and by studying the
Biblical revelation of the Trinity and the society of Heaven, we
can learn how to build our families.
Thus, in keeping with the
theme of this study, Restoring the Foundations, if
the Trinity is the primary foundation of society, and the family
is also in a secondary and derivative sense, then the need is
immense for us to understand and restore each aspect of family
vocation as it is taught in the Trinity: fatherhood, sonhood, and
motherhood.
The many books on the "Fatherhood of
God" are suggestive of my thesis. I do not think many would
disagree that a man can learn much about fatherhood from God the
Father. It is also quite evident that the second member of the
Trinity is the "Son", another familial title. My mind
is convinced that God assumed these titles for the First and
Second Persons to teach us familial lessons. Christ is the
standard of Sonship, He is the Firstborn among many brethren. The
doctrine of the firstborn will be introduced in the next chapter.
The question to be addressed here is
whether the title of the "Holy Spirit" breaks down our
analogy. Can we find a familial function in the Third Person of
the Trinity? I think we do. It is that of the woman’s role
in the home.
Before proceeding to explain my position,
we need to be reminded of three things. First, we must
avoid a humanistic perspective. It is not the family which is
imitated by the Trinity, but rather, the Trinity should be
imitated by the family. God is not made in our image. We are made
in His image.
Second, we must avoid a sexual
application of this interpretation. God’s creative power is
not sexual. That is a pagan concept. The relationship between the
Father and the Holy Spirit is not sexual either, nor more so than
the relationship between Christ and His Church. Human sexuality
may be a symbolic reflection of God’s creative power, but it
is in no sense divine. It is purely a biological function,
although an integral aspect of man’s dominion task.
Third, theologically speaking, the
motherhood imagery takes precedence over the bridehood imagery in
the Scriptures. The question of primacy is illustrated in the old
riddle, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To
answer scripturally, it was the chicken. God created the universe
in a complete and mature condition, although still with vast
potential for growth. Adam was not created a baby. Therefore, the
Mother precedes the Bride.
Here, I break company with many of the
prominent theologians of the Christian Reconstruction movement,
who base much of their philosophy of social order on the doctrine
of the Son/Bride relationship. Their doctrine makes the
institutional church the center of society, both in terms of
authority and in the mediation between God and man. In contrast,
I believe the primary doctrine for social order is the Trinity,
which is manifested institutionally in the family as the center
of society.
It is true that the Bible refers to
heavenly Jerusalem (the Church Triumphant) as "the mother of
us all" (Galatians 4:26), which would suggest that
motherhood is meant to be in the image of the Church. And I would
suppose that such scriptures were the basis for the expression of
"the Holy Mother Church", for which Roman Catholics are
so fond. Nevertheless, I believe that it is the Church which
imitates the ministry of the mother, rather than the mother who
imitates the ministry of the Church. It is the Motherhood of the
Holy Spirit that is imitated, rather than human motherhood.
To prove that I am correct in this
assertion, I must demonstrate that the Holy Spirit fulfills
functions toward the Father and the Son which we find elsewhere
in Scripture and in common knowledge to be those ascribed to the
mother. Perhaps, what I am suggesting here is presuppositional:
it cannot be proved by the facts, only disproved. We can proceed
with confidence, however, because there is an explicit familial
basis which already exists in the names of God the Father and the
Son. If I can show that the work of the Holy Spirit on behalf of
the Father, the Son and in creation has such characteristics
which suggest the vocation of motherhood, then I believe it is
appropriate to assume that the human family was meant,
revelationally, to be the social institution which images the
Divine family of Heaven.
Some theologians revolt at this suggestion,
"Is the Father married to the Holy Spirit?" "Did
they together beget the Son?" These are questions which seem
to complicate my thesis. Because theologians too often have an
abstract and impersonal view of the Holy Spirit, they cannot
appreciate His office. They see Him as a force or power, instead
of as a person. This view is the fount of mysticism in the
Church.
The Holy Spirit is a "He" not an
"It". And it is not impious to refer to the Holy
Spirit as a "She", since deity encompasses both the
masculine and feminine principles (see The Mother Heart
of God). The Holy Spirit is not married to the Father.
Fatherhood is not sexual, nor is motherhood. Sexuality pertains
to biology. Our thesis is not dependent upon ascribing sexuality
to God.
By speaking of the "Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit", we are discussing the economical Trinity, and
not the ontological Trinity. Ontologically speaking, (as things
really are), the members of the Trinity contain attributes which
are incomprehensible to us. God is I AM THAT I AM; that is,
"I will be what I will be". Their being is infinite.
Since according to the Creeds, they are of the same substance,
then the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ones
which pertain to office, and not ones which define distinctions
of substance. There is not one substance of the Father, another
substance of the Son, and yet another for the Holy Spirit. Just
as the members of earthly families are all humankind in
substance, so also are the members of the Trinity
“godkind” in substance. Since there are other
dimensions of God that we will spend eternity learning about, we
need to understand that the names by which God declares Himself
to man are revelational. They are also
pedagogical. God reveals Himself to us to teach us how to be
like Him, how to image Him. Therefore, when God tells us that He
is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, He wants us to learn
how fathers are meant to be, how sons are meant to be, and (as I
intend to show) how mothers are meant to be. He is also telling
us that the family unit is the most fundamental aspect of human
order and that, teleologically, it is His primary purpose to
redeem and restore the family. "And he shall turn
the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of
the children to their fathers." (Malachi 4:6).
Others avoid a serious study of the person
of the Holy Spirit because they misunderstand what Jesus said in
John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit "will not speak of
himself". Somehow, they feel it is impious to give Him so
much attention. We emulate Jesus Christ, yet He did not speak of
Himself either, but gave glory to the Father. God is true to His
own Word, and it says in the Proverbs to "let not thine own
lips praise thee." Consequently, I think such a concern is
misplaced. The full counsel of God includes His teaching on the
ministry of the Holy Spirit.
In the third chapter of John we find what
most Evangelicals agree is our Lord’s most complete
instruction on the way into God’s family. We must be
"born of the Spirit". In this chapter, Jesus provides
our most compelling parallel between the ministry of the Holy
Spirit and the role of the mother. Jesus marveled that the
eminent Nicodemus did not understand it. The birthing process in
humans images the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. It is a
sovereign act. Just as a child has no control over his conception
and delivery when he is born, so a child of God has no control
over when and how the Gospel message and conviction will be
present to convert him. Our Lord’s description of this
"born again" experience as the sovereign prerogative of
"the Wind" has direct reference to Ecclesiastes 11:5,
which reads:
As thou knowest
not what is the way of the spirit (wind) nor how the
bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even
so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
Further strengthening this comparison is
the Scriptural practice of fellow believers calling each other
"brother and sister". The literal meaning of the Greek
is "simultaneous-uterus" meaning, "born of the
same mother". Thus, while we will show that the family, as a
public entity, is centered upon the father, the internal cohesion
of the fraternal bond is created by the mother. By calling one
another "brother" and "sister", as a way of
inference, we are calling the Holy Spirit "our uterus"
- our mother.
Other parallels can be drawn. The mother
holds the greatest moral influence upon her children. She is
their first teacher, as is the Holy Spirit for God’s
children. From her, the children learn to speak the "mother
tongue", just as the Holy Spirit teaches God’s children
the heavenly tongues (Acts 2; 1 Corinthians 12 & 14). She
also instills good manners in her children, which the Bible calls
the "law of the mother". The Holy Spirit also teaches a
law. The mother nurtures and broods over her children, just as
the Holy Spirit does over creation in Genesis 1:2. There are many
more.
One aspect of a mother’s calling which
is critical to building a godly household is that she provides
the element of objectivity to the father/child relationship. All
relationships between people are a subjective event. At any given
moment, a person can only have a subjective experience with one
other person. If it were possible to have a subjective
relationship with more than one person at any given moment, it
would require the merging of personalities, in which case, the
second and third persons would lose their identity into the first
person. We can understand, therefore, why it is that there are
Three Persons in the Trinity: at any given moment in time, they
are experiencing a subjective and an objective relationship with
each other. For instance, while the Holy Spirit is having a
personal, subjective relationship with the Father and with the
Son, He is also witnessing, observing, and evaluating the
relationship between the Father and the Son. He cannot experience
that relationship subjectively because He is not the First or the
Second Persons. This blending of objectivity and subjectivity
with unity and diversity is a great mystery which we cannot
understand because we are bound as creatures by time, which must
be experienced sequentially. But it is a reality which human
society reflects, especially in the family.
Thus, it is the mother, more than anyone
else, who is equipped to understand the intricacies of her
family’s relationships. She is the cohesive force to
the family unit. The father provides the foundation and
the government of the family; the mother provides the morale and
understanding between the father and his children. Children will
naturally love their mothers, for the benefits they receive from
her are immediate and visible. The father is at a disadvantage in
this regard. The child does not perceive that the bread his
mother gives him is the fruit of his father’s labor.
Therefore, the mother must be diligent to
elevate the father in the eyes of the child, so that the child
will give him due honor. Just as the Holy Spirit does not speak
of Himself, but gives glory to the Father, and to the
Father’s Firstborn, so the mother, in building her house,
must not monopolize her child’s devotion.
The mother’s position toward her
children is primarily one of influence, rather than authority.
She has voluntarily subordinated herself to her husband and, in
the absence of the father, her firstborn son (discussed later). I
said in an earlier chapter that the mother has an authority
source independent of the man. Since her function is one of moral
influence and the mediation of her husband’s authority,
authority is not the central issue of her calling. Her authority
serves as a safety net in the absence of the father (through
death or desertion) or in his dereliction of duty.
Normally, the woman’s position is one
of influence. The spectacle of children running wild and women
grasping for power betrays how far a field women are from their
true calling. It also demonstrates the failure of men in their
spiritual duties toward God and their families.
Although the Holy Spirit, as God, has true
authority, He elects to enforce the will of God as the consensus
of the Divine Council. That will is expressed in the Logos, the
Word of the Son. This may seem to be an odd correlation. We would
naturally suppose the son to be subordinate to the mother. And he
is, while a minor (Christ was in subjection to the Holy Spirit
until His Ascension). The mother serves and obeys the firstborn
when he reaches his majority and inherits his father’s
position of authority. As a member of the family
"corporation", he has a true voice. Since the son
mirrors the father, the mother serves the father by assisting the
son.
When you carefully read the New Testament,
you will find these role changes occurring in the Trinity. The
Holy Spirit comes to us, who are joint-heirs with Christ, to
serve the interests of the Father and His Firstborn among the
rest of the heavenly offspring.
The ministry of the mother in the home is
also a symbolic manifestation of the immanence of God. The
father naturally manifests the transcendence of God, God in His
greatness and uniqueness which is beyond the grasp and
understanding of man. Through the mother, however, the children
are brought near to their father in an intimate way. Through her,
they grow in understanding his heart, his hopes, and his dreams.
They feel the warmth of his personality and the lessons of his
life. So it is with the Holy Spirit, "the spirit of
adoption". Through Him, it is possible to cry "Abba,
Father".
Imagine the barrenness of a home where
there is no mother, or a mother who is not available. Who will
know the child’s hurts and confusion? Who will comfort him
when he fails, or praise him when he succeeds? Who will translate
his inarticulate emotions to a bewildered father, at the close of
the day when he comes home? Without the mother, a vast chasm lies
between the father and child during those most critical years
before the age of 10.
The father may be the
foundation of his house, and the children the building stones,
but it is the mother who is the mortar holding it all together.
I do not deny that it is possible for some
reversal of roles between men and women. The roles in the Trinity
can overlap and interchange, also. But this is a matter of
function and choice. It is a matter of gifts and the best
division of labor. God has shown in creation that women are
better than men at certain tasks, while others are better done by
men. A man can "fill-in" as a mother; a woman can
"fill-in" as a father. We all know, however, that this
is an imperfect arrangement, even a fragile one. A strong home
that is a kingdom-builder is only possible when there is a man
imaging the Father, a woman imaging the Holy Spirit, and a child
imaging the Son.
There are, at least, two dozen names and
functions which are clearly unique to the Holy Spirit. Virtually
all of them can be applied to the ministry of the mother.
Extensive studies were done in The Family Spokesman newsletter
and are collected in “The Pneumatic Role of the Woman”
series. It was published as a book entitled The Mother Heart
of God.
I should add that it is not without reason
that women are naturally interested in the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit. It is no accident that women form the majority in
Pentecostal denominations. The work of the Holy Spirit is one in
which they most identify with their own, although perhaps
unconsciously. My guess is that the neglect of the Holy Spirit in
Christian doctrine, especially a depersonalized depiction,
contributes to a male-dominated Christianity, and that its
misinterpretation contributes to a female-dominated one. Of
course, these effects carry over into the home in negative ways.
The mother becomes servile, or the father loses touch.
Again, I must emphasize the importance of
this doctrine. Just as the Holy Trinity would be incomplete
without the Holy Spirit, so is the home without the mother. A
dysfunctional home cannot build the kingdom of God.
Women are confused about their role today.
Biology directs them somewhat. But a lot of mythology stands in
the way of their restoration to their holy calling.
Re-examination of the Scriptures in the light of this pneumatic
paradigm is critical to rid ourselves of pagan influence.
So, Patriarch - do you want to build a home
which glorifies God? Do you desire to advance His kingdom through
it? Consider your wife to be your most important investment. She
is your assistant, your helper, in every way. You need her to
understand you. You need her to be your ally. Be willing to spend
time with her.
Previous
Chapter
Next Chapter