Skip to main content

Can't We Just Cut Our Parents a Little Slack?

    We live in a hyper-critical era.  Go on Facebook for five minutes and this becomes apparent. Everybody thinks that they know more than everyone else.  We're a generation of experts!  Nowhere is this demonstrated more clearly than in the discussion of our parents.  We're all pretty sure our parents failed us in some catastrophic way and that is why we're broken, helpless people.  Luckily, however, we are enlightened and can arise above our parents' failures.  Our children will look back and think, "Man, my parents were incredible!"

    Irreligious people feel this way, certainly, but their ire is nothing compared to that which issues forth from the offspring of evangelical Christians in America.  Their parents were legalistic.  Their parents were oppressive.  Their parents were backwards and old-fashioned.  Their parents abused them and taught them bad theology.  Blog after blog after blog exists for no other purpose than to document these injustices!  A recent blog post I read the other day offered a welcome reprieve from the typical "my parents sucked at parenting" blogs.  The author describes his own childhood and expresses his gratitude to God for strict parents, knowing that they always had his best interests in mind.  His approach is refreshingly balanced.  He acknowledges that his parents were imperfect (as he is himself), but he also expresses appreciation for the fact that they preached the Gospel to him his entire life.

    As I read the post, I was overwhelmed by how critical we are of our parents.    Now, as an aside, let me quickly say that some parents are pretty awful.  They are selfish and truly abuse their children. These parents do exist and their children bear the physical and psychological scars to prove it.  I'm not talking about those kids and those parents.  I'm talking about those of us that weren't allowed to listen to certain music or go out on dates like our friends were.  I'm referencing those parents that attempted to shelter their children from the things that they felt would be damaging to their faith. These parents were overbearing, inconsistent, and sinful, sure, but that's called being human.  So the question that I ask today is, can't we just cut them a little slack?  Can't we give them the benefit of the doubt?  Can't we assume that they loved us and wanted the best for us?  Why do we have to demonize them and strive to be their polar opposites?

    It's difficult to appreciate your parents until you are a parent.  This is no novel concept, but one that is practically impossible to grasp until experienced.  Someone can tell you this when you're 18 or 19 and just spreading those wings that have been clipped so long, but you won't really get it until you find yourself making parenting mistakes.  Trust me, you'll make parenting mistakes.  You'll be harsh with your children or you'll be too soft on them.  Actually, both will probably happen--in the same day! These parenting mistakes (read: sins) will vary based on your individual temperament, but you'll commit these errors nonetheless.  But you know what?  You'll love your kids in a way that you've never loved anyone or anything before.  You'll give them gifts and you'll squeeze them tight.  You'll want the best for them and you'll sacrifice to give it to them, and when you're old and gray, you'll hope that, despite all the times you failed them, you loved them and raised them the best way they knew how.  All your rules and discipline were imperfect, but ultimately proceeded from a heart that wanted to see them succeed at life and embrace the faith of their parents.  Shouldn't we give our parents that same benefit of the doubt?  If we don't, there's a good chance that our children will look back at their childhood and imitate the disdain for our parents that we expressed.

    Can't we just cut our parents a little slack?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...