Real Men Honor Their Parents
7 August 2006Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6.1-4 ESV; see also Exodus 20.12, Deuteronomy 5.16, and Colossians 3.20-21 which are nearly identical in content.)
The idea of honoring parents has never been in vogue. Sinful humanity has always rebelled against God-given authority. Men have always cursed their leaders, children have always cursed their parents. Perhaps these days it is worse than at other times in history. As the institution of the family is being attacked, parents are being perceived and portrayed in our culture as incidental, bumbling, and bigoted; often well-meaning, but usually misled.
The Bible is wildly countercultural, and always has been. Its commands go against all our natural tendencies. A sword, it slices through our carefully constructed lies to reveal our true motives.
As Christians, our first impulse when dealing with a Scripture passage like this is often to try and make it reasonable and defensible in the world’s eyes. We could interpret it like this: ‘Parents deserve respect because of the great sacrifices they make in raising their children. They ought to be obeyed by their children because of their extensive life experiences; and because they know their children and what is best for them personally.’ This kind of statement is of course unarguably true. Reason and experience agree that in nearly every case, parents are better equipped to care for and lead their children than anyone else, including the so-called “experts.”
But if we stop with this kind of an appeal to human reason, we will miss what the Bible has to teach us. We don’t need Scripture to tell us that parents know best. Plato and Aristotle probably told us that. It is – or really ought to be – common sense.
For one thing, this “exposition” fails to exegete the Scripture. There are many aspects of the verse that are left out in this kind of “family values” justification. God wants to confront and indwell our hearts, not just change our external behavior.
Sometimes those of us who have parents wish they wouldn’t get in our way so often. We want to follow our own counsel and make our own plans. As we grow older and assume more responsibilities, we are called upon to make more of our own decisions. But often we use this fact to justify the arrogant pursuit of autonomy. We have an inflated view of our own wisdom. Thinking we are wise enough to guide our own lives, we desire independence.
I contend that this view is sinful and unrealistic. Simply by virtue of being older than us, our parents have more practical experience than us. In fact, most older adults do. Our parents also have an added advantage in that we grew up with them, and they have the ability to guide us more wisely because they know our personal temperaments and tendencies, often better than we know ourselves.
In the vast majority of cases, these reasons are sound. But let’s suppose that your parents are not Christians, that they routinely make demonstrably foolish choices in their own lives, and that they have been functionally absent in their parenting. Perhaps you can still honor them. But . . . obey them? Value their counsel? This could be a tough sell.
It is worth noting that Moses did not write conditional phrases into Deuteronomy. He didn’t write, “Honor your father and mother, insofar as they are worthy of respect.” There is no “because” in this mandate, besides the implied ‘because God will bless you if you do.’ God seems to be making an absolute command: ‘Honor your parents.’
Paul didn’t write, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, so long as they have been good parents.” In Ephesians, an even stronger injunction to ‘obey your parents’ is coupled with a command for good parenting. However, neither command is conditional upon the other. Even when children are disobedient, parents must still show God’s love to them; and even when parents are not loving, children must still obey them.
Aside from the fine practical incentives for honoring parents, in doing so we are honoring and trusting God’s will for us. Honoring parents is “right” because it affirms God’s sovereignty and accepts His divine wisdom in placing us in the families we’re in. Simply put, we honor our parents primarily because they are our parents, and in doing so, we honor God. In addition, when we honor our parents we participate sacramentally in Christ’s relationship to his Father. Thus, by obeying our parents, we are truly “in the Lord.” Viewed sacramentally, honoring our parents becomes a direct means of God’s grace. It will truly “go well with you.”
Here is one recent example of how I try to honor my parents. My home is only an hour and a half drive from my college. This summer I thought it would be a good idea to host an end-of-summer family party for students and families in the area. I had all sorts of good reasons why this would be a great idea. I was eagerly making plans and thinking of people to invite. (Actually, my mom suggested the party – I probably wouldn’t have thought of it myself.) But when I told my dad about it, he was less than enthusiastic, and said it wasn’t a good idea. This was a disappointment to me, but I submitted my will to his and agreed not to do it, instead of arguing or attempting to convince him. I still don’t fully understand why he didn’t like the idea, but I chose to honor my dad and I’m glad I did.
Honoring and obeying our parents helps us, as young men, to overcome our most characteristic sin – pride. Submitting to our parents’ counsel and wisdom will prepare us to submit to other authorities later in life and to exercise humble leadership in our future families. Face it guys: We are proud. We need to do this.
Finally, young men, intentionally pursue your father’s wisdom. He has been especially equipped by God and entrusted with the responsibility of discipling you. Of course, for many fathers this is difficult for at least two reasons. First, they may not have had a father who gave them a pattern for discipleship. They might not know where to start. Second, they may be hesitant to disciple their sons because they don’t believe their sons will be receptive to their efforts. Perhaps they have good reason . . . ! In a case like this, you need to take the initiative and let your dad know that you really value his wisdom and counsel and are open to receiving from him. Then start bringing specific issues, whether it’s about making decisions, or confronting your sin, or just asking his opinion about something. Initiate! Your dad will become a better, more God-glorifying father, and you will be glad of it.
Is it harder or easier for men to honor and obey their parents than for women? Maybe neither; just curious. In what respects is that honoring and obedience different?
Any ladies have good insight on this?
I think honoring goes beyond obedience to address the heart motive behind it. Do I obey because I want to honor my dad, and by extension, God, or do I obey to get Dad off my back? That’s a crude example, but it might do.
From my perspective, it looks a lot the same. Parents should raise their kids with the children’s respective gender roles in mind, but both boys and girls have to honor and obey their parents the same. The main difference might be that the mother is especially responsible to disciple her daughers, and the father his sons.
This is so great. I really needed to hear this. The follow-up post, too.
I hope to comment more later, but for now suffice it to note that Plato and Aristotle would disagree with the substance of your argument from common sense, much less your biblical arguments. Leo Strauss observes in the City and the Man that philosophy rejects the equivocation of the ancestral with the good. In other words, ancient philosophy seeks a good independent of the tradition or the convention of the polis. That it not to say that there is no merit in the ancestral, but simply that there is no merit solely by virtue of being the ancestral.
Hmm. Interesting. On the other hand, Chesterton called tradition ‘democracy applied to time’ or words to that effect; basically he asked what kind of hubris allows the minority of humanity that happens to be alive now to think that it knows better than all the generations before it. He saw tradition as the true majority rule.
However, I agree that the equivocation of the ancestral with the good is dangerous. Our ancestors, were wrong about some stuff, just like we’re wrong about other stuff. Blind adherence to a certain way of life just because it’s “traditional,” without examining it to see if it’s TRUE, can be dangerous.
Obeying parents is not the same thing as adhering to an “ancestral” convention, though.
A beef I have with the ancient philosophers, and many Christian philosophers as well, is that they believed it was possible to arrive at truth simply by the exercise of good reason. I don’t agree.
I’d be interested in your further comments, since this doesn’t really address the subject of the post.
First, The Bible says honor your father and mother, but in the example of the party, you have chosen to honor your father rather than your mother. When parents are of a divided mind, which parent ought one honor? From your example, one could say that your mother suggested that you should have a party but your father commanded that you should not have the party. The difference appears to be in degree of enthusiasm: your mother was enthusiastic and encouraged the party, but your father was ” less than enthusiastic” If the situation had reversed ” If the situation had reversed and your father had been the more enthusiastic parent, would you have again embraced your father’s rather than your mother’s prerogative?
Second, Your post conveys that children must honor and obey their parents at all times, with only this as a codicil: “In the vast majority of cases, these reasons are sound. But let’s suppose that your parents are not Christians, that they routinely make demonstrably foolish choices in their own lives, and that they have been functionally absent in their parenting. Perhaps you can still honor them. But . . . obey them? Value their counsel? This could be a tough sell. ”
Your post presents honoring your father and mother as a categorical imperative. By categorical imperative, I mean a statement that is universally applicable without regards to the context or circumstances; specifically, your posts conveys that one ought to honor one’s father and mother in all situations, with out regards to their reasoning or evaluating their judgment. ” To honor your Father and Mother,” then, is problematic in the situation that your father or mother commands something unwise, imprudent, or immoral. Parents and children alike are fallen. Parents tell their children unwise and even sinful things. The Categorical Imperative for which you have argued cannot distinguish between unwise and wise commandments of parents, since adherence to Father and Mother is unquestioning.
In terms of Fathers and Sons, some men tell their sons to engage in premarital sex. For example, my roommate travels to different youth retreats to give a speech regarding personal holiness, chastity, and communion to the church. At one particular conference where my roommate was the keynote speaker, there was a young man from South America who had attended the conference not to grow in his Walk with Jesus Christ but, instead, “to hook up with girls.” When several retreat team members discussed this goal with him, he admitted that he was following his father’s instructions: when boarding the plane to America, his father told him “to hook up with as many girls as possible so that he would have stories to tell his grandchildren.”
If the young man in this situation does not “hook up with as many girls as possible,” he would disobey his father and, thereby, dishonor his parents. If it is not right to honor one’s father in this instance, then it might not be right in other instances. Your categorical imperative offers no way to determine when it is right and wrong to honor your parent.
Let’s answer these in reverse order.
Second Objection: Under these conditions, wouldn’t someone have to obey his parents even if they tell him to sin?
I reply: Perhaps there is a difference between unquestioning obedience and unreasoning obedience. I certainly do not want to imply that one should obey his parents if they tell him to sin.
The reason he obeys his parents is because it honors God to do so. I may have been unclear. Since parenthood is a reflection of God – not God himself – the authority it carries must be subject to God’s. So even if someone’s parents tell him to sin, he would not be honoring God by doing so because such an action would transgress his prior duty to God. I’m not suggesting any sort of “categorical imperative” in obedience. The categorical imperative is obedience to God. This almost always corresponds with obedience to parents, although, as you mentioned, there are always some weird exceptions. The father who tells his son to fornicate ought not to be obeyed in that instance.
Also, the father in question could not possibly be acting in his role as a father if he was commanding something that directly contradicts his role as a bearer of God’s image.
This is all reason and common sense, but if you really want me to spell it out in excruciating detail, I am fully capable of doing so…
First Objection: What if two parents give conflicting commands? Wouldn’t honoring one necessarily mean dishonoring the other?
I reply: The relationship between a parent and a child is sacramental, but it is not the primary sacramental social institution. That would be marriage, in which a wife is subject to her husband, reflecting the way the Church is subject to Christ. Her husband has the responsibility to lead her. Thus, a mother’s authority over her children is subject to her husband’s wisdom and direction.
In the marriages I see that glorify God the most, the wife joyfully submits to her husband’s leadership – but it seems as if this gives her more influence over her children than otherwise. Perhaps it is because her children see in her an example of submission which they emulate, or negatively, do not see an example of rebellion to justify their own rebellion. I really couldn’t say. This is only what I have observed.
This doesn’t mean that the husband and wife always see eye-to-eye, but they work out their differences privately and present a unified agreement in parenting their children.
In my little example, my mom suggested the idea of a party in a lighthanded, “wouldn’t this be nice” sort of way, not a direct command of any sort. Similarly, my dad’s disagreement was not an imperative “thou shalt not have a party,” but simply a logical objection based on the fact that my family is rather busy at this time of year.
Not to sound like I’m tooting my own horn or anything, but I was able to honoring both my parents by genuinely considering my mom’s idea and affirming my dad’s headship by not doing it.
Sorry for writing a book.
Would it also be fair to distinguish between honoring and obeying?
In that case we could argue that honoring one’s parents is a universal command (“categorical imperative,” if you will insist on Kantian terminology), but that it might, under abnormal circumstances — like those of a parent essentially rebelling against his own parental authority by attempting to use it to command something in direct contradiction to the command of God, the source of his authority — honoring one’s parents would mean precisely disobeying. It would have to mean more than that; there are clearly methods or manners of disobedience that would exemplify honor, others that would be dishonoring.
But it’s a distinction worth consideration (especially since we seem to be going scholastic in this line of comments).
Before I address the substance of Peter’s argument, allow me to set forth my understanding of this forum. I understand this blog, based on Jonathan’s initial post, to be an exploration into what it means to be a man, generally, and a Christian man, particularly. Moreover, I understand this blog to be dialectic, for there to be give and take, argument and counter-argument (“as iron sharpens iron . . .”). Thus I have commented vigorously in the past, not to argue for the sake of argument, but to elaborate real criticisms in the hope of participating in a process that will bring the writers, the commentators, and the readers of this blog closer to a true understanding of the nature of manliness. My understanding, however, appears to be exceptional; most commentators on this blog either enthusiastically endorse the posts or meekly ask questions about them. Thus I fear that I am perceived as strident when that is not my intention. Correct me, though, if my understanding of this forum is deficient.
I have two main critiques of this post. The first is that it is essentially gender neutral; the second, that it wrongly makes the imperative discussed categorical and unreasonable.
I’ve discussed my first critique at length in previous comments to other posts, so I will be the anti-Adams and state it concisely: the biblical imperative is for CHILDREN (gender neutral) to obey their PARENTS (also gender neutral). This blog is ostensible devoted to “reclaiming manhood,” but this post is a discourse on pious living applicable, prima facie, to both men and women. There is nothing wrong with that, but recognize that it fails to acknowledge (much less advance) the central claim of this blog, which is that men are essentially (not just biologically) different from women. In no way does this post, as it stands, contribute to an understanding of what constitutes being a man or how one ought to be a man.
Second, the command for children to obey their parents is neither categorical, nor unreasonable. Julia does a good job making this point. Peter’s reply fails to persuade me for the simple reason that it contradicts the tone, and perhaps also the central argument, of his original post. I’ll let Peter and Julia hash this out and simply add this thought: When God handed the Ten Commandments down to Moses, the Israelites were surrounded by cultures that worshipped their ancestors. The command to the Israelites, then, to worship God only and to honor, but decidedly not to worship, their parents, is a radical departure from the prevailing norm. In this light, the contextualized nature of the command is clear. Prudence is requisite for moral living and revelation requires reason.
Jonathan: I don’t want to call anything a “categorical imperative,” not even honoring parents. I was never too keen on Kant (less so, even, after studying Edwards and Kierkegaard). There is a categorical imperative to obey God, as Edwards discussed in “Religious Affections.” He called it “benevolence to being in general,” if I remember correctly. But Kant is pretty much not my friend.
Good considerations, David. I fear that I won’t live up to your expectations, at least not right away. I will try, and please bear with me. I certainly have no particular qualifications for doing this, and it’s a tremendous learning experience for me, as I seek to understand these issues myself. Ben, however, has posted a link to an excellent, EXCELLENT article by Tony Esolen that discusses something that is unique to men, if not absolutely, then clearly in degree: courage, and the willingness to lay down one’s life. Check it out!
I am curious: how do you all think the “a man will leave his father and mother…” verses tie into this whole discussion? What is unique about manhood that would cause men specifically to be commanded this?
David, I think you are correct in your idea of the blog’s purpose, so perhaps a redirecting of the topic of obedience and honor would be appropriate. As for disagreements and debate, these do not usually happen unless there is real disagreement present, though it would probably be good for someone to play devil’s advocate. As far as I can tell, most of the people commenting bear a familial or friendly relationship with the blog’s originators, and are naturally more inclined to agree. So keep up the dissent when you feel it necessary. No one wants to disseminate error.