Christian parenting and emotional abuse

The Guardian report that the government are seeking to implement a law that would see parents face jail for harming a child's "physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development". In a column in the same paper, Oliver James - author of Not in Your Genes: The Truth About the Findings of the Human Genome Project - has offered a comment here explaining why he believes this is a good move. In truth, this move strikes me as more than a little troubling.

There are some things to which most normal, sensible people who function as good citizens will assent. One such thing is that the physical and emotional abuse of children is a terrible thing. Good Christians should assent to this too since Paul tells parents to love, and not to provoke, our children (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21; Ti 2:4).

Whilst most people can spot the obvious extremes, the boundaries of that which constitutes physical child abuse are a little hazy and the cause of some debate (is smacking abusive? What level of force is acceptable? is any physical chastisement acceptable?). Across most of Europe, the answer to that last question comes in the form of a definite 'no'. In Britain, the edges are a bit more fuzzy. Regardless of our personal opinions on such questions, if we are unclear on that which constitutes physical abuse, how on earth are we supposed to navigate that which constitutes "intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural" abuse?

Though these questions are tricky, as with physical abuse, legislation and case law will draw the line somewhere. In respect to the physical, the furthest the line may be drawn would be to say all forms of physical chastisement represent abuse. At worst, this would mean any use of force - no matter how minor - could be forbidden. In reality, this would simply amount to a ban on open-hand smacking which, at the risk of alienating some christian readers, is not an attack on scripture, christian parenting nor a major undermining of all discipline.

However, what concerns me most about these new proposals is precisely where does one draw the line in respect to emotional, intellectual, social and behavioural abuse? Of course, as with physical abuse, most of us could point out extreme examples. Of course, extreme behaviour being what it is, most people are not engaging in it. Where the issue lies is in the fuzzy edges - where exactly do the boundaries of intellectual, emotional, social and behavioural abuse begin?

If the writing and twitter ranting of Richard Dawkins is to be heeded, then all forms of religious upbringing are most definitely included. If the writing and twitter ranting of some adherents of religion are to be heeded, all beliefs apart from their own are included. Similarly, some ardent political activists are bound to shout indoctrination at any child brought up under the oppressive views of competing political theories. All of that is before we even get to those confused notions of tolerance that will tolerate anything but intolerance and would castigate all as abusive who do not assent to the acceptance of culturally approved views.

Nobody should want to see a child emotionally abused any more than they should want to see one physically abused. My concern is that, in a no doubt well meaning attempt to address particular noxious behaviours, we inadvertently (or, if one is to be cynical, actively) proscribe certain beliefs and views as abusive that are no such thing. Indeed, that which is abusive may well change in accordance with the cultural zeitgeist. 

If it is unpalatable for the church to speak negatively of homosexuality, one can only presume that to hold to the scriptural teaching on this issue in the family will be deemed emotionally abusive. To not allow your child to indulge all the sinful desires of their heart, no matter how deeply felt, could this in turn be deemed abusive? In truth, as potential parenting problems go, for Christians this is far bigger than any sort of ban on smacking.

Gay Marriage (again)

It was reported in Tuesday's Telegraph that UKIP would "strip Christian weddings of their legal status". Similarly, ten days earlier, Simon Hughes - Liberal Democrat justice minister - said Christian wedding ceremonies "should have no legal status". In both cases, an argument was advanced for the separation of Church and State. Under such rules, all religious groups (not just Christians) would be expected to undertake two ceremonies: a state-recognised marriage followed by a religious ceremony if the couple wish. Hughes argued "you would have a ceremony by which the state recognises the marriage, the wedding, and then the faith community has the ceremony which gives that the authority”. The Archbishop Cranmer blog has commented on the UKIP story here whilst The Christian Institute report on Simon Hughes' comments here.

This blog has made no secret of its position on either Church/State separation (see here, here & here) or gay marriage (see here & here). Rather unusually, one finds oneself in agreement with both UKIP and the Liberal Democrats simultaneously.

For Cranmer, the issue revolves around the disestablishment of the Church of England coupled to his rampant Euro-scepticism. The position espoused by Farage and Hughes would necessitate the disestablishment of the state church which, to His Grace, would be anathema. For the Christian Institute, much of the issue revolves around parity for homosexual marriage. Having previously denounced civil partnerships as "gay marriage in all but name" (see here & here), it is difficult for them to maintain "although the media and some homosexuals like to call civil partnerships ‘gay marriages’, they are not marriages in law or in reality" as they have since tried (see here). Their argument revolves around the existence of civil partnerships which, they claim, make gay marriage null and void. In truth, the objection is less about legal parity as cultural equality, an issue on which the boat sailed some while ago.

For the Christian, it is always difficult to work one's faith out in the public square. What are the issues on which we ought to legislate? Should we seek to implement scriptural commands in civil law? If so, which? How far do we allow for cultural mores that seem antithetical to scripture? Before we can answer the questions surrounding gay marriage, we must first address these basic first principles (my attempt to answer some of these can be read here). 

The non-conformist, dissenting tradition to which I belong has a long history of seeking freedom as a disenfranchised group. How sad it is that many now view evangelicals, most of whom belong to this camp, as limiting to themselves the freedoms for which they fought bitter battles. It is equally unfortunate that those who holds such views often fail to recognise it is precisely those battles won long ago that allow minority groups the freedom to campaign for their own interests over and against the opinion of many evangelicals.

On the issue of gay marriage, the proposals outlined by Farage and Hughes provide an opportunity for Christians to support another minority group's right to freedom (as we ourselves would expect from others) whilst maintaining a clear, scriptural view of the issue at hand. The State may grant legal, contractual living agreements to whomever it will whilst, with the separation of Church and State, the Church may provide ceremonies for whomever it will too. This solution removes discrimination at state level, the absurdity of certain churches forbidden to carry out ceremonies against their wishes whilst affording no protection to those who cannot countenance carrying them out, and grants legal parity to all whilst making provision for each to carry out their marriage (both institution and individual) in the manner befitting their belief and culture.

Ought we to fast for lent?

It is clear that a number of good Christian men have advocated the practice of fasting. Luther, Calvin and Wesley all advocated fasting as part of their Christian walk. More recently, John Piper has argued here in favour of making this an ongoing practice. 

However, Zwingli - who was not averse to disagreeing with Luther (cf. the Marburg Colloquy) - opposed fasting during lent, defending his co-workers during the "affair of the sausages"! Similarly, George Wischart rejected the practice of fasting. More recently, Curtis Mitchell has argued here that private fasting may be permissible but is not commanded, required or necessary. Rather, it is a legitimate but unnecessary emotional response to a felt need.

Piper notes that Jesus' response to a question on fasting in Mt 9:14-17 either refers to an effective revocation or a change in general practice. Either the bridegroom is taken away between the crucifixion and the resurrection or between the ascension and parousia. Piper goes on to make a case for the latter option and Don Carson argues similarly in For the Love of God.

Piper notes in his article that "fasting was by and large associated with mourning in that day. It was an expression of broken-heartedness and desperation, usually over sin". G. Campbell Morgan, in The Gospel According to Matthew, comments:

A wedding ceremony in an Eastern country lasted for seven days. It was a week of unbounded and unceasing rejoicing, of songs and music and mirth. And Jesus, said, These men are the sons of the bridechamber, and you must not expect them to fast while the Bridegroom is with them, but, “the days will come, when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast.”

This is Christ’s defence of the right of His people to be merry; and that right to be merry is the fact that He is with them. If that be true, then we have the right to be merry always. What He said about sorrow was fulfilled. He was taken away from them, and they fasted and were sad through those days of darkness; but He came back, and, standing on the slope of Olivet, He said, “Lo, I am with you alway.” Then there is no more room for mourning; no more room for the sad face of agony; but there is room for mirth, room for joy, and room for gladness.

Taking these three things together - (1) fasting is related to mourning, usually over sin; (2) Jesus' followers will mourn when he has gone away; and, (3) Jesus is with us always - we are rather led to the conclusion that fasting is unnecessary. Indeed, if Christ is forever with us by his Spirit and has dealt with our sin once-and-for-all, what place has fasting in the life of the believer?

Not to be undone so simply, Piper notes the issue and rightly draws our attention to the spanner in the works: (1) the early church fasted after the resurrection; (2) Jesus pictures the second coming as the arrival of the bridegroom in Mt 25:1-13. 

The second issue is rather easier to explain away. We all know the bridegroom is coming again only, next time, he is coming to judge the world. Though he is always with believers now, he will return bodily. Nevertheless, being with us now and having dealt with our sin, fasting has no place. There is nothing to mourn as the bridegroom is still with us. So, Pipers appeal to Mt 25 doesn't particularly advance the argument. What does represent a significant issue is this: if Christ is with us and has dealt with our sin, why do the church in Acts continue to fast?

Before going further, we should note there is no NT command to fast. Whenever Jesus discussed fasting, it was almost always in the context of cultural religion. It is hard to press Jesus statement in Mt 6:16-18 as an assumption his followers will/should fast. Rather, he is making a broader point about the outward show of religion and, where such outward forms exist, they should at least be genuine.

Nevertheless, we are still left with the issue of the early church fasting post-resurrection. We should note there are only two examples of this (Acts 13:1-3 and Acts 14:23). Piper seeks to offer 2 Corinthians 6:5; 11:27 in support of early church fasting but, although the translation may be taken that way in 11:27, the context rather bears out the given translation. So, what are we to say of the two examples in Acts?

It is difficult to press them too far. For one, both times of fasting are linked directly to the sending out, or appointing of, people to particular roles; namely, missionaries and elders. If we are trying to deduce a pattern from these two examples, we are forced to say fasting is reserved for such appointments in the Church. Further, given much of Acts relays particular events that are specific to salvation-history, we may want to be careful in suggesting all things as normative for the church. For example, are we to expect the same outcome as Acts 13 every time we fast? Given that Luke comments neither positively or negatively on these fasts, they are merely stated as having happened, we have no reason to presume this is normative for the church.

It is entirely possible that fasting was an issue of the same order as those in the Jerusalem Council. It is equally possible that this was merely a cultural practice brought over by the Jewish believers. It has surely got to be significant that the issue is only ever mentioned as a point of fact in Acts and is not raised in any of the letters; neither commanded, suggested nor even referred to as an already existing practice. It is perhaps a stretch to press, but nonetheless remarkable, that it is not mentioned in either of Paul's letters to the Corinthian church. He neither mentions it in relation to their culture of "spiritual" one-upmanship (a ready tool for such showy, faux-spiritual behaviour) nor as a counter to their gluttony when they meet together (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). Similarly, in all Paul's commendations of churches, fasting is simply not mentioned.

So, what are we to make of fasting? Faced with Jesus words about the presence of the bridegroom in Mt 9, and given his comment that he is with believers always, we have positive reasons to reject fasting and mourning. In the face of any New Testament command to do so, and in the absence of any reason to presume the two instances in Acts are normative for the church, it seems legitimate to view fasting as obsolete.

Does that mean fasting is wrong? Not at all. Jesus himself fasted and John, whom Jesus commended, did so too. That the early church did so as well tells us, if nothing else, it is a legitimate practice. If an individual finds it somehow personally beneficial, then they are entitled to fast if they wish. Nevertheless, what has the believer to mourn if the bridegroom is forever with them and their sin has been dealt with once-and-for-all? If that is the state of the believer, then it seems we have little to fast.