Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

The question to be responded to in this column is taken from the Old Testament and concerns instructions given about the tithe. The Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) was written prior to the Israelites’ settling in the land of Palestine and the setting up the tabernacle to which the annual tithe was to be taken every third year as instructed by God. Some of the instructions in the Pentateuch anticipated their settlement in the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Such is the instruction from which the question to be considered in the column arises.

Question: Would you please explain Deuteronomy 14:22-26, especially verse 26?

Response: Prior to reading of this response to the question, it would be good for the reader to go to Deuteronomy 14:22-26 and read the entire text. It would also be helpful to read the first 21 verses of the chapter. Some of these comments in the response will be based on them.

In the first 21 verses, the Israelites were instructed not to disfigure their bodies nor make any baldness between their eyes for the dead (14:1). They were to avoid the mourning practices of the heathen nations that would be about them. There were to be no idolatrous practices among them whatsoever. Rather, they were to be holy and separated as God defines this (14:2). Nor were they to eat any abominable thing and God specified the animals that they could eat (14:3-21).

There are then given instructions about tithing. Each year there was to be the tithe of the seed coming from the field (14:22). They were also instructed to eat before Jehovah in the place where God shall cause his name to dwell there; the tithe shall be of grain, new wine, and oil; the firstlings of the herd or the flock were also to be brought (14:23). Verses 24-26 deal with the same issue: the exception granted to those who lived too far from the tabernacle to carry the tithe and firstlings in kind to it. In this instance, permission is given to sell the tithe and the firstlings and to take the silver secured in exchange in a purse in the hand to go to the tabernacle and to buy the materials for the tithe and the firstlings and the associated festal meals. The tithe and the firstlings are to be of whatever God has blessed the individual (14:24); one is not required to tithe or bring what he does not have.

A good background for the understanding of the specific instructions in this passage is to read the following pas-sages in full: Leviticus and Numbers but only links them to the sacrificial meals to be eaten at the tabernacle from the tithes and the firstlings which they were to bring. Moses had previously given the instruction about the partaking of the sacrificial meals to be taken from the tithes and firstlings of the herd and the flock in the words of Deuteronomy 12:5-14. Subsequently, further instructions are given about the firstlings and who they were to eat of them at the place where God caused his name to dwell (15:19-23). The festal or sacrificial meals were to be eaten before God where he caused his name to dwell (12:5).

However, after they settled in Canaan, many of them would be long distances from the place God designated. The weight and bulk of that which they might have as the tithe to bring could be impossible for them to carry to the place so designated. In that event, they could convert the tithe or the firstlings into money by sale and carry this in a purse in their hand to God’s designated place (14:24-25). At this place, they could take the cash and buy whatever oxen, sheep, wine, or whatever one’s soul desired to carry out what God had commanded (14:26). At the festal meal, the Levite was to be invited as instructed in 12:12,18-19.

It may be that the querist is concerned about these words in verse 26: “and thou shalt bestow the money for whatever thy soul asketh of thee.” Directed by the Lord’s instructions, what his soul would desire or his soul would ask is that which was commanded. Although he was unable to bring bodily all the tithe and the firstlings, he could take the money for which he exchanged whatever it was and buy accordingly to replace it. It was of this which he bought that the tithe was to be made and the meal eaten, taking into consideration the Levite of his city.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 7, p. 5
April 7, 1994

 

By Larry Ray Hafley

Critics imagine that the cross of Christ is foreign to teaching on godly living. In fact, the worldly minded critic sometimes defends social drinking, adulterous marriages and immodest dress. Thus, they offer their criticism, saying that we need more preaching on grace and less on worldliness because they do not want their association with the world exposed. Peter prophesied of this type. He said there would be scoffers “walking after their own lusts” (2 Pet. 3:3). These who so criticize preaching on the church, baptism and godly living appear as paragons of piety, but, deep within, their heart is in sympathy with “their own lusts.” The Holy Spirit said so! “Corruption … is in the world,” saith the Spirit, “through lust” (2 Pet. 1:4).

Their call for “more grace” is beguiling. After all, who can oppose the need for a greater emphasis on the love and grace of God as expressed in the cross of Christ? When the call for “more grace” is done at the expense of the truth of God on the application and reception of the blessings and benefits of grace through gospel obedience, something is rotten up the creek. Watch those who make such calls, for they walk “after their own lusts,” “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof ” (2 Tim. 3:5).

The Cross And Moral Issues

Is preaching devoted to modesty and moral issues a vacation from preaching on grace and the cross? Some would have us to believe that when we preach on godly living, when we preach against immodest apparel and social drinking, that we are taking precious time away from the preaching of the cross. Remember, those who so argue often are squirming because their conscience is being stung and stuck by preaching that condemns worldly living. To take the pressure off, they say that such preaching is neglecting the grace of God. “What saith the Scripture?” Philippians 3:17-19 says:

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

The “walk” of these people was sordid, sinful and shameful. Paul was discussing their manner of life, their conduct. Their god was their fleshly appetites, their worldly lusts. They gloried in deeds that were unholy, disgraceful and disobedient. Their mind was not on godly, spiritual, heavenly activities. They were devoted to devilish, sensual, “earthly things.” In this condition, what were they? The Spirit says “that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.” To preach godliness and to mind heavenly things is, therefore, to be a friend of the cross of Christ.

It was in this same context of thought that Paul said, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:27). One’s behavior is related to the gospel and to the cross. Preaching that emphasizes virtue and godliness adorns the gospel and the cross of Christ just as living it does (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:5, 10). Hence, there is no neglect of “the preaching of the cross” when one preaches on moral issues. L.A. Stauffer echoes this conclusion:

The life or teaching of anyone who hinders faith in the word of the cross, who perverts the meaning of the cross, or turns men away from the benefits of the cross is an enemy of the cross.

Space denies opportunity to speak of sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, hypocrites in the church, division and a host of other religious conditions and viewpoints. Any system of thought or way of life that draws or repels men from the cross of Christ severs them from the atoning power that God graciously manifested for the salvation of the world. Such views and lifestyles are enemies of God and the cross, and in eternity will reap sudden destruction from the face of God and glory of his might (2 Thess. I :7-9) (“Enemies Of The Cross,” Guardian Of Truth, October 15, 1987, pp. 639, 640).

In the article by brother Stauffer, he cites the following as “enemies of the cross of Christ”: Those who are self indulgent, Jews, pagan Gentiles, humanists, infidels, modernists, millennialists, Calvinists, denominationalists, moralists and the “Eucharistic Mass.” As he said in the quote above, “Such views and lifestyles are enemies of God and the cross.”

The book of 1 Peter connects the cross (redemption “with the precious blood of Christ”) to moral issues. Peter links forgiveness and the hope of salvation with “the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet. 1:3; 3:21). Redeemed by the blood, the saints stood, he said, in “the true grace of God” (1 Pet. 5:12). From 1:13 through 4:19 of his letter, Peter emphasizes and italicizes the need for purity of life. He contrasts their “former lusts” and the lives of pagan, idolatrous Gentiles with the lives they are now called to live (1 Pet. 1:14, 22; 2:1, 9, 11, 12f.). “The time past of our life” was when we lived as the world lives in immorality, uncleanness, lusts, drunkenness, riotous dancing and drinking parties and disgusting practices of idolatry. Now, though, “they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot” (1 Pet. 4:3,4).

Note it carefully: Peter speaks of godly living, denounces specific lusts and makes the application to the lives of the Christians, saying that they are not to suffer as thieves, murderers, evil doers and busybodies. He directly condemns “drinking parties” and wanton lewd lusts. Then he says their former life of lust was the reason “the gospel (was) preached” unto them (1 Pet. 4:6). “The ungodly and the sinner” are equated with them “that obey not the gospel of God” (1 Pet. 4:17,18). A righteous life is in harmony with the gospel; an unrighteous life is contrary to the gospel.

Therefore, critics who plead for “more grace” and less “condemnation of people’s lifestyles,” understand “neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” “Good stewards of the manifold grace of God” are those who use their lives, gifts and abilities in service to the Lord (1 Pet. 4:10). Thus, those who live in immoral lusts, who engage in social drinking and attend riotous, drunken dancing parties are contrary to the gospel and the grace of God. One who does not teach and preach pointedly and directly against lustful living is not preaching the gospel of the grace of God!

In 2 Corinthians 6:1, Paul said, “We . . . beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.” How could they receive the grace of God in vain? They could receive the grace of God in vain by living an ungodly life (2 Cor. 6:2-7:1). How could they retain the grace of God? In part, “by pureness,” by purity of life, by avoiding fellowship and association with the immoralities of idolatrous Gentile temples. In short, “Having therefore these promises dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). Elsewhere, in Titus 2:11-14, Paul also connects “the grace of God that bringeth salvation” with the denial of “ungodliness and worldly lusts.” To receive “the grace of God that ‘bringeth salvation,”` one must live “soberly, “” righteously, and godly, in this present world” while he looks for them of Christ. (For a more complete study,. of this text concerning the cross, grace and morality, see’ the author’s series referred to above.)

Those who piously plead “for more grace” and’ preaching on “social sins” are rank deceivers who would, if their advice were followed, turn “the grace of our God into lasciviousness (Jude 4). That may not be’ their. conscious intent, but it is the constant effect of their counsel. Preaching purity of life is part of the power of the gospel. It allures the hungering heart and imparts grace to the sincere seeker for truth and righteousness.

Once brethren allow the critics to define the terms of “grace,” the battle is lost. If “grace” is a subjective, indefinable sense of general “feel goodishness” toward others, sin will not be reproved. If “grace” is unconditional acceptance and fellowship with God, behavior will never be reformed. If “grace” is the absence of the rebuke of sin and sinners, men will never be led to true repentance and redemption. If “grace” means that men must not be warned of and confronted directly with their sins and their personal accountability before God, the gospel of grace will have been shorn of its power in the lap of the devilish Delilahs among us.

Sympathy With Error

There is another factor that causes some to cry for more preaching about love and grace and less about immodesty and immorality. That factor is sympathy with error. The spirit of compromise animates this body of error. Some are losing faith in the gospel system of making men righteous (Rom. 1:16, 17, 10:1-3). They are ashamed of its unique, distinctive and exclusive nature. The wisdom of this world has allured them; the wise of this world have appealed to them. They love the sophisticated philosophies of theology and science. They long for acceptance in the fraternities of higher learning. This association is impossible as long as they “earnestly contend for the faith” without addition or subtraction from the word of God. These conceited critics, vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind, yearn for the applause and approval of institutional intellectuals. They cannot have the honor of this world if they do not accept its tenets. They cannot have the praise of men if they protest against the futility and foolishness of the wisdom of the princes of this world.

Craving acclaim,. their faith develops a slow leak. This leak may show itself in the inward denial of Bible miracles. It may secretly, at first, adopt the theory of evolution “as God’s process of creation.” It may revere the vast intellect, keen knowledge, wide experience and cordial personality of a denominational scholar or theologian. This affection, coupled with the pride of worldly attainment, leads to quiet, subtle compromises of truth. The straying is so slight as to be unnoticed at first. It is spiritual carbon monoxide  silent, colorless, tasteless, odorless. It is deadly. Its existence may not be known or observed by others until it is too late to effect a rescue (Heb. 3:12, 13).

Resuscitation efforts fail.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory In-his presence.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men (1 Cor. 1:26-29; 3:18-21).

Truly, “They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them” (Prov. 28:4). Keep that in mind. Men who praise the wicked, men who honor and support the false teacher, are those that “forsake the law” of God Almighty. There is no way to make it more palatable. There is no way to “pretty it up.” Those who praise the scholars, books and wisdom of men will criticize those who preach the things that become sound doctrine. It is the way the devil works.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 7, p. 7-9
April 7, 1994

By Lewis Willis

Good News! The South MacArthur Church of Christ is sending Skipper and Betty Shipp to Nairobi, Kenya. “Shipp will administer the polytechnic school at the Eastleigh church” (Christian Chronicle [June, 1992], 22).

I am confident that you feel much better about the future of the Eastleigh church as a result of the contribution this couple will make there. By the way, do you know what a “polytechnic school” is? Since the church is operating it, you might expect to read something about such a school in the Scriptures, don’t you think? Wrong!

“Polytechnic” is defined: “… having to do with or dealing with many technical arts and sciences: a polytechnic school” (Scott Foresman Advanced Dictionary 857). The aim of such a school might be multi- faceted, therefore, it is a poly (many) technical school. Here in the States it might be a school teaching engineering, computer programming and analysis, TV development/repair, radio technology, etc. Devry Institute is just that kind of school. A “polytechnic school” might also teach the arts of agriculture, well-digging and water system design/development, architecture for building/bridge construction, etc. These latter items are needed in developing nations like Kenya, and that is generally the kind of programs our liberal brethren set up when they go into those countries. Americans, like Shipp, are sent there as “missionaries” to set up and administer these programs. Many of these brethren argue that such works are necessary if the locals are ever going to be converted.

One has to wonder if Kenya is in any worse condition than the poor people of the Roman Empire. If you were numbered among the elite of ancient Roman society, you lived a good life. Otherwise, you would be numbered with the poor whose labors supported the rich. Good food and clean water would be critically short. You would be in need of the most basic of life’s necessities.

Into that world Jesus sent the apostles  not to set up polytechnic schools, but to preach the gospel. Hear Jesus in Mark 16:15: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” There is a remarkable difference in the way Jesus wanted things done, and in the way apostate brethren do them. That, of course, is why they are “apostate.” Their programs “sound good” to them, and that is as close to “scripture” as they are able to come in offering justification for their programs.

One is reminded of Solomon’s warning: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). While this is true,liberal brethren do not seem to mind at all launching out on a course without sanction from God. Apparently they think they know more about the situation than Godthey must think they know how to do the job better than he does! Before men start instructing God, they would be advised to remember that “it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Before men get too excited with their own wisdom about the conversion of the world, they might pause to consider the words of Paul: “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). If God’s way  Go preach the Gospel  seems foolish, these brethren might remember that “… the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25). No matter how foolish and unrealistic God’s methods and means might seem to men, they are still better and more effective than anything else men might do. Following the plan of the Lord, the Gospel “was preached to every creature which is under heaven” before the end of the fast century (Col. 1:23). Those who were converted may or may not have known how to farm or put in water systems, but they had something far better they had the salvation of their eternal souls!

Isaiah wrote: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9). Liberal-minded brethren seem incapable of appreciating this fact. For years they have clamored for new and better ways to do what God told the church to do. In fact, they have done so for so long that objections that their programs are without scriptural authorization are scarcely even heard  or, so it seems.

God gave the church its organization, with elders, deacons, preachers and members, and assigned to it its work of preaching the gospel to the lost, edifying its members and fulfilling benevolent duties to saints who are in need (Eph. 4:11-12). Either the church is sufficient, with that organization, to do the work God wants done, or God failed in one of his greatest endeavors  setting up the church.

We believe it is sufficient and adequate for its purpose. However, when you involve it in works that are not assigned by God  such as the operation of a polytechnic school  you will find that it is wholly inadequate. This is where men reject the authority of Christ and head out on their own, to their folly and damnation. Thanks, but we will not go with them!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 15
March 17, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

When God ordained the home, he ordained the husband and wife relationship, and the authority of parents over children. This arrangement is based on the true meaning of love and is designed by God to bless the husband, the wife, and child, and all humanity.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4).

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged (Col. 3:18-21).

Parents need to hold fast in asserting the authority God has given them for the good of the child.

God did not ordain children to rule the household nor command parents to obey their children. Children do not have the “right” to defy their parents, nor do parents have the right to ignore it when they do. Asserting parental authority does not require abuse but does require appropriate discipline. Liberal-minded psychologists are wrong and the Bible is right:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (Prov. 13:24).

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying (Prov. 19:18).

Foolishness is bound in the heart of child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him (Prov. 22:15).

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die (Prov. 23:13).

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame (Prov. 29:15).

Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul (Prov. 29:17).

When children disobey and defy their parents, parents need to hold fast by teaching their children that suchconduct has very unpleasant consequences.

When parents fail to exercise the proper leadership over their children, they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. By giving in to a child’s stubborn demands, a parent curses both himself and his child. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). Each time the child gets his way in defiance of parental authority, he will encroach more and more upon that authority.

The child who is allowed to pursue such a course eventually becomes a curse not only to himself and his parents but also to everyone around him. The church suffers from the example of young people who rebel against both God and man. Society at large suffers from the effects of such conduct. A young person who persists in this path will ultimately destroy himself. “The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it” (Prov. 30:17).

Parents who hold fast in exercising their God given authority are a blessing to the home, the church, and the nation. Deep in their souls, young people yearn for the leadership which only their parents can give. Proper leadership is shown by having Bible reading and prayer in the home, and by being faithful participants in the work and worship of the local church. Leadership is shown by parents making themselves available to their children, spending time with them, and being interested in their children’s activities. Parents show leadership by insisting that their children prepare their lessons not only for school but also for Bible classes. Parents can show leadership by opening their homes to their children and their children’s friends for social and recreational activities of the right kind.

Parents need to hold fast in exerting the power of leadership with reference to moral standards and decisions in the home. Parents need to say “no” to hard drugs, alcohol, fornication, abortion, pornography, profanity, temper tantrums, gambling (including the lottery and raffle tickets), immodest dress, dancing (including the prom!), and all forms of disrespectful language and con-duct. Say “no” and mean it! Say “no” and back it up with consequences! Parents and not children should decide on appropriate TV programs, yes, even if the child has a TV in his own room. The parent and not the child should have the final say on what kind of music is listened to. Parents and not children should have the final say on standards of modest dress, and nothing should be allowed above the knees when standing or sitting. Parents and not young people should set the curfew for nighttime activities.

Where possible and appropriate we should be flexible in matters of judgment, but the parent and not the child is to have the final say. We should discuss and explain our standards and decisions when possible, but train our children to respect us even when they do not fully under-stand all the whys and wherefores of our decisions. We should be patient, but also firm. We may certainly yield to our children’s preferences in certain matters, and even change our minds on such matters, but there can be no negotiations where principles of right and wrong are involved.

Asserting this kind of leadership and authority is easier said than done, but it must be done no matter how hard it gets. Someone named Patsy Lovell told about a conflictwith her daughter over whether she would be allowed to buy a miniskirt. Her daughter insisted on having one but the mother said “no.” The daughter protested several times and in several ways, but Mrs. Lovell held fast and said “no.” Later the daughter apologized and said, “I was scared that you were going to let we win!” Reading this article is a reminder that young people need and want loving leader-ship (Patsy G. Lovell, “Hold Fast,” Focus on the Family, Oct. 1993, p.14).

When I taught high school, I required a certain class to bring parental permission slips for a field trip. One young man who had a gruff, macho, independent air said that there was no need for him to get one. “My parents don’t care where I go, when I leave, or when I get back,” he said with a sad look. That was twenty years ago but I have never forgotten it. In spite of his independent air, he was crying out for loving leadership.

Parents, let us hold fast to God and to the role he has given us as parents! If we are lost from God, we can come to him through Christ by faith, repentance, and baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). If we have done that and fallen away, we can return by repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22). If we will hold fast to God, he will hold fast to us, and he will help us to.

HOLD FAST

Patsy G. Lovell

When our second daughter, Kathleen, was 13, she was as lively as any young teenager could be. One night, she excitedly asked permission to buy a leather miniskirt, one like all the other girls in her class were wearing.

As she described the benefits, I could tell she was expecting a negative response. Nonetheless, she acted surprised when I said no.

Kathleen then launched into great detail about how she would he the only one in the class without a leather miniskirt. I reminded her that my answer was no and explained my reasons.

“Well, I think you’re wrong!” she retorted.

“Wrong or right, I’ve made the decision. The answer is no.”

Kathleen stomped off, but quickly turned on her heels. “I just want to explain why this is so important to me.”

I nodded.

“If I don’t have this miniskirt, I’ll be left out, and all my friends won’t like me.”

“The answer is no, I quietly repeated.

She puffed up like a balloon and played her final card. “I thought you loved me,” she wailed.

“I do. But the answer is still no.”

With that, she “whumped” a noise made only by an angry junior high kid trying to get her way. She ran upstairs and slammed her bedroom door.

Even though I had won the battle, I felt I was losing the war. I went to the living room and sat down. My husband was working late; I was the only parent “on duty.” Then one of those unexplainable things happened: An inner voice said to me,

Hold fast!

It dawned on me that Kathleen and I were not locked in a battle over a miniskirt but rather a battle of wills. A mother versus her 13-year-old daughter. Hold fast meant I needed to prevail even though I couldn’t stop my hands from shaking or my stomach from churning.

The whumping noise from Kathleen’s bedroom started once more, and sure enough, she appeared on the stairwell. This time, she was breathing fire.

“I thought you taught us that we have rights!” she screamed. “You do have rights. The answer is still no.

She wound up again, but I cut her off. “Kathleen, I have made my decision. I will not change my mind, and if you say anotherword about this, you will be severely punished. Now go to bed!”

She still had a few words left, but she held them in check. She loped off to bed, still seething.

I sat on the couch, shaking and upset. None of the children had ever pushed me so far. I leafed through a book, too wound up to go to bed. Just when I thought our skirmishes were over, the sound of whumping came again. Kathleen came down the stairs.

“Well,” she announced, “I’m just going to tell you one more time ‘

I met her at the bottom step, planted my hands on my hips and looked her in the eyes. “Do not answer,” I said. “Do not say yes or no. Do not say anything. Do not say ‘Yes, ma’am’ or ‘No, ma’am.’ Turn around and go to bed. And do not make a single sound!”

She slowly turned and trudged upstairs without a word. I dropped onto the couch, thoroughly exhausted.

For several minutes I stared into space and wondered what my blood pressure count was. Then I heard her door open. Kathleen, her nose and eyes red from crying, walked down the stairs in pajamas. Curlers were in her hair. She held out her hands to me.

“Oh, Mom, I’m sorry.

We hugged as she said through her tears, “I was so scared!” “Scared of what?”

“I was scared that you were going to let me win!” she sniffed.

You were scared that I was going to let you win? I was perplexed for a moment. Then I realized that my daughter had wanted me to win!

I had held fast, and she was convinced I had done what a mother needed to do. Her simple words gave me the reassurance I needed.

Children love their parents, but they cannot handle being equal with them. Deep down, they do not see themselves as grown up. In fact, they will if they can get away with it, bring a parent down to their level, so that all the family seems like a group of kids.

Deep down, teens know they need guidance and leadership. Parents, it’s up to us to give it to them.

Remember: Hold fast!

(Patsy Lovell is a middle school teacher in Hazel Green, Ala; reprint from Focus on the Family, October 1993, p.14; Focus On the Family is a non-profit organization at P.O. Box 35500, Colorado Spring, CO 80935-3550; headed by Dr. James C. Dobson, a Presbyterian and a psychologist.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 19-21
March 17, 1994