Truth Magazine

By Earl R. Gibson

The basic reason we sow is that we might reap. As we plant our gardens each year, we look to the time when we can reap or gather the fruit of our labor. This is a wonderful blessing that God provides for us physically. More importantly though, God provides spiritually a law of sowing and reaping that we are blessed with when we follow him. James says, “Be patient therefore, brethren unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain” (Jas. 5:7). Spiritually, a man is to sow his seed in view of the harvest of the coming of the Lord.

Our purpose in this article is to emphasize that both parents and children have the responsibility of learning the law of sowing and reaping. To do so will bring happiness and meaningful living, the very thing that God so desires for all. The Lord said through the apostle Paul, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). We are to learn from this that we will not be able to change this law of sowing and reaping for the simple fact that God cannot be mocked. What he has set cannot be changed. The word “mocked” is from the Greek word mukterizo and both Thayer and Robinson define it as, “To turn up the nose or sneer at.” This is the only place where the word is used in the Greek New Testament and is used in connection with the thought of man’s responsibility to God, which requires him to answer for his conduct in this life. God has commanded his creatures to follow the proper course, to do that which is spiritual and not that which is dictated by the flesh. He has told man that he will reap the kind of harvest that he has been sowing. Thus, Paul is warning his readers not to be deceived or misled into thinking they can ignore God and avoid the undesirable consequences of an unrighteous life. God will not suffer anyone to “get by” with such an attempt. Therefore, the apostle affirms that you reap what you sow, a truth clearly taught by nature.

The majority of young people today seem to think that they have the right to sow their wild oats. In addition to this, there are even some parents who are encouraging their children to do so by exhibiting an attitude that says, “All young people have to let loose sometime in their lives! ” Can you believe such reasoning in view of the danger that is lurking in the world? Parents, are you not aware of the principle, “For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7)? Paul also wrote, “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). Many young people are quick to indulge in the pleasures of sin which last merely for a season (Heb. 11:25), without thinking of the coming time of reaping. Paul also told the Galatians, “But he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Gal. 6:8). Those who do as the Word of God directs will reap everlasting life, the desired goal of every child of God.

Parents must instill in their children the consequences of their actions before God. To do so is to sow proper seed and reap a satisfied harvest in their children. What follows highlights some vital areas that parents and children must emphasize if they are to learn the lesson of sowing and reaping. Children are great imitators (Ezek. 16:44). They mimic what they see and hear. What if your children were to act like you! Would you be shocked? Suppose they were to talk like you, work like you, or have the same attitude about the church. Would you be pleased? Parents have the responsibility of bringing up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Children need to be loved. There are some parents, unfortunately, who bestow more love on their dogs and cats than they do their children. Paul, as he gave instructions to mothers, said, “Love your children” (Tit. 2:4). Sometimes parents, because of lack of desire or time, substitute monetary things for love. This produces a distorted concept of what love is and sets the child off center in understanding the law of sowing and reaping.

Children need responsibility. Parents must teach their children to accept responsibility while they are still young and at home. “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth” (Lam. 3:27). Learning to work to receive a reward is vital in the home atmosphere that children might learn to prepare for the future in this life and most importantly, the life to come. God will reward us if we work in obedience to him. All children need to learn this lesson.

Children need proper communication. Parents and children must communicate to maintain a proper loving relationship. The main reason the “generation gap” has occurred is because of the lack of good family communication. Television has become a big factor in this communication breakdown. The TV has taken priority, leaving little time for basic family conversation. Instead of listening to one another, the family has substituted the TV. Parents need to control the time the TV is on and what is being watched. The family is indeed fragile and needs close attention at times. Let’s get our family priorities straight! If we don’t have good communication with our children, how are we going to teach them God’s law of sowing and reaping? God expects parents to teach their children his ways. “And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children and shall talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and, when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates” (Deut. 6:7-9). From the days of old until now, God has expected parents to teach their children his ways.

Children need togetherness. If parents desire to raise their children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4), togetherness must be sought after diligently. Many children suffer a severe lack of togetherness with their parents. Nearly as soon as they are born, they are turned over to a baby-sitter or day-care center, to see very little of their parents during those important early years. The daycare often has more to do with shaping personalities than the parents. It is no wonder parents question the cause of the unruly nature of their children. In this day and age there are so many activities for both parents and children. Both are being drawn away from each other because of a mistaken notion that fun and entertainment outside the home will bring lasting happiness. Children need to learn that family time is most precious and brings peace and enjoyment. This becomes a basic lesson of sowing and reaping. Let’s get our priorities straight. Our children’s lives depend on it!

Young people need to awaken to the warning that God is not mocked. Living a faithful life as a Christian requires diligent effort at all times under all circumstances. Living for Christ involves more than just worshiping on Sundays and Wednesdays. Just as God loves us 24 hours a day we should seek to, respond lovingly to him by obeying his commands 24 hours a day. To do so is to sow seed that will reap a harvest of a home in heaven.

Tragically today though, many young people are leaving the Lord’s church and not returning. These young people are Christians with parents who are Christians. Many of them, while in their teens and at home, begin to lose interest in spiritual worship and the work of the church. By the time they are ready to leave home, without being grounded in truth and devoted to Christ, little chance remains for them to be faithful. Many young people are remaining faithful until the time they make a commitment in marriage. Far too many of these are compromising their faith and following their non-Christian mates. They are all sowing the seeds of foolishness to reap a harvest of sorrow.

The obvious fact cannot be denied. We are loosing our children to the world. They are not growing up to be faithful Christians. We need to give special attention to this ever growing problem. Parents and members of the church, must encourage faithfulness by providing proper teaching, example setting, and wholesome activities. Young people need encouragement to attend Bible classes and worship assemblies, learning that such action will reap a reward in heaven. They need to be encouraged to grow spiritually, making Christ and his church first in their lives. Older Christians, including parents, need to help the young by maintaining the principle of sowing and reaping in their own lives. The examples that parents set go a long way in teaching young people faithfulness to the Lord. How young people turn out religiously,often is seen as a great commentary on the parents who reared them.

Young people also need to learn to be good examples to their parents. “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12). Youth is the time to set the patterns of life. “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partakers of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). As Paul spoke to Timothy, a young man, so he speaks to us today. We can’t go out and smoke, dance, drink, use drugs, etc., and still remain pure. If we defile our bodies, the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19), with the things of the world, we sow the seeds that will reap destruction. Let us always keep ourselves pure!

Six things are mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:8 that will enable .is to sow seed of righteousness if we allow our minds to be filled with them. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there by an praise, think on these things.” If our minds are not filled with these positive, spiritual thoughts, it will be impossible to sow the seeds of righteous activity. This verse describes the mind of a Christian. Does it describe your mind?

It will benefit young people if they ask themselves the following question: “Would you go anywhere or do anything that you would be ashamed for your parents to know?” God has given us a sufficient guide in his revelation to identify right and wrong, enabling us to live lives that are happy and right. Paul lists for us adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, etc. as works of the flesh and love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance as fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:19-23). To what we sow our seed of life (flesh or Spirit) will determine what we reap in the end. The apostle John warns us as well in 1 John 2:15-17, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: But he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.”

The lesson of sowing and reaping becomes vital when we realize that the children of today will be the parents of tomorrow and the church of the future. If we can learn the simple lesson of nature (sowing corn seed to reap a harvest of corn), hopefully we will learn that what we fill our hearts with and proceed to do will determine what our future will be. “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of lie” (Prov. 4:23). Following Christ will bring lasting happiness and true harmony between parents and children. The Lord’s way is a grand way to live, a wonderful way to grow old, and a glorious way to die.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 12, pp. 376-377
June 15, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the title above, Bill Jackson recently wrote:

We had earlier written about a December 1988 “unity” meeting, wherein the rankest liberals were somehow selected to represent the rest of us, and did about as much damage as could be done over two days – with effects lasting perhaps for many, many years. A question or two has been asked about the fruitfulness of any such meetings. On that, let me state that prior to any more meetings there needs to be two questions asked of the “non-institutional” side: (1) “Is the church building/meeting house an expediency?” Surely they must say, “Yes.” Question (2): “Do you still make laws in the area of expediency, and bind them upon all brethren – laws, for example, having to do with forbidding eating of food/having a meal on church premises?” Surely they hold positions that would require a “Yes” answer.

Then, what would be the purpose of arranging meetings together, when it is clear that some are making laws for God, and binding them upon all brethren, and have continually done so to the damage of God’s kingdom worldwide? That really has been a barrier since this particular problem arose anew in the early 1950s – men not allowing liberties given by God, and men not allowing each congregation, under its elders, to handle its own affairs.

Bill Jackson is a preacher in Austin, Texas. He, as his first sentence indicates, is identified with the more conservative element of the churches that defend human societies and organizations to do the work God assigned to the churches. He accepts benevolent societies but rejects most missionary societies. He believes churches may build “fellowship halls” (dining rooms, cafeterias) but not “Family Life Centers” (gymnasiums, health clubs, spas).

His first sentence implies that Richard Rogers, Bill Swetmon, Calvin Warpula, the late Reuel Lemmons, Lewis G. Hale, Bill Long, Rubel Shelley, Jimmy Jividen, Mac Lynn and Randy Mayeux are “the rankest liberals,” which, I suppose, qualifies Bill as an unranked liberal. At any rate, I hope one of these “rankest liberals” will challenge brother Jackson for a debate or at least protest his appellation and characterization of them. Rank liberals are generally too nice to confront mainline, mainstream liberals, so Bill probably has nothing to worry about.

It would be interesting to hear Bill Jackson debate the gymnasium issue with either Calvin Warpula, F. Furman Kearley, or Lewis G. Hale (or all three). Reuel Lemmons is dead and cannot debate, and Guy N. Woods might as well be, for he will neither affirm nor deny the Family Life Center’s right to exist in a public debate. And Rubel Shelley would not be caught dead in such a debate. The reason such a debate would be interesting is because Bill espouses “fellowship halls” but divorces “gymnasiums.” I believe brethren Warpula and Hale, would make things a tad uncomfortable for Bill if he ever agreed to attack their gyms in debate.

The first two nights of a debate between Bill and one of “the rankest liberals” on the gym questions might be held in one of Bill’s fellowship halls while the last two nights could be set up in one of Nashville’s gymnasiums. This would certainly focus the issues between Bill and “the rankest liberals.” It would be like having a debate on church support of colleges on the campus of David Lipscomb College! Hey, now there is an idea whose time will never come!

Brother Jackson refers to the “December, 1988 ‘unity’ meeting.” Bill was not there, or he would not have called the Nashville meeting a ‘unity’ meeting.” Bill’s brethren (as has been documented in several reviews of the meeting which have appeared in this paper and in Searching the Scriptures) were hopelessly divided. See the reviews, or ask Roy Lanier, Jr., Stafford North or Johnny Ramsey. They will tell you.

Bill laments the idea that “the rankest liberals were somehow selected to represent the rest of us. ” Bill, “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee?” (Jn. 18:34) Calvin Warpula, Richard Rogers, Lewis G. Hale, Bill Swetmon, Mac Lynn, Randy Mayeux, Stafford North, Johnny Ramsey and Roy Lanier, Jr. will resent such a charge. Ask those brethren if they were “selected to represent” you and your brethren. Bill, where did you obtain such an idea?

“Two Questions”

Before brother Jackson will give his blessing “to any more such meetings,” he says, “there needs to be two questions asked of the ‘non-institutional’ side: (1) ‘Is the church building/meeting house an expediency? (2) ‘Do you still make laws in the area of expediency, and bind them upon all brethren – laws, for example, having to do with forbidding eating of food/having a meal on church premises?

Let us answer Bill’s two questions with two questions (cf. Matt. 21:23f). (Remember, Bill Jackson believes “fellowship halls” are scriptural but gymnasiums are unscriptural.) Suppose, Bill, that you are to have a discussion with F. Furman Kearley, editor of the Gospel Advocate, one of “the rankest liberals,” on the gymnasium “craze,” as you have called it. Suppose brother Kearley, a defender of both “fellowship halls” and gymnasiums, says to you:

Prior to any more meetings with Bill Jackson, there needs to be two questions asked of the “non-gymnasium” side: (1) “Is the church building/meeting house an expediency?” Surely they must say, “Yes.” Question (2): “Do you still make laws in the area of expediency and bind them upon all brethren – laws, for example, having to do with forbidding playing of games/having fun on church premises?” Surely they hold positions that would require a “Yes” answer.

Then what would be the purpose of arranging a meeting together with Bill Jackson and his brethren, when it is clear that they are making laws for God, and binding them upon all brethren, and have continually done so to the damage of God’s kingdom worldwide? That really has been a barrier since this particular problem (opposition to gyms, Family Life Centers) arose anew in the early 1980s – men (like Bill Jackson) not allowing liberties given by God, and men not allowing liberties given by God, and men not allowing each congregation, under its elders, to handle its own affairs.

Brother Jackson, the material above is parallel to your article. How would you answer it? Would you believe that such a statement required an answer before “any more meetings” could be held? Should brother Kearley demand your reply before agreeing “to any more meetings” on the gymnasium question?

Bill, would you say that the authority for a church building is the authority for a gymnasium? Would you say that the authority for a church building is the authority for a “fellowship hall” (a.k.a. dining room, cafeteria)? Is the authority for a church building one thing, while authority for a gymnasium is another? Is the authority for a church building one thing, while authority for a “fellowship hall” is another? Or if the authority for the church building is the authority for the “fellowship hall,” how does authority for a church building justify a “fellowship hall” while denying a gymnasium? Somewhere along the line, there has to be a separation, a distinction made between a meeting house, an eating house and a play house.

As you stated, brother Bill, “damage” was done to your cause in Nashville, and I both rejoice and regret because of it. First, I rejoice because modernism, the fruit of liberalism and institutionalism, was exposed in all of its putridness. For the first time, many saw the results of the “we-do-many-things-for-which-there-is-no-authority” philosophy. The shame and nakedness of the “Where There Is No Pattern” doctrine was laid bare before all. Second, I regret because it existed, because it had to be done. There is no pleasure in refuting error. There is no joy in dealing with sin, apostasy and digression (Phil. 3:8; Psa. 119:53, 136, 158).

Surely, Bill, you can understand my regret. You get no joy in responding to the evolution in Abilene, the I denominational compromise of Herald of Truth, and the gyms in Nashville, do you?

Yes, your cause was damaged, but you and your brethren have sown the wind and you are reaping the whirlwind (Hos. 8:7). You have sown church sponsored recreation and you have reaped ball teams, ball fields and gymnasiums. You have sown “fellowship halls” and you have reaped the Madison church, where the late Ira North preached, near Nashville. You have sown Herald of Truth, wherein one church oversaw a portion of the funds and function of hundreds of churches, and you have reaped Crossroads and Boston. You have sown church sponsored skating parties and “retreats” (hauling the kids in “church vans and busses”) and you have reaped full fledged church camps, complete with cabins, fishing, horseback riding, archery, hiking trails, etc. You have sown church support of benevolent societies and you have reaped church support of colleges.

Now, Bill, I know you deny and decry your progeny, but the things above are not illegitimate (cf. Heb. 12:8) children. The family resemblance is too apparent for you to renounce parenthood. Perhaps you do not see the connection, the correlation that exists, but it is there whether you believe it or not.

The Jews of Jesus’ day built the tombs of the prophets, adorned the graves of the godly and said, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” But Jesus said, “Ye are the children of them which killed the prophets” (Matt. 23:29-31). They did not, yea, would not see themselves as parallel to the earlier apostasies, but they were their offspring nonetheless (Acts 7:51,52).

Likewise, the liberals of the past century only wanted to sow their missionary society, but they reaped instrumental music, preachers called “Reverend,” acceptance (if , not outright observance) of Easter and Christmas, and, finally, the Christian Church denomination. Men like Moses Lard and J.W. McGarvey lived to see their descendants, and they did not like what they saw, but they were the fruits of their digression, of their acceptance of human societies to do the work God gave the churches to do. So, today.

Future Meetings?

Bill, of course, can do what he will concerning future meetings between brethren. That is his choice, his prerogative, as it is of everyone else. Frankly, I hope Bill and his brethren will study with us.

But, further, I propose that he take part in arranging meetings with “the rankest liberals.” Bill Jackson, Dub McClish, Garland Elkins, Tom Warren, Roy Deaver, Noel Meredith, Stafford North, Guy N. Woods, Alan Highers, Roy Lanier, Jr., Johnny Ramsey and others need to conduct (in my judgment) “Nashville type” meetings with Calvin Warpula, Lewis G. Hale, Bill Swetmon, Richard Rogers, Rubel Shelley, Randy Mayeux and others. They need to study the questions of Bible authority, how established, how applied, biblical hermeneutics, the work, worship and organization of the church, individual versus congregational action, church support of colleges and missionary societies, whether or not the New Testament is a pattern, church sponsored recreation and entertainment, the limits (if any) of sponsoring church oversight and control, and other relevant and related topics.

Bill and “the rankest liberals” are surely and sorely divided on these issues. Let them meet, study and reason together. What have they to lose? What have they to fear?

Meanwhile, we stand ready to study with both groups. Truth thrives with open minds and open Bibles. Error flinches and flees, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (Jn. 3:20,21).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, pp. 336-338
June 1, 1989

By Donald P. Ames

For some time now we have been blasting away at the assumptions, guess work, fallacies, and unscientific conclusions of the teachers of the theory of evolution. Thus it is indeed interesting to note that “the scientific world” finally is ready to admit what has been evident to thoughtful observers all along: Evolution is any thing but scientific!

The U.S. News (2-27-89) carried an article on the new scientific view of the origin of man. While some of their conclusions reached are still off-base, it is interesting to note the things revealed about past conclusions. Note the following admission: “For years, scenes from the daily life of our ancient ancestors have been rendered with a dab of science and a bucketful of speculation. Based as much on wishful thinking or intellectual fashion as the scanty fossil evidence left by our ancestors. . . ” (Emp. mine – DPA). Now doesn’t that bolster your confidence to accept the arbitrary and dictatorial conclusions they then try to pass off as a “fact” that is so well established “no reputable scientist would question it” (though thousands deny it)?

But since honest confession is good for the soul, and the evolutionists are finally coming out with an honest confession, let’s note what else they are willing to admit. “Researchers realize that in the past they often reconstructed our ancestors’ lives by starting with assumptions about what early humans ought to be like, then searching for fossil evidence to support those assumptions” (Ibid., Emphasis mine – DPA). Then it wasn’t scientific at all! It was twisted proof(?) interpreted to make it fit their pre-conceived idea of what it “ought” to be! And they then have the audacity to mock those of us who disagree with their conclusions as being “unscientific”? In his tract God or Evolution?, Luther W. Blackmon says, “The late Sir Authur Keith, noted British anthropologist, said, ‘Evolution is unproved and unprovable, and the only reason we accept it is because it is the only alternative to special creation, and that is unthinkable.”‘ Evolutionists have gone all out to try to stop the teaching of special creation as an alternative theory in schools today on the basis it would promote religion and deny scientific investigation. From their own admission, the evolutionary theory is based on fanciful fantasy – not science!

But what new startling things are they finding to cause them to completely turn away from past ideas on evolution? They have finally decided to re-evaluate the things they have found, and instead of creating a complete human being (based on preconceived ideas of what he should look like) from a single tooth (no fooling!), they need to look more closely at the surrounding evidences as well – now that begins to sound scientific to me. And what are the new conclusions they are determining? “The first members of the human race were neither noble savages nor simple primitive versions of ourselves . . . like modern humans, they stood upright and spoke. They had feet that could have danced a waltz and hands with the dexterity to repair a pocket watch” (Ibid.). It wasn’t new evidence – just a more honest evaluation of what they had refused to consider before.

The Bible has nothing to fear from true science! The facts of science are in complete agreement with the Bible statements. The theories of men change almost every century, and it is looking more and more like the theory of evolution has run its course! Who knows, given a little more time, and they may even come to the startling conclusion, “In the beginning, God. . . . “

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 11, p. 338
June 1, 1989

By Everett Hardin

Respect for authority is fundamental in rearing children. It must be the first lesson, for without it nothing worthwhile will ever be instilled in our children. Children who aren’t taught obedience in the home usually have a hard time submitting to authority of any kind. Many parents, failing to recognize this, have absolutely ruined their children. Thus, we see children who run the home, disrupt the school, and take over the Bible class. Later in life, these children are a problem on the job, get into trouble with the law, and are a menace to society. Finally, they lose their souls. Why? Too often the answer is in the fact that their parents never taught the first lesson.

Society is greatly benefitted by due subordination of family life. We are suffering today because of a crop of permissive children who never learned obedience to their parents or superiors. Young people proudly wear their badges of rebellion. They will not conform to society nor subordinate to anything or anybody. The spirit of resentment for any authority is both impractical and unscriptural. You will always have someone over you. There are some rules and regulations you are going to have to respect, and some authority to which you will have to answer. If you don’t learn it in this life and die a renegade, you will most assuredly learn it in the judgment.

The home should be a place where members show respect for parental authority, civil authority, and the law of God. Respect for authority begins in the home, carries over into the school, the city streets, and the church.

Parental Authority

Children must be taught respect for parents. “Children obey your parents in the Lord”; “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Eph. 6:1,2). Children who hear the instruction of fathers and abide in the law of mothers find parents are “fair garlands for their heads” and “pendants about their necks” (Prov. 1:8,9; 6:20). This obedience should flow not only from the feeling of love, gratitude and esteem for their parents, but especially from reverence for the Lord. Obedience is the duty and honor is the disposition of which true obedience is born. This is an obligation that rests on the very nature of things and cannot change with our changing world. It is not enough for children to simply obey in act. Love and reverence should be found in the heart of the child.

We have been living for some time in a child-oriented society which has been profitable to neither children nor parents. The father in many homes today is only a breadwinner, possessed of no say-so in the affairs of his offspring. The mother is a glorified maid and is expected to desist from meddling in the business of her youngsters. The result is this: the young people rule and parents become slaves to their children. Age is demeaned, inexperience is exalted, wisdom is ignored, discipline is ridiculed, and controls scoffed at. Parents sit back afraid to challenge this movement brought about by their own mismanagement. The basic problem is not in the young themselves, but in the misdirection they are receiving.

Parents must establish their authority over the child. Children are to obey their parents “in all things” (Col. 3:20). The father is to rule (Eph. 5:22,33; 6:4). He should establish fundamental rules with which the family lives. Be consistent in your attitudes and expectations. It is irresponsible to allow a child to get by with challenging your authority, whether it be a small child who throws a temper tantrum when told to put up his toys and get ready for bed, or a teenager who says he is going to do something you have forbidden. You have the obligation to God and to the child to check that type of behavior. “He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Prov. 13:24).

The rebellious son of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 was stoned to death because he was incorrigible. Many fit this description today simply because their conduct was seen by parents as being cute, merely a part of a phase, or unworthy of attention. Therefore, in the formative years, rebellion had the stamp of approval. The product of such “rearing” then proceeds through life shaking his first at society, government and God.

In every society parental authority has been accepted as an indispensable prerequisite of social stability. Any tendency that swerves from this principle is a mark of a decadent society (Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:1,2). If responsible citizenship and godliness are not taught in the home, the foundation of society will crumble and disaster will ensue.

Civil Authority

Children must be taught to obey the laws of the land (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-15). Civil government exists as a divine ordinance, and we must recognize this. God doesn’t place every ruler in office or approve each judicial function, but leaders of human society represent the authority of God on earth. Though earthly governments become corrupt and tyrannical, this doesn’t disprove their divine origin.

“Every soul,” every intelligent member of society, is under obligation to obey governmental authority. The Ceasars, who were generally corrupt and evil, were reigning in Rome; yet by inspiration, Paul wrote, “Be subject to the higher powers.” The only exception to this is when authority conflicts with spiritual law (Acts 5:29).

The rebel against civil law is a rebel against divine law. Government is an ordinance of God, and rulers are ministers of God. This business of lawlessness in the name of justice, immorality in the name of individuality, and disobedience in the name of progress is not true to God’s word. To disobey civil law indicates an undisciplined life that leads to vice and dissipation.

The young person who has geared his set of values to approve conduct which is harmful to himself and others is certainly not developing a set of values which will improve his character. By continually accepting such standards and values, he has weakened his conscience and taught himself that it is good to do wrong. More and more he forms habits that connect him with evil and a lack of restraint. Further and further he plunges into the darkness and away from the light. He is gambling with his soul with high odds against him.

Divine Authority

Parents are commanded to “nurture” their children, cause them to grow and develop in the “chastening and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). This is a sadly neglected duty. It brings irreparable and immeasurable injury to children. Parents can commit no greater sin against their children than to fail to lead them to love and obey the Lord.

Instruction from parent to child is not passive, nor transferrable, and is an obligation that cannot be overdone in regard to spiritual matters. The child’s character lies in our hands, as clay in the hand of the potter. As the child is molded and shaped, so will be the adult. We have the power to shape their eternal destiny. The responsibility is often taken too lightly, and we are faced with the national problem of child neglect, abuse, delinquency, moral degeneration and spiritual reprobates. To neglect children is criminal in nature and usually disasterous in results.

Parents must firmly anchor their children in the faith, if they are to stand against social pressures, regarding activities and dress, in this materialistic and sexually-oriented society (2 Cor. 6:14-18). If a parent loves his child’s soul, he will teach the child that he must be different from those around him and must not compromise that difference. Emphasis should not be placed on recreation or material values, but salvation. Children should be taught that life is real, life is earnest, and the grave is not the end (Eccl. 12:1; Rom. 14:12).

Under the Law of Moses parents were instructed to teach incessantly, “And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way and when thou liest down, and when thou riseth up” (Deut. 6:6-7). Notice, first, that these words were to be, not simply in a book, but “in thine heart.” God’s word must dwell in the heart of parents for them to be able to teach them effectively to their children! Secondly, they were to “teach it diligently unto thy children.” They were not to teach them carelessly or indifferently, but they were to teach them with painstaking care.

Youth’s education is not complete without a knowledge of the Bible. With all the knowledge of the world (science, human philosophy, the fine arts, mathematics, history and literature) man, without self-control and submission to God, is only a refined animal. Education is without a true foundation unless based upon a knowledge of God and the principles of the Bible. We must seek to instill in our children a basic knowledge and understanding of God’s will (Prov. 4:5,7), a love for the truth (2 Thess. 2: 10), and an attitude of complete submission to God.

When parents give their children good instruction and, at the same time set a bad example, they could be compared to bringing food in one hand and poison in the other. Such a parent is a hypocrite, and no one will spot the hypocrisy quicker than the child who lives under the same roof. He is practically guaranteeing that his child will one day repudiate him and all he stands for.

Train your children to respect God’s word while they are young. We have them such a short time and the opportunities are limited, and they pass so quickly. Today they are babes in arms, and tomorrow they are gone out to meet the world. Begin while they are in the cradle. The patterns of life are so soon set. We must develop and refine standards of social behavior and a moral value system, so that the child will be able to accept the restraints he will be living under as an adult and, of course, as a Christian.

Conclusion

It’s high time we parents, Christians, and children take a hard look at this whole business of authority and how it affects the welfare of our homes, schools, churches, the nation and our individual lives. Let all of us as parents humbly lift our voices to God, seeking wisdom from above in the rearing of our children.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 12, pp. 355-356
June 15, 1989