What the Anabaptists Believed - Peter Riedemann's Confession of Faith

 

Who were the Anabaptists?

There were two Reformations, not one. 

But one has been forgotten.

The remembered Reformation included figures like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. These were highly educated reformers who God used to restore truth to the church.

But there were another band of Reformers called Anabaptists ("baptise again") who wanted to reform the church much further than the famous reformers.

The famous reformers inherited a massive blindspot which hindered their work and greatly limited their reform. They continued to believe in the union of church and state. They inherited the idea of "Christendom" from their age and could not see that according to the New Testament, church and state should be totally separate.

The consequences of this blindspot were vast. 

First, they used the state to advance their reforms, somehow imagining that Caesar could help Christ! They employed the local magistrates to push through their spiritual reforms. If everyone in the country was a "Christian" including the local magistrates then why not? This blindspot naturally led to the use of persecution towards all those who disagreed with them: imprisonment, torture and even death. By inheriting the connection between church and state they also inherited the violence of that age. Since church and state are one, treason and heresy should be treated alike.

Second, this blindspot resulted in a polluted church. Since not everyone in a local parish was in point of fact a "christian," unbelievers brought their sin and unbelief into the church and the church became a mixed gathering.

Third, the practise of infant baptism continued since infant baptism was the door into which a new human being came into both the church and the state. 

Fourth, the church-state blindspot made the Magisterial Reformers orient towards the Old Testament. When you read their works you often get the impression that they are as much Old Testament men as New Testament teachers! This is a direct consequence of the church-state blindspot for they naturally found enormous parallels between the theocratic organisation of the OT and the "Christian" kingdom they were trying to build.

But all over Europe God was raising up another group of reformers.

They were, by and large, ordinary folks, Peter Riedemann for example was a simple cobbler. They were fishermen we might say. 

They saw further than the famous reformers. They saw that church and state should be separate. They understood that not everyone in the local parish was a Christian, they wanted to return to the New Testament pattern where church and state were separate. They wanted all the benefits that would emerge from that separation - a purer church, adult baptism, loving communities of believers, proper church government and so on.

In the New Testament there is no connection between Church and Babylon. It is most common and most likely for the state to persecute the church, not to support it. This proper separation was part of the Anabaptist vision.

The Limmat River, Zurich

On January 5, 1527, Felix Manz was dragged by the executioner into the ice-cold Limmat, the river which runs through Zwingli's Zurich. He was one of the first Anabaptists to be killed by the state for believing that only professing believers should be baptised. 

(It was not until 2004 that the Zurich council put up a plaque to acknowledge the city's past and honour the martyrs.)

This is how the Anabaptists were treated by both the Catholics and the famous Reformers, sad it is to report.

For centuries this side of the 1500s Reformation was forgotten. 

Why? 

Because the big-name Reformers sadly speak evil of them (and there was, to be fair, a radical, unworthy and unruly element who sided with the Anabaptists and muddied the waters). John Calvin, for example, constantly rubbishes the Anabaptists in his Institutes. 

Forgotten, because they were the persecuted underdogs. 

Forgotten, because they were not among the scholars or the influential of that age. 

Thankfully, however, the Plough Publishing House has been printing major works of these noble Christians and so, rather than relying on the biased opinions of the famous Reformers, we can read what these Christians actually believed themselves.

Plough Publishing House Anabaptist Books

If you want to learn more about these noble Christians I suggest you start with Peter Riedemann's Confession of Faith.

Magisterial vs Radical Reformers

If these two branches of reform had worked together the outcome might have been a far greater and truer reformation of the church. 

The Magisterial Reformers (MRs) such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, brought clarity and truth to the table. The Anabaptist Reformers (ARs) brought heart and life to the table. 

We who live at a distance of 500 years from the Reformation will be profoundly limited if all we read or esteem are the MRs. Our Christianity will tend to be all head and no heart. 

For many years all I read were the MRs. I did not even know there was such a group as the ARs. But as I have gained a more balanced view of what God was actually doing in the 1500s, I have come to value the simple down-to-earth and persecuted Christianity of the Anabaptists.

And now thanks to Plough, we can all read them for themselves, rather than hear about them through the distorted lenses of the otherwise noble Calvin, Luther and Zwingli. 

Or you could start with this simple introduction from Fisherman's Press:

LOST REFORMERS - the Story of the Anabaptists

What is an Evangelical? A Review of "Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women" by Lucy Peppiatt

 

It's time to finish with the word "evangelical"

Years ago, many Bible-believing Christians gave up using the word "evangelical" because it was associated with an over-triumphalistic "happy-clappy" Christianity. Today we must abandon the use of the word evangelical for another reason: it is being used by liberals who do not quite want to lose - for some strange reason -  their connection with orthodox biblical Christianity and so insist on calling themselves evangelicals.

Bible Christians - a little clumsy perhaps - may be a better title for us to use now on in.

This book, a prime example

 

Peppiatt's book is a prime example of this new kind of liberal "evangelicalism" - which in truth is just old fashioned liberalism dressed up with a veneer of evangelical orthodoxy. On the one hand wanting to praise a Bible-believing Christian like Timothy Keller, but on the other hand arguing in exactly the same old way that liberals have always argued.

 

A liberal is someone who thinks just like the present world thinks, who takes his or her morality or ethics or philosophy from the world around them. And then, where the Bible disagrees with the world, either denies the Bible or seeks to re-interpret it to fit the present reigning ethics and philosophies of this passing age.  

 

Instead of starting with the Bible, liberals start with the world. 

If ever a book was misnamed...

If ever a book was misnamed it is this one. 

The contents are anything but a rediscovery of Scripture's vision for women. Instead the book is an excercise is obscuring, hiding and burying what the Scriptures so plainly teach, by hills (easily cleared away; not mountains) of pseudo-scholarly jargon. 

Peppiatt tries to show that Christian men and women are equal in the sense that they can both serve in exactly the same way and in the same offices in church and family. Apart from physiology, men and women are therefore identical creatures. 

She attempts this conjuring trick by taking the Bible verses and passages that, on the surface, plainly teach exactly the opposite and then after designating them “disputed texts” attempts to give them a “fresh perspective.” 

On the one hand, Peppiatt has good things to say. She points out the many ways God is described as possessing female attributes (p.20) and reminds the reader of the many women who served the Lord in the Scriptures. 

But on the other hand the book is deeply flawed in every other way. In no particular order...

 #1  Biblical Christians don't assume that to lead or have authority is something more desirable than to serve 

The supposition running throughout this book is that to “lead” or “have authority” over someone else is a desirable thing and those who have it are somehow on top and to be envied. 

Men (apparently) have these things and Peppiatt wants women to possess them too. So she complains about hierarchies that place “men permanently at the top of the structure by virtue of being men, and women below them by virtue of being women.” (p.7). But this, one of the underlying assumptions of the book, runs contrary to Scripture and to a Christ-like attitude. 

In the Scriptures, it is servanthood that is extolled, not bossing people about. We should be seeking servanthood more than leadership, for it is the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5) and “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” (Matthew 20:26)  

Peppiatt has simply adopted the unbiblical secular assumption - that the powerful are at the top and this aboveness is something desirable - instead of viewing everything from the Bible's point of view. The Gospel is about a crucified Saviour who surrenders power and authority and becomes a servant to accomplish God's purposes.

 #2  Biblical Christians don't assume that the findings of all scholars are valid

Peppiatt quotes from scholars without enough discrimination. The assumption is that if someone is a scholar, his or her work is to be trusted. "Of course, they know their stuff!" (This is a much bigger issue in Peppiatt's thinking: you get the impression that the church is sub-section of the academy and should function much like that sort of institution in the way it trains and arrives at truth).

Two problems with this approach are, first, that our universities are filled with unbelieving scholars. It does not follow that a “biblical scholar” is a Christian scholar. (I personally sat under Biblical scholars who would not have regarded themselves as Christians). 

Secondly, truth is not found in the academy but in the church, which is called the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Truth can only be discovered by church teachers who share truth in the living church of Christ; truth cannot be found in a university research department. 

Strangely, Peppiatt’s wide acceptance of scholarship does not extend to well-known evangelical Christian scholars like Sharon James or Rosaria Butterfield.

 #3  Biblical Christians believe that doctrine comes from within Scripture

Peppiatt is an advocate of what we might call trajectory theology. What really matters according to trajectory theology is the general direction Scripture seems to be taking (according to some human judgement.) So, for example, if we can discern that Scripture is running from a more patriarchal view to a more emancipatory view over its course from OT to NT (or even within the NT) we can extrapolate what God’s will might be after the canon closed.  

So, for example, if we discern that the NT (AD 100) is starting to give women some of the roles men have, we can be sure that by now (AD 2000), God wants women to be able to do everything a man is called to do. This methodology is dangerous for two reasons. 

First, because it would surely be possible to project any desired destination back into Scripture by finding a verse here or there that supposedly contained the seeds of that desired destination: the process is far too subjective. 

Second, it means that the Scriptures themselves are no longer the final source of authority – indeed, with trajectory theology we can openly reject passages that disagree with the supposed terminus as irrelevant relics of an earlier part of the upward curve! 

Classical orthodox and evangelical hermeneutics, by contrast, revived by the Reformation, teaches that every doctrine must be proven from within the Scriptures, Sola Scriptura.

#4  Biblical Christians distinguish between hierarchy and order

This, I regard as the greatest error of the book. Peppiatt fails to understand the universe of difference between hierarchy and order.

The Gospel of John, more clearly than any other book, perhaps, shows that there can be order without the hint of hierarchy, and this is taught through the intratrinitarian relationship between God the Father and God the Son. John’s Gospel reveals that the Son of God who is in every way equal in divinity and glory to the Father, is in constant submission to him, summarised in 6:38, “For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.” 

Here is the supreme example of two Co-equal Persons in loving union with each other, the one, however, in loving submission to the other. The Scriptures never teach a hierarchy between men and women, but they do teach an order and the relationships in the Godhead are the greatest illustration of this order. The Father sends the Son, but the Son does not send the Father. The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit never sends the Son or the Father. 

Order is found in God's great salvation project. Father plans salvation, the Son accomplishes salvation, the Spirit applies salvation. The three divine Persons all have different roles, and some of those roles could be called subservient – the Son obeys the Father, the Spirit obeys both the Father and the Son. But there is no hint of hierarchy in the Godhead. 

Peppiatt assumes that if one person lovingly and willingly submits to another, they are below them in a hierarchal system. The Son of God turned that worldly thinking on its head and demonstrated that his obedience to the Father, coming into the world not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many, did not flow out of an hierarchal relationship of unequals, but out of an ordered relationship of loving equals. 

In the same way, it is possible for a husband and wife, co-equal in worth, salvation, value and being, to be in a non-hierarchal relationship of order in which, as Paul teaches in Ephesians 5, the wife submits to her loving and sacrificial husband.

 #5  Biblical Christians speak respectfully about God's Holy Word

Time and time again Peppiatt writes most disrespectfully of Holy Scripture. She complains that in the Bible “encounter androcentric and patricentrism everywhere.” (p.10) And concerning the Gospels, “We find in these narratives the most glaringly obvious androcentrism and patricentrism.” (p.23)  

No Bible Christian slanders God's Word like this. 

 #6  Biblical Christians are not "hierarchilists"

Time and again, Peppiatt misrepresents her opponents’ viewpoint by calling them “hierarchilists”. Peppiatt therefore sets up an odious “straw man.” She terms all those who take the view that while men and women are equal in salvation, dignity, and value there is an order between them, as “hierarchicalists,” an epitaph whose effect can only be to denigrate their point of view. 

I have personally never met a Christian who regards the husband as above the wife and found the attribution “hierarchilist” insulting. She avoids the term Biblical Christians opponents prefer to use, which is “complementarian.” We believe that men and women, while equal in dignity and value, nevertheless are designed by God with wonderful differences which compliment each other.   

 #7  Biblical Christians believe in the clarity, the "perspecuity" of Scripture

The main exegetical tactic Peppiatt employs in this book is to make out that the interpretation of plain texts which teach the historical orthodox view is so problematic that the reader (hopefully) comes away thinking, “I can see why there are so many different views and why there can’t be a single coherent one.” 

She wants the reader to conclude that certain texts can be read in “different even opposing ways.” (p.44). “One of the most complex and complicating factors in this discussion is that God chose to reveal himself to the world through a man.” (p.15) 

Of course, unwittingly, this strategy undermines her own view as well: why should we accept her findings if the texts themselves are so confusing? 

And against the idea that the Bible is baffling stands the long-held doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, that the Scriptures are clear, not least because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

#8  Biblical Christians do not believe that "new knowledge" can change the interpretation of Scripture

In line with many revisionist attempts taking place today (gender, sexuality), Peppiatt believes there is “knowledge that is now available” (p. 2) that wasn’t available in the past, and this new knowledge forces us to interpret Scripture in new ways. 

The "household codes", for example  (Ephesians 5 and 6), we now know were widely used in first century society and so we can discount them as the relics of a bygone age, not relevant for establishing principles for relationhips in our modern society today.  

But the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures is divine and has always known all things. New findings (new to tiny humans, that is) cannot trump Omniscience.

#9  Biblical Christians glory in God's unique gifts to women

This is perhaps the saddest aspect of a book written by a woman. All the wonderful and unique gifts that God has bequeathed to women are largely ignored in the crazed pursuit of gifts regarded as far more important - such as leadership, authority and power.

Women alone can bring children into the world. With their unique gifts they can nourish and shape the characters of little ones in the early years of their lives, for example. 

Why did Moses know who he was when he grew up? Because his mother nursed him and instilled in him a knowledge of God and his people by the time he was weaned. What a mighty leader came from Jochebed! 

And Mary! And Susanna Wesley! And…!  This book diminishes women by ignoring these high, noble and totally unique God-given gifts.

An Jude-an book

I could not help thinking of the book of Jude when making my way through Peppiatt's pages. Jude warns the church about folks who will smuggle error into the church. 

Don't be led astray into thinking this book contains truth.

If the attack on truth in the first few centuries was Christology (the divinity of Christ, Athanasius), and in the Middle Ages, Soteriology (Justification by faith alone, Luther), the attack on the church today is Anthropology (what is Mankind?) 

And this book, in my opinion, is tragically part of that attack.   

A far more reliable guide on these matters is “God’s Design for Women” by Sharon James, below: 

Hierarchy vs Order - Understanding a Crucial Christian Doctrine

Photo by Cesar Carlevarino Aragon on Unsplash

The Problem

The moment the world hears these words...

"Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife..." (Ephesians 5:22-23a)

...or these words:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man...for Adam was formed first, then Eve...." (1 Timothy 2:12)

...it reads hierarchy. The world thinks, "since the man is the head of the wife, he must be superior and since a woman cannot teach a man, she must be inferior to man."

The world reads these verses as implying a hierarchy in both marriage and in the church between men and women.

And of course in a world hyper-sensitive to isms of every shade and colour, it thinks the worst and cries foul.

The tyranny of Hierarchy

But this is a profound misunderstanding. Between human beings God recognises no hierarchies. All humans are made in the image of God equally, whatever their age, race, religion or wretchedness. The Queen of England, noble regent for 70 years, is not one whit "above" or more valuable than the worst inmate of Wakefield prison.

Hierarchy, the idea that one person is above another, is a human invention that originated with Satan himself. One day Lucifer a created angel, decided to rise above his fellow angelic creatures, "I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." (Isaiah 14:14) and in that instant the idea of sinful hierarchy was invented. Hierarchy is the notion that there are two tiers where God has ordained one. Satan thought that he would rise above his ordinary fellow-creatured angelic beings and become some kind of super-angel (one even as high as God himself!). 

Hierarchy is one of pride's many children. 

In the history of the world, hierarchy always leads to tyranny. If one believes there is a race, for example the Aryan race, that is somehow above or greater than all the other races of the world, Hitler's Third tyrannical Reich is the natural outcome. If one believes white skin is better than black skin, slavery or tyrannical Apartheid is the natural outcome. 

All notions of hierarchy naturally lead, if left unchecked, to tyranny. Why? Because no human being can be entrusted with the power which puts one person above another. No-one at all.

In the church there should be no hierarchy at all, but there have been many examples of it in history, perhaps the most notable being episcopy (from the Greek word for bishop episkopos). Episcopy teaches that bishops are above normal pastors. This error arose with remarkable rapidity in the early church and taught that in every city, there was one church and one pastor, the bishop, who was above all the others. Either by virtue of the size of his congregation or the quality of his education, he and his congregation were above all the others. 

The rapid rise of episcopy is a salient reminder how easily the church adopts the thinking of the world and how engrained is the notion of hierarchy.

And, as in every other form of hierarchy, episcopy resulted in oppression and abuse; and one false hierarchy led to another until we ended up with the ludicrous scenario of a top bishop, namely the pope.

I wish I could say there were no hierarchal structures in the evangelical church, but tragically we are also beset with notions of hierarchy. We establish big-shots in the evangelical church whose words and books are regarded as the truth on a pedestal. We find hierarchal structures in organisations which guard insiders and preclude outsiders above the rest (often resulting in a catastrophic fall). 

Any hint that one true Christian is any way above another true believer, any hint that one true church is above another is worldy thinking.

God is a God of Order

Over and against the tyranny of hierarchy is the beauty of order. Order arises in the Godhead where Three Divine Persons, equal in glory and divinity live harmoniously without a hint of hierarchy but instead dwell in order.

The Father plans salvation and sends the Son. The Son accomplishes salvation and the Holy Spirit applies salvation. 

The Father is the first Person, but the Son and the Holy Spirit never complain. The Son is the Second Person, but the Father never lords it over him, and the Spirit never grumbles about it. The Holy Spirit is happy to be the third Person but the Father and Son never rule over him.

Within the ordered Godhead there is loving submission. The Son obeyed the Father's will, and the Holy Spirit obeyed the sending of the Father and Son. So there can be willing and loving submission within ordered, completetly non-hierarchical relationships!

The beauty of Order

Everywhere in God's created material universe we observe order. One example will have to suffice. Plants provide the basis for animal and human life, for example. Plants are not "above" animals, but they do serve animals. The Laws of nature function at three different scales, as another example. At the very small, forces, such as the strong force and the electro-weak force dominate. At the super large gravity dominates. We are fortunate to live in middle earth at dimensions where the quantum effects of the tiny world and the gravitational effects of the big world don't dominate.

In the world of human relationships, God has created order, not hierarchy. Citizens are called to obey their rulers - no hierarchy but there is order. Children are to obey their parents - no hierarchy but there is order. Church members are called to follow their leaders - no hierarchy but there is order.

In the church there is order. Men are to lead the flock and preach to the flock - no hierarchy just order. God created men first and women next. Order, not hierarchy. And women are to submit to their husbands in marriage because God has appointed men to be the head- no hierarchy but order.

The beautiful word "submission"

Submission in Christian thinking is a two step process. First I must recognise the place where God has put me. Am I a husband or a wife? An elder or a member? A man or a woman? A king or a citizen? A parent or a child? Then I must respond and order myself in that relationship accordingly. I must line my behaviour up with God's appointed design.

So a godly wife will recognise that God has given her husband the role of headship, and she will work out what that means - what it is to submit to him. A Christian citizen will recognise that God has placed the authorities in their place and will seek to pay their taxes and follow the laws of the land. 

(Of course in all of this, God's commands always trump illegitimate human demands: a king who asks his citizens not to preach the Gospel can be disobeyed, a husband who expects his wife to engage in immorality can refuse, and so on). 

And we must remember that to those who are given leadership and headship, God expects an equal understanding of their role to love and protect those who are called to submit to them. 

And layered on top of all ordered submission in the church is the command of Paul for every believer to be submissive to every other believer  (Ephesians 5:21), a direct fruit of being filled with the Holy Spirit.

The example of Submission

In one relationship or another, every single Christian is called to be submissive. And no greater example is laid before us than that of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus recognised the social order God had ordained fro him. At the age of twelve he submitted to his parents. In his ministry he submitted to the religious authorities and paid the temple taxes. He submitted to his disciples washing their feet. He recognised the order of state and citizen and submitted to Rome's soldiers when they arrested him. And above all he submitted himself to the Father's will and through his death brought life to all who will believe.

Is "submission" a weak thing? Not at all! It is a powerful strong thing which produces peace and shalom in marriages, homes, churches and nations.

And it arises out of both an understanding of God's ordered world of social relationships and an obedience to them.

Parenting Teenagers - Observations and Tips

 Photo by Jed Villejo on Unsplash

Last week my youngest son turned twenty and thereby moved out of teen-age, marking the end of a 17 year journey my wife and I have been on, parenting teenagers. 

I wish I could say that the wisdom we have gained parenting teens was proportional to the the length of the journey, but that's most probably not the case. However, the Lord has taught us lessons which may be helpful to others starting out on the same journey.

Here are some observations and perhaps a few tips....

Everything Changes

Children drift from childhood into teenage years differently. Some glide gently into that bright future but other move into the season dramatically and digitally - from Zero to Bit One in the blink of an eye.

One of our sons was an easy-going delightful child one day and a non-communicative "blob that grunts" the next. It was as if a chemical switch on his back had been flipped. Even relatives commented on his sudden abruptness-approaching-rudeness.

It's a shock to parents who wonder what has hit them, but we must remember that the changes are just as much a surprise for our juveniles.

For example, I always enjoyed "rough and tumble" fights with my lads. When one of them had just turned teen he was hurting me in one of these play fights. I shouted "stop!"  He was not intending to hurt me (or so he still insists!), he was just completely unaware of his newly-acquired strength.

So if your child wakes up a different person one day, don't panic.

A New Distance

Along with this change may come a new distancing. A teenager is likely to pull away from mum or dad or both. This is almost certain to be true affections-wise. They no longer want the cuddles they once enjoyed.

This came home to me one day when I sat down on one of my son's beds to give him a cuddle - up until then, a normal part of our father-son relationship. But on  this particular day he exclaimed "yuk!" and I knew that that physical affection was now over (at least for the time being). 

Don't take this new distancing personally even though it may be painful. (And in later years they may come back to you cuddle you - but on their terms). 

Reasons, reasons and reasons

The single greatest change in parenting required of us from the child to teen stage is the need to give reasons for everything. You can no longer simply expect "because I say so" obedience, you must now more fully explain the reasons for your commands. 

Why should your teen put her phone on charge in your bedroom or in the kitchen over night? There are many good reasons for a teenager not being online all night long and it is your task to explain them patiently to her.

But remember, while all kids are watching their parents, this is especially true of teens. 

If you yourself are on the phone all night long, well don't you dare say a peep to your teen.

The Questioning Years

That precious little child of yours has now become a mini-adult. And as such they will begin to question everything you have taught them to believe. That's no bad thing, for nothing is worse than a dead second-hand faith. Don't grow weary of explaining afresh to them the reasons for the hope within you. It will challenge you to be 'up-to-date' and living in your own faith.

 Love is spelt T.I.M.E.

If I could press replay on the last 17 years, I may have spent more time with my teens. There is a balance here. Some families - particularly in our era of parental indulgence - spend all their spare time with their kids forgetting the lost world on their doorstep and the outsider within their own church fellowships. 

We are called to love the stranger, not just our own kith and kin. And that outward-looking example does our kids a world of good.

On the other hand it is possible for sincere believers to be comsumed with their careers or ministries and thereby neglect their kids. 

Teens still need us. It's just they don't know it or sometimes can't express it. (They will need us not only during their teens but during their twenties too, and likely far beyond.)

Keep Communicating

However difficult, however intermittent, keep the conversation going.

Sometimes a mother will connect better with one teen and a father better with another. Don't let this preferential division of communication offend or bother you. Treasure it and take full advantage of it. 

Now that they are teens, though, connecting with them means entering their world. Find an activity they enjoy and spend time doing it. Not what you like, but what they like.  

Food almost always works.

Prepare for Teenage Years

There is no better preparation for the teenage years than the pre-teen years, because there is little you can do once hormones hit the family (except to manage the pandemonium.)

One Scottish pastor made this observation after many years in ministry: no teen in his congregation was lost to the Gospel whose parents had taught them diligently and regularly in the pre-teen years. He wasn't boasting, he was declaring a truth that every parent knows: the chief years of influence are zero to twelve. What you teach them, the example you set them in those years is, by God's grace, what will carry in the years ahead. 

Teach little ones the Scriptures day by day. Pray with them. Be totally committed to corporate worship come what may. Never allow any sport or activity to distract you from meeting with God's people on the Lord's day. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and strength.

Give Them Rope and Let them Go

The primary purpose of parenting, as I understand it, is to get to the point where, having been prepared and equipped, we can let our children stand on their own two feet. 

A parent who guilt-wires a child to keep hold of their apron strings forever is bound to lose them one day.

We can best help  them make the transition to adulthood by giving them more and more rope as the years go by. Yes, they will sometimes trip themselves up on it in the great learning curves of life. But if we are fearful of them making mistakes, if we over-protect them from the smaller hard knocks of life, they are likely to make far bigger mistakes when they bound out of our homes and lives in one big gigantic leap.

There is something genius about the prodigal's father which every parent needs to learn. The youngest son, let's think of him as the head-strong teenager, makes some pretty daft decisions, upsticks and leaves home, upsetting everyone in the turbulent wake, no doubt.

But what does father do? Run after him? Tweet a word of condemnation every time he hears of his son's latest daft mistake? No! He stays at home, lets the son go and waits patiently. We know he is longing for the day of homecoming because we read "when he was a long way off his father saw him." What does that tell us? That the father was scanning the horizon every day longing for the sight of a disheveled figure with that distinctive gait.

Let them go without nagging rebukes and when they are in trouble they are likely to remember the unique unconditional love of their parental home. If you chastise them on their rebellious way out don't expect them to return, for who wants to come home to a nag?

Pray and Love 

When they finally leave, remember them often in your prayers and continue to love them whatever the future brings. Unconditional love is how our Father loves us and it's how we should love our kids. 

Unconditional love does not mean doing their every bidding, however. Jesus is never caught up in the swirl of chaos and sin of those he loves. It is possible for a parent of a particularly wayward child to become impoverished and destroyed by entering the chaos of their child's reckless living. How can such ruined parents be of any help? 

The most loving thing to do is sometimes to detach oneself practically, while continuing to offer words -and prayers - of support and love.

It will All Pass

One wit has observed: "When I was seventeen I thought my parents were ignorant. When I turned 21 I was amazed at how much they had learnt in four short years!"

I can think of no bigger mistake a parent can make than to be impatient about all the changes facing a teen. And to want to fix every chaotic thing. Quickly. To label the child, to psycho-babble the child.

Let time pass. 

Remember my digital son? One day the most affable child you could meet, the next day a grumpysouras?

Today he is one of the most thoughtful young men you could meet (I speak of course as the most biased parent on the planet; but on the other hand folks outside the family have said similar things). 

Suppose I had taken him off to a psychologist (heaven forbid!) who wanting my cash might have diagnosed him with half a dozen mental ailments and 'counselled' him thus? That for sure would have messed him up. 

Just wait and allow time and patience and love and prayer to do its quiet work.

The last chapter hasn't been written

Most of God's promises do not come with time stamps. And that is true of this most precious one: 

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Prov. 22:6.)

Many faithful parents pass through painful years waiting for the prodigal to come home, waiting for the child to return to straight paths. 

Holding on to God's promises requires faith. And faith is best expressed through prayer. We can take the promises of God and pray them, "Lord we tried our best to bring up our children in your ways, please fulfill your promise to us."

And don't forget that if we are teaching our kids up to the age of 12, God often uses them to teach us from the age of 13 upward. Perhaps that's why his time-scales are so so different from ours. 

My (our) Story

I was brought up, one of six kids, in a Christian home by parents who were "sold out for Jesus." Every day while we were growing up dad led family devotions after breakfast and before bed. When I turned into a teenager I rebelled, most of it in secret. I lived a double life. At home a good boy, but off with my school friends smoking and drinking (not drunkeness because fortunately I hated the taste of alcohol!)

Not a big rebellion. And I am pretty sure not as secret as I thought. My mother had more than five senses and I am sure she was aware of (almost) everything. 

But she said nothing. To me. 

I am sure she said alot. To God.

Here's the thing. During those 5-7 wayward years, in the homes and pubs and discos of my unbelieving friends, what kept me? The Lord kept me, you say. True. 

But in my own mind what kept me?

I knew that what my parents believed was real. While I may have been able to outthink or outwit them, I knew that they outlived every unbeliever I came in contact with. How empty were the lives of the world compared to the rich and meaningful lives of my godly parents!

And that, Christian parent, apart from the Gospel, is the greatest gift you can give your child. A walk with the Lord that is real and sincere. A life that is loving and sacrifical and servant-hearted. A faith that perseveres through deep trials.

All five of my brothers and sisters follow Jesus today, which makes it, by God's grace, six out of six.

We've had our ups and downs to be sure, but God's promise, in his good time, has been fulfilled.