Today's post is by guest writer Joanne Beckley.

Submission is a gift. A husband can have no greater help or hindrance than what his wife gives or withholds from him. It was once said, “The woman is the guardian of love; the man is the guardian of authority.” It takes all the strength, intelligence, and imagination and love that a woman has to be a helper suitable for her husband. OR, she can be like a gold ring in a swine’s snout (Prov.11:22), without discretion and of no value to her husband.
 
Do your recognize yourself in any of the following actions toward your husband? What are you going to do about it? Do you . . .
Disguise belittling with humor
Complain to a friend
Use long silences to punish
Mentally rehearse his faults
Take matters into your own hands
Argue to force the “right” decision
Become irritated or impatient
Use sex as a weapon of leverage
Go on a shopping spree
Call Momma
Use tears to intimidate
Pretend to be sick to manipulate
Use compliments to get whatever
Criticize decisions made
Dominate the conversation
Say, “I told you so.”
Yell or throw things
Correct minute details in his stories to belittle him
Preach/ harangue
Each of these actions represents domination – and we may not have realized it at the time. Submission is not present – nor is a meek and quiet spirit! A contentious wife can literally undermine her husband’s health. She saps his emotional strength, undermines his ambition, and destroys his chance to lead his home as God wants of him.
 
We wives have choices. Our husbands cannot make them for us. By marrying, every husband has gambled and placed his emotional welfare and his manhood in the hands of his wife. What shall we be to our husbands? a crown? or rottenness to his bones? (Prov.12:4)
 
John Clark, in his series on Marriage, likes to compare marriage to a triangle which requires pushing out toward each named corner – conscientiousness, consistency and constancy. Marriage cannot please God when its greatest killer, selfishness, is present. Two empty containers cannot fill one another. Fill one and then share with the other until both are filled.
 
We need to discuss the abused wife. Who is she? Does she have a scriptural right to leave her husband when adultery is not present? The husband, who loved her so much and treated her like a queen before marriage, may begin to physically abuse or to play a verbal “cutting” game to see how much he can make her bleed. Both are condemned by God (Eph.5:28-29 specifically).
 
Submission to such a man is exceedingly difficult. God has given her tools to work with:
a.    A meek (remember the definition?) and quiet spirit, which includes a quiet self-respect because she knows she is following God,
b.    The confidence in the great value God places on her,
c.    Brothers and sisters in Christ to encourage her, and
d.    Elders in the church to discipline a sinful brother. BUT,
e.    She must be willing to seek help! Denial and silence are Satan’s tools.
 
Questions that need to be answered:
1.    At what point should a wife no longer “protect” their marital privacy?
2.    Could battering in some cases be prevented if a wife humbly addresses all sin in her marriage (Mt.18:15-17) and seeks help quickly to solve marital problems before serious abuse develops?
3.    Do wives have the right to use civil law, (battery is a felony), an avenue God has provided for mankind? Does 1 Cor.6:1-4 come into play here?
4.    Does Christ ever ask us to support another in his sin? Is she doing this by remaining in a situation, (e.g. the home), where he feels free to abuse her?
5.    What principles does a wife need to consider, if her husband is also abusing the children?
6.    Can an abused wife leave her husband?  
7.    When life is threatened, do other principles of God come into play? Consider Mark 3:4; Gen.9:5,6; Luke 14:26-27 in light of this question.
 
In working through these thorny issues, consider Jesus and how He dealt with persecution. These are some of the principles we as wives need to consider: The treatment He received did not determine Christ’s reaction. God was always present in every action. Christ was never alone. The ultimate goal was worth the cost.
 
I cannot answer for a battered wife’s convictions. SHE will make her choices and stand by them. May God bless her in her decisions to do what is right. She is an incredibly courageous woman. The rest of us? We must reach out to the victim and believe her. Love shares pain and love supports her search for what is best in the sight of God.
 
A strong reminder: Culture in itself cannot influence a couple’s marriage in a harmful way without their consent. It is how one responds to cultural pressures that determines whether the marriage is harmed or strengthened. Likewise, the congregation where you attend cannot influence you as a couple without your consent. Decisions among brethren are being made today that are affecting marriages.
 
Marriage is the ONLY way God has provided to fulfill a person’s need for deep companionship. Rejoice in your marriage!
 
“Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (2 Pet.3:18).
 
Joanne Beckley

If you really want to hurt a woman, hurt her children.  If you think no one would do such a thing, you haven’t been to as many places as I have nor lived as long. 
            I have seen grandmothers pass their favoritism on to the next generation.  If one child is not particularly liked, then his children won’t be either.
            I have seen grandmothers show that favoritism in gifts, in words, and most shameful of all, in hugs.  I have seen grandchildren pitted against one another, one side always believed over the other, regardless of evidence.  I have seen grandchildren used to create tension between their parents, either siblings of one another, or spouses.
            Children should be sacred ground when it comes to family squabbles.  You never hurt a child, regardless whose he is.  If there is something unnatural about a mother hurting her own child, there is something just plain loathsome about a grandmother doing it.  Isn’t that why the story of Athaliah, the wicked queen who had all her grandchildren killed to secure her own reign, horrifies us?  Women like that deserve the worst of punishments, and God made sure Athaliah got hers.
            Then there is the matter of “blood.”  I have seen blood grandchildren obviously favored over adopted.  I have seen step-grandchildren totally ignored.  A child cannot help where he came from.  If he has been specially chosen to be in the family, he should be treated as family as much as any other child—he IS family.
            Naomi is the perfect example.  Ruth was her daughter-in-law, not her daughter.  Boaz may have been a distant relative, but he was not her son.  Yet how did she accept their child?  So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son…Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse, Ruth 4:13,16.  According to Keil, “became his nurse” is tantamount to adopting him as her own son, not just her grandson.  Could she have made her love and acceptance of this child any clearer?
            Surely a grandmother should not need to be told to love her grandchildren.  Even if there is some legitimate reason for an estrangement with their parents, do not take it out on the children.  It is not their fault how their parents act.  The list of pagan sins in Romans 1:28-32 includes “without natural affection” in the KJV and ASV.  That is translated “heartless” in the ESV.  Only a heartless grandmother refuses her grandchildren.  Only a heartless mother-in-law does it to retaliate against a daughter- or son-in-law she doesn't like. 
            Naomi’s love and acceptance of Ruth in all the ways we have discussed made for a relationship that has transcended the ages.  Ruth returned that love with her own genuine affection, with acceptance, and with the physical care every older parent has a right to expect.  Naomi and Ruth were not physically related in any way at all, but they treated one another as if they were, in fact, better than some blood relatives treat one another.  This is the way it is supposed to work.  May we all work harder to make it happen in our own homes.
 
So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in unto her, and Jehovah gave her conception, and she bare a son. And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be Jehovah, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman; and let his name be famous in Israel. And he shall be unto you a restorer of life, and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him, Ruth 4:13-15
 
Dene Ward
 

Is there anything more ticklish than the subject of advice between the older and younger generations?  Yet the Bible clearly teaches that older women are “to train the young women,” Titus 2:4, among many other passages.  So why is giving advice such a source of friction?  Naomi gave an awful lot of advice that was well-accepted.  Maybe we can learn a thing or two from her.
            In the first place, we don’t see much advice given in the book of Ruth until the two women return to Israel.  This was a brand new experience, a brand new culture with a new set of traditions for Ruth, and Naomi knew it.  So did Ruth.  She had no familiarity with the gleaning system of “welfare” practiced by the Hebrews.  Even though it reads as if she were the one to suggest her gleaning, she would not have known the laws unless Naomi had previously taught her.  And so Naomi likely told her, “This is how it’s done,” and she listened because she knew she needed it to get along in her new environment.
            Do you give advice when you have a different way of doing ordinary things, or when you know your daughter-in-law is in a completely new situation?  Young people nowadays are very well educated, so I have tried to keep quiet unless asked, but once in awhile the asking can be done with a sigh of frustration.  If you aren’t sitting there trying to change all of her methods simply because they don’t match yours, and if there has been some indication that it is wanted, your advice will probably be graciously accepted.  And if, after trying it out, she decides not to follow it, that’s fine.  Don’t mention it again.  We all have our own comfortable ways of doing things. 
            Don’t be judgmental with your advice.  Just because she uses more convenience food than you did, doesn’t mean she is a bad wife and mother.  Probably the time saved she uses on something that was not your talent and that you did not have time for because you cooked from scratch.  Despite modern catch phrases, you can’t do it all, and different doesn’t always mean worse.
            Remember, as we have seen previously, Naomi had carefully nurtured this relationship with acceptance, love, and friendship.  If you haven’t done that, don’t even try to give advice. Pay close attention to Naomi’s motivation.  Some of her advice came with the name of God attached (2:20).  Other times it was for the sake of Ruth’s safety (2:22), or for her future welfare and reputation (3:1ff).  Why, exactly, are you giving advice?  Is it to impart the will of the Lord?  Is it a matter of health and safety?  Or do you simply think she should fold the towels the same way you do?  If you are giving advice for every little petty thing that comes along, especially if it comes with that disapproving nasal whine we all recognize, it’s time to stop.  If it comes with a tone of superiority, don’t bother.  You might as well be holding up a sign saying, “Don’t pay any attention to me,” because she won’t.  You wouldn’t either if it were your mother-in-law.
            Listen to the way young women give each other advice.  Never a hint of superiority or criticism, just simple sharing—“This worked for me…I read this once…I never tried it myself, but my neighbor said…”  Their advice never comes with the unspoken but clearly heard, “And if you don’t do it my way, I’m going to take it as a personal affront.”  No wonder they go to their peers for advice instead of us older women.  But no wonder Ruth listened to Naomi.  Ruth’s attitude toward advice in chapters 2-4 testifies to the manner in which Naomi must have advised and taught in those early years of chapter 1. 
            So, all mothers-in-law out there listen to Naomi!  Giving advice is about content, manner, and motive.  It should be given seldom, carefully, and for all the right reasons.  I hope I’m getting better at it.
 
​Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his [or her!] earnest counsel, Prov 27:9.
 
Dene Ward

Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household, Matt 10:34-36.
 
            What Jesus says in the above passage clearly shows the expected atmosphere of the home.  It was not considered normal for a daughter-in-law and mother-in-law to have strife between themselves.  Even in a day of extended family in one compound, and often one house, the relationships were expected to be good ones.  For that to happen in such close quarters, beyond the mere acceptance we discussed last week, there had to be love.
            And such it was with Naomi and her daughters-in-law.  Notice in Ruth 1:4-6, even after their husbands died, these young women stayed with Naomi.  This was now a house of mourning and a house of poverty as well.  We do not understand the plight of the widow in that culture and time.  They had no widows’ pensions, no life insurance policies, no food stamps, and getting a job was pretty well limited to selling oneself as a bondservant.  Yet Naomi had cultivated such a wonderful relationship with these girls that they didn’t leave her, even though they both had families they could have gone home to (1:8).  These girls knew they were loved and that counted far more than food on the table.  Can you imagine what such a relationship must have been like? 
            When Naomi heard the famine had left Israel and she decided to go back home, even then both of them were determined to go back with her.  Not just to go on a trip, but to leave the culture they grew up in, to go where strangers were not particularly appreciated, where they would depend upon those very people to leave enough in the fields for them to survive on.
            And because of her genuine concern for them, Naomi did her best to send them back to their families.  I have heard people criticize her for this, as if she were sending them to Hell herself.  Once again our misunderstanding of culture has made us harsh and judgmental.  Their very survival could depend upon where they settled.  At home they would once again be under their father’s care and he would probably waste little time making a marriage transaction.  Marriage was more about survival than love in those days.  The love usually followed after years of handling the trials of life together.
            And why couldn’t they have continued to worship God, even in Moab?  Pockets of believers still dotted the landscape that far back.  Job for one.  I have heard a pretty good case made for him being an Edomite.  Then there was Jethro, a priest of God who was a Midianite.  And how about Naaman, who when he went back home prayed to God, In this thing Jehovah pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, Jehovah pardon your servant in this thing, 2 Kings 5:18.  Naaman fully intended to continue serving Jehovah, even though his occupation sometimes had him enter an idol’s temple.  Elisha’s answer was, “Go in peace.”  So why in the world couldn’t these girls serve Jehovah in Moab?  Naomi wanted what was best for them in their lives and evidently she had enough faith in them to know they could stay faithful to God even without her standing over them.
            And so Orpah did go back, crying all the way, (1:14).  But Ruth would not.  I am not sure her level of faith was any higher than Orpah’s, but I am sure her level of love for her mother-in-law was as high as it gets.  You don’t inspire that level of love and devotion without consistency and a large amount of time.  Especially in that culture, I have no doubt they worked together, laughed together, maybe even shared a few secrets as women are prone to do—sisterhood we call it nowadays, but one that also came with respect for an older woman who proved her love was genuine over and over and over.
            What are you inspiring in your daughter-in-law?  You can’t build a good relationship if she thinks you look down on her, if she thinks you resent her, if she thinks nothing she does is good enough.  She will never learn to trust that you have her best interests at heart if you are constantly criticizing, taking offense at her words, finding hidden meanings where there are none.  When you say to her, “I decided I would accept whoever my son brought home as his wife no matter what!” you are being far more transparent than you realize.  There would have probably been a “no matter what” no matter who he brought home.
            Genuine love and friendship, not something forced or pretended, that’s what every daughter-in-law needs from her mother-in-law.  And it will show in everything you do and say.
 
But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you." And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more. Ruth 1:16-18.
 
Dene Ward

Let’s just start our study with this simple observation:  Naomi accepted her daughters-in-law the way every young woman wants to be accepted by her husband’s family. 
            And Elimelech, Naomi's husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelt there about ten years. Ruth 1:3-4.
            If any mother-in-law could have complained about a foreign daughter-in-law, one raised in an idolatrous culture, Naomi could have—and she had not one, but two of them.  Instead she seems to have accepted them with open arms and without judgment.  In fact she seems to have taught them.  How easy would that have been if they had sensed resentment and suspicion?  I am sure her sons taught their wives as well, but those girls stayed with Naomi even after the death of their husbands, even before she decided to go back to Israel, and then they both wanted to go with her, not just Ruth.  Here is a mother-in-law who knew how to cultivate a loving relationship with those of another culture, with the women who came into her boys’ lives and became more important to them than she was.  That is hard for a mother, but her example says it can be done and is important in establishing a lasting and loving relationship with a daughter-in-law.
            Mothers-in-law today have the same obligation.  If your daughter-in-law is a Christian, count your blessings.  That should take care of any reservations you may have about her.  Now treat that new daughter like an especially beloved sister in Christ.  You would be surprised how many times people forget to treat family that way—“that’s church stuff,” I’ve heard.  Yes, and you are a member of the Lord’s church even in your home.  Act like it.
            But if she isn’t a Christian, cultivate that relationship for the thing that matters most—her soul.  You owe her that.  Paul said that as a Christian he was a debtor to everyone else to tell them the good news (Rom 1:14).  So are you.  Be kind, be patient, do not give her any reason to look down on Christianity or the church if you ever hope to gain her soul. 
            No matter what her background, accept her whole-heartedly.  Trust me, she will always be able to tell if you do not like her, no matter how hard you try to hide it.  Do not talk about “my son.”  He is now her husband, a relationship that supersedes the parent-child relationship.  A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, Gen 2:24.  That’s what God said about it. In your mind, their two names should always be attached. 
            If you want a continuing relationship with your son, then do not come between them in any way.  Do not allow him to disparage her to you, and certainly do not revel in it if he does!  Do not ever allow him to say to her in your presence, “That’s not how Mom does it.”  Do not expect him to visit without her.  Do not expect him to drop everything and leave her and his family for anything less than an emergency.  From now on it is not “him,” it is “them.”  They are “one flesh.”  If it is wrong for man to put it asunder, it’s wrong for a mother-in-law to amputate it.
            Welcome your new daughter into the family with open arms.  You are the one with the obligation here, not her.
 
And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Will you go with this man? And she said, I will go…And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife…Genesis 24:58,67
 
Dene Ward

I do not appreciate mother-in-law jokes.  If you tell them and you have a mother-in-law, then you must realize that your mother is also a mother-in-law.  Are you talking about her too?
            As a mother-in-law myself, I try hard to be what I ought to be both for my son and his wife, who is now not just my daughter-in-law, but in my mind, my daughter, especially in the spirit.  I think I might be a bit more sensitive to this than most—you see, my mother-in-law did not like me.  Even after 39 years of trying, I never made the cut.
            To her credit, she was a fine Christian woman.  She stayed faithful to the Lord despite family opposition, her husband’s severe illnesses and injuries, financial woes, and worst of all, losing a child to cancer.  She converted her husband and raised both of her remaining children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.  After all, I married one of them, and I know much of what she went through and exactly how she raised him. 
            She had many things going against her but managed to stay faithful, raise godly children, and never lose the joy of her relationship with her Lord.  To have done all that despite her many and severe trials makes our lack of a relationship more than forgivable.  I was certainly less than the least of all those things she did accomplish.
            But I do not want my daughter-in-law to miss out on what should be a wonderful relationship.  So I have decided to begin a new study—the ideal mother-in-law, which is what I want to be for Brooke.  That’s what we will be discussing together this week, Monday through Friday.
            It is not difficult to find mothers-in-law in the Bible.  The difficult thing is finding a detailed relationship between a mother- and daughter-in-law.  Isaac and Rebekah both were “grieved” by the first two women Esau married, but they were Canaanites, Hittites to be specific, Gen 26:34,35.  Although their complaints came before the actual marriage, Samson’s parents had the same problem with their future daughter-in-law, Judges 14:3—she was a Philistine. 
            Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law but that is a situation so complex as to be unusable in our discussion.  I can know that others surely had in-laws, but I do not know how they got along without making suppositions far beyond the realm of authenticity.
            No, the best example we can find is the usual one—Naomi and Ruth, and let’s not forget Orpah, who is often tarred with accusations she does not deserve.  So I plan to study those in depth this week to see how we can all improve our in-law relationships.  I hope you will make a point to join me.
           
…a man of Bethlehem in Judah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband. Then she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the fields of Moab that the LORD had visited his people and given them food. So she set out from the place where she was with her two daughters-in-law, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah, Ruth 1:1-7.                                                                                                 
 
Dene Ward

I seem to be reacting a lot lately, and here I go again. 
            I understand that the divorce rate in this country is atrocious.  I understand that this insidious practice of hard-hearted men has even infected God’s people, just as it did thousands of years ago.  But I think it is time we fought it in a different way.  Telling our children that Christians are leaving their mates by the score so they need to be careful is not the way to battle this ungodliness, and I will show you how I know.
            Jesus grew up in a time similar to ours.  Even among God’s people scholars argued about the acceptable reasons for divorce.  Among the very conservative, adultery was the only “scriptural cause,” while among the more liberal almost any dissatisfaction was deemed suitable.  Evidently the divorce rate was sky high because when Jesus made his pronouncement, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery,” Matt 19:9, even his own disciples were shocked.  “If this is the case, it is better for a man not to marry!” they exclaimed a verse later.
            Do you see what rampant divorce triggers in the young?  Do you see how hearing the negatives warps their perspective of the way God intended people to live?  They think a happy marriage is impossible.  No wonder the world says, “You can always get out of it if it doesn’t work.”  When you grow up hearing that over 50% of all marriages fail, and that the church is just as bad, what else will you believe when you hit the first little bump in the road but, “I guess this means it’s over.”
            Everyone ought to know by now that statistics can lie.  They may be facts, but they can be skewed any which way the researcher wants to skew them.  What if we count your successful marriage, the successful marriages of two other friends, plus the marriages of Elizabeth Taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor.  Between you all that’s 20 marriages, only three of which lasted, a 15% success rate.  Now that’s depressing unless you know who is being counted.
            Yes, over 50% of marriages in our country end in divorce, but that lumps them all in, first marriages, second, third, etc.  Let’s separate them and see if things change a little.  60% of second marriages end in divorce, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce.  And first time marriages for both parties? Only 41% end in divorce.  It is still a terrible statistic, but it is quite a bit lower than when you count in all those folks who have either failed once or shown a propensity to fail, and it means well over half of first time marriages survive.
            Some more good news:  you can actually reduce your risk.  If one set of parents is happily married, the couple’s risk decreases 14%.  (I couldn’t find statistics if both sets of parents were still married to the first spouse, but it stands to reason the risk would decrease even more.)  If the couple attended college (they don’t even have to have graduated), their risk decreases 13%.   The older they are, the less the risk until by age 25, the risk decreases 24%.  And let me add another one that just goes to show that God knew what He was talking about:  if a couple lives together before marriage, their risk of divorce increases by a whopping 40%!
            Now to those who want to mourn over the state of marriage in the church, even granting that this malady will touch us, please count how many first marriages are still intact in your congregation.  I doubt the failures are anywhere near the national average.  Simply put, when two people understand that they make a commitment not just to each other, but to God, they stand a far better chance of “making it.”  Let’s share these statistics with our young people.
            Yes, divorce exists among God’s people.  Yes, you can find bad marriages among Christians.  So let’s start nipping them in the bud.  Several times Keith and I have taught a “Preparation for Marriage” class.  We don’t sugar-coat anything.  We tell them what can go wrong and how to fix it, but we also show them how to prevent those things from happening in the first place.  We show them how to have a happy marriage from the beginning.  We impress upon them the need for seeking advice when necessary, and usually before they even think it’s necessary.  Several young couples have thanked us for the class, even after being married several years.  They knew what to look for in a mate and they know how to spot problems before they become impossible to deal with.
            And let’s also start giving our young people a reason for optimism.  You can do this!  You can live as one flesh for decades and have your love grow deeper and more meaningful with every passing year.  You can avoid the common pitfalls and make it through the trials of life.  No, it will not always be easy, but those difficulties are not a sign that your marriage is over.  They simply mean it’s time to work a little harder for awhile.
            I may be a cockeyed optimist, but do not let the pessimists out there ruin your view of marriage.  Don’t let them make you sigh along with the apostles, “It is better not to marry at all!”   God said you can do it, the two of you, living and loving together for a lifetime.  Just who do you believe anyway?
 
Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Ecclesiastes 9:9
 
All statistics come from McKinleyIrvin.com, a family law website.
Dene Ward    

It was almost amusing when it happened. 
            Many years ago at one of the congregations where Keith preached, one of the older men made it a point to say to him, “I know you are a hard worker.  But you still have small children at home.  You need to make sure you spend time with them.” 
            We appreciated that.  Keith was a hard worker, spending at least 30 hours a week with the Word, just as Paul told Timothy and Titus they needed to be doing as young evangelists, plus the four hours preaching and teaching in the assembly every week, and then holding Bible studies, usually in the evenings, with interested people, or looking for more interested folks as he passed out flyers and meeting announcements, sent out and graded correspondence courses, and wrote articles in the local paper.  I often met him at the local pond loaded down with old towels and blankets, especially in the winter, for a baptism.  He seldom worked less than 60 hours a week.
            Yet not long afterward, the same man’s wife came up to him and scolded him because he had missed putting an article in the paper the week we moved from one house to another.  Everything else was done, but something had to give that week, and he preferred that one article not be written rather than his boys not have time with their father.
            I fear too many churches are more like the wife of that couple than the husband.  Especially if a man is supported mainly by other churches, the pressure is felt, even if it isn’t applied.  Then there are the men who do not even need that pressure to avoid their obligations at home, using the same excuse.  Here is what Jesus had to say about that. 
            And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)-- then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."  Mark 7:9-13.
            Those people got out of their financial obligations to their elderly parents by claiming their money was “given to God,” whether or not it ever actually made it to the Temple coffers! 
            “And many such things you do,” Jesus tacked on the end of that. .”  As long as you can say you are using it for God, whatever “it” is, you don’t have to give it to anyone else.  Tell me that saying your time is given to God (Corban) so it’s all right if you don’t spend enough of it with your children to teach them basic skills of life, to discuss the Word of God “when you walk and talk,” to just listen to their childish concerns and give them the fatherly wisdom they crave, or enough time to nurture your relationship with the wife whom you have come to take for granted, aren’t “such things."
            I have seen old pioneer preachers lauded for sacrificing their family lives to go off for months at a time to preach the gospel.  I am not sure the Lord would have been among their admirers.  If they were single, fine, but choosing to have a family places other obligations on you.  Isn’t that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7?  I would rather you be like me (single) so you do not have the obligations that having a family puts on you, duties which God does expect you to fulfill.  Paul certainly didn’t say those obligations were negated by spiritual things.
            Churches need to look at their preachers’ schedules for this reason:  see if he is raising his children; see if he is spending time with his wife.  The Lord made a family with both a mother and a father present in the home.  He made the woman to be a help not a substitute father.  Jesus said, “Don’t blame what you do for God as the reason you neglect your family obligations.”  He says you make void the Word of God when you do that.  Churches, do you want to be a party, or perhaps the main cause, for a man to make void the Word of God?
            And we can also say this applies to anyone who hides behind “spiritual things” to avoid his family responsibilities—he is calling his family, “Corban.”
            We call the argument about “quality time” between working mothers and their children a “myth.”  Quality time can only happen when a quantity of time is being spent.  What applies to mothers, certainly applies to fathers too.  Jesus seems to agree.
  
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Ephesians 6:4.  Read that without the parenthetical statement—just the underlined words.
 
Dene Ward

     Perhaps because I am no longer parenting, I am a latecomer to this "soft parenting" concept.  I first heard of it from a friend who lives far away.  Evidently, the majority of parents in her congregation are raising their children this way.  As a Bible class teacher, she is not impressed.  Seems they need a second or even third teacher for "crowd control," and sometimes the entire class is spent just asking the children to sit down and listen.  Even if they get the majority to do so, one or two of the others do their best to disrupt class so that the others cannot learn.  So I decided to do a little research into this "new" approach to parenting.  I have read half a dozen or more articles, both pro and con, and even a couple that say "Maybe."  But how about we compare this method to the Bible's directions on parenting?  There are many plans in a person’s mind, but it is the counsel of the LORD that will stand  Prov 19:21. 
     In the first case, I could not find that term in more than one article.  Most of the others used the term "gentle" parenting.  From the list of dos and don'ts (funny how the parents were given a list when it was verboten to give the children such a list), I did not really see much difference in the two. 
     First, let me just say that I highly resent the description.  Why?  What is the opposite of gentle or soft?  Hard, intimidating, authoritative, whatever you come up with is an implicit judgment against the ones who do not follow this new method.  I believe I was at least a fair mother, gentle when needed, strong and firm when needed.  Yes, I made some mistakes; I can make you a list if you want.  All parents make mistakes.  We are not perfect.  Funny how the ones I read about who want to criticize their parents, cannot for the life of themselves figure out any mistakes they have made.  Something wrong with that mentality, I think.  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, John 8:7.
     Second, "Gentle Parenting was not hammered out and defined by child development specialists, but by social media influencers" (FamilyMan.movember.com—I could not find an author, only the psychologists who reviewed it).  "It hasn't gone through the same kind of testing and study as some of the more widely known approaches to parenting."  If you don't have a problem with that, perhaps you should think twice about your judgment on anything else as well.   If you truly want sound advice, look for a Christian couple who have successfully raised a family, not some nobody on social media who may or may not even believe in God.
     One of the problems with this method is "it can cause parents stress and frustration" (Dr Cara Goodwin in separate articles.}  It can be completely impractical.  In every case of misbehavior the parent is to focus on the child and his assessment of why he did a particular thing.  And in every hypothetical example of how to do this, the child always acquiesces.  I'm sorry, but let's talk about real children and real situations and reactions.  Suppose your child decides he does not want to wear socks today, but the school insists on it, perhaps as part of a school uniform.  Do you really have time, early in the morning when everyone is preparing to go out for the day, to discuss this with him, trying to show him that it is reasonable, and gain his approval?  And if you do, what if he still does not want to wear his socks?  Sometimes you obey the rules "just because."  I doubt the police officer who writes you a ticket will stand there and try to gain your acceptance in the matter.  You can discuss when you can, but you will not always be able to, and when it comes down to brass tacks, he has to wear the socks if he attends that school whether he likes it or not.  Every child needs to learn that concept or he will be in trouble big time someday.
     Another problem with this method is that you may actually be rewarding bad behavior.  Every time he screams or hits his brother or plays with the china figurine you told him to be gentle with, you are giving him the attention he wants.  What does he learn?  If I want Mama, just do something she doesn't like.  You have reinforced that idea again and again.
      Gentle parenting can easily become permissive parenting, which can be harmful to the child in the long run.  One study (a real study now) showed that preschoolers that were raised with permissive parenting had less self-control and independence as teenagers (Also Dr Goodwin).
     Gentle parenting can create a kid-centric family.  While that may not sound bad, it really makes no sense at all.  (See earlier post on April 25, 2025.)  The marriage is the foundation of any home, and the adults are the ones who should be making the decisions and leading the way.  They are the ones who are mature, experienced in life, and wiser certainly than any two—or ten--year old ever was.  Yet too often this method means the kids run the house and the parents are afraid of their reaction when they must make a decision the children won't like.  This is backwards, another caution issued by Dr. Goodwin. 
            This method talks about being "partners" with the child in his upbringing.  No, we are not partners, which implies equality in knowledge, authority, and ability.  God very specifically gave two roles here—parent and child (Eph 6:1ff, among many, many others).  Children need the security of a person they know can and will provide and protect, as well as train.  He needs to know that there is someone far more able than he is to take care of his problems and needs.  Partner does not imply that, and neither does "friend."
     And maybe the worst thing is that gentle parenting treats the child as an isolated unit, outside the context of family or community, meaning with no concern for how their behavior affects others. Let me camp here for a while.  In the first place, the impracticality shows up again.  Suppose your child smacks his brother in the head with one of their toys.  Now you have a hurt child who is bleeding all over the place (scalp wounds are the worst) and a child who caused the hurt that you are now supposed to stop and discuss things with?  How did you feel when you hit your brother?  What do you think caused you to do this?  How can we keep this from happening again?  Meanwhile, your other child, who deserves all of your attention at the moment, is left hurting and ignored, has blood running into his eyes, and wonders, "What about me?"  None of us is an "isolated unit."  We all have some sort of community we interact with, even if it is just a small group of friends at school or kids in the neighborhood.  A servant of the Lord is always concerned with how his behavior affects others.  If nothing else, it's simple good manners, something else this method seems to ignore.
     This is where I have the gravest doubts.  How is this child supposed to learn self-control, self-denial, and putting the needs of others before himself, even his enemies, as Jesus taught?  Or do these parents think that somehow all of this can wait until the child is grown?  Really?  I think I remember having "the golden rule" printed on my school ruler as a child.  Everyone knew you learned these things as children so it would be ingrained by adulthood.
     You aren't supposed to say no, this method says.  God didn't have that problem.  He put one big no-no right in the middle of the perfect place to live, Eden, and he said, "Do not eat of it or you will die."  Another time, in the space of 17 verses he said some version of "no" eleven times (Ex 20:1-17).  When their children heard the law, what do you think they heard but restriction after restriction?  Yet God said, When your children ask you later on, What are the stipulations, statutes, and ordinances that the LORD our God commanded you?  Deut 6:20, it was to be a teaching opportunity, not something that caused them anxiety.  In fact, nearly every psychologist I have read says that children do best when they have clear cut boundaries.  It may seem like restraint from one side, but from the other it represents security.  Children with security (and routine, I might add) always do better. Of course we want to praise and encourage our children and not be constantly criticizing them.  But just as certainly, God did not think it would ruin their spirits or stunt their emotional development to tell them no once in a while.
     Two of God's servants turned out to be horrible fathers.  God told them exactly what they did wrong when raising their children. 
       But the sons of Eli were wicked men. They did not acknowledge the LORD’s authority… Also, before they burned the fat the priest’s attendant would come and say to the person who was making the sacrifice, Give some meat for the priest to roast! He won’t accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.   If the individual said to him, They should certainly burn the fat away first, then take for yourself whatever you wish, then he would say, No! Give it now! If not, I’ll take it by force!  The sin of these young men was very great in the LORD’s sight, for they treated the LORD’s offering with contempt 1 Sam2: 12, 15-17.  Eli tried to stop them when he heard what they were doing, but it was too late.  What did God say about their father? He restrained them not 1 Sam 3:13.  He didn't say, "No," when they were young, so when he tried with his now adult sons, they wouldn't listen.  He didn't raise them to know that they could not do whatever they wanted to do, and since that was exactly what God meant for him to do as a father, his whole family lost the priesthood, 1 Sam 2:27-30, and he and his sons died. 
     David did much the same thing with Adonijah.  Even though God had chosen Solomon to be the next king after David, Adonijah would have none of it.  He rebelled, and even after Solomon showed him mercy and let him live, he wouldn't stop.  He thought if he approached his kingship through the back door, he could finagle his way in.  So he asked for Abishag, David's last concubine.  Anyone schooled in the culture knows that a claim on the king's wife is a claim on the throne, and so he was dealt with accordingly--executed.  And the problem once again began in childhood.  Now his father had never corrected him saying, Why do you do such things? 1 Kgs 1:6. 
     Do not think for a minute that what they are learning now as they manipulate you (yes, they know how) that they will turn out to be wonderful servants of the Lord.  Train up a child in the way he should go, the Proverb writer says.  What you are teaching now is the way they will go when they grow up.  If they are never restrained, if they never learn about authority, if they never learn concern for others, if they never learn plain old good manners, how can they ever understand what faces them in real life—that you don't always get what you want?  In fact, the world doesn't care what they want.  That will be far more traumatic to them then than a "No!" now.  Not to mention the more important spiritual results.  My husband, the probation officer, met far too many of them across the table from him, young people who grew up thinking they could do whatever they wanted to do because they always had, and found out the hard way that was not true.
 
Think of him who endured such opposition against himself by sinners, so that you may not grow weary in your souls and give up.  You have not yet resisted to the point of bloodshed in your struggle against sin.  And have you forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons? My son, do not scorn the Lord’s discipline or give up when he corrects you.  For the Lord disciplines the one he loves and chastises every son he accepts. Endure your suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is there that a father does not discipline?  But if you do not experience discipline, something all sons have shared in, then you are illegitimate and are not sons.  Besides, we have experienced discipline from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life?  For they disciplined us for a little while as seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness.  Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained by it Heb 12:3-11.
 
Dene Ward

Several years ago a young woman came to me for some advice.  She had been dating a young man whom she thought she really liked but something happened and she wondered if it was a red flag or if she was overreacting to a trivial thing that would not matter in their future relationship.  It seems that he was getting seriously interested as well and thought she should come meet his family.  On the way he received a text from his sister.  "Be careful.  Dad is home early and he is not happy."  She decided it was not fair to make a judgment on a secondhand piece of information, even though her young man had suddenly become quiet and a bit withdrawn.  When she arrived at his family's home, he was met at the door by his mother, who whispered into his ear before welcoming his girlfriend.  Everyone seemed subdued, talking quietly and stopping to peer over their shoulders every so often.  Finally, at dinner, all of them sat down together and the father was definitely not in a good mood, did not welcome her, and spent his time either eating in silence or questioning the mother about her activities for the day.  Interrogating, the young lady said, was a more accurate a word.
            What did I tell her?  That her instincts were probably correct.  If this is the way the young man learned headship, things would more than likely be difficult.  She did not want to give him up initially, but soon he came to her home to meet her family and was shocked at the lively conversation around the meal, the joking between both parents and between parents and children, and the general pleasantness and playfulness.  "Is your family always like this?" he asked.  I felt sorry for the young man at that, and so did she, but before many more weeks had passed, she was receiving phone calls from him wanting to know every detail of her day, including everything she ate and drank, and giving her instructions about what she should and should not eat!  At that point, it was over.  I breathed a sigh of relief.
            The manner of a father whose appearance at home caused fear in the entire family so that they are sending quick messages to "Be careful," reminded me of that old saying I have heard so many times.  "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."  I'm sorry, but that is nothing to brag about.  In fact, I would be ashamed to have someone say it about me.  To even think that my bad moods should effect the people I love is completely opposite of the admonitions to encourage, lift up, and make glad.  This is not the manner of ordained headship and it certainly isn't love.
            All the way back to the beginning, God has warned against bad moods.  He told Cain, Why are you wroth? and why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? and if you do not well, sin couches at the door: and unto you shall be its desire; but you rule over it.  Cain was in a very bad mood.  Why? Because God had not accepted his sacrifice.  God told him that being in a bad mood was one of the most dangerous things that could happen to him.  Do better, He said, and your mood will be better as well.  A bad mood puts you in a dangerous place, a place where sin will rule over you instead of your ruling over it.  Sure enough, Cain fell prey to Satan because of his bad mood, his "fallen countenance."  It led him to unjust anger and then to murder.
            When we allow our bad moods to not only fester within us, but also to cause fear and distress to others, we are sinning.  Period!  Proverbs warns us that we can tear our homes apart with our own hands (Prov 14:1).  Surely the same thing applies to one filled with the poison of a bad mood, and it usually shows itself in the words that come from such a person.  Hear, for I will speak excellent things; And the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall utter truth; And wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverse in them.  Does any of that sound like a Mama—or Daddy--in a bad mood?  God expects us to control our moods.  
            If Mama ain't happy (or Daddy), she had better get herself together and exercise some self-control just as God instructed Cain.  No one should be afraid to walk into my house any time of any day.
 
The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable; But the mouth of the wicked speaks perverseness,  Prov 10:32.
 
Dene Ward